30248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: May 7, 2012. 

J.E. Ogden, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12307 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0930, FRL–9675–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Idaho; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Idaho on October 25, 2010, as meeting 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) and federal regional 

haze program requirements. In a 

previous action on June 22, 2011, EPA 

approved portions of the October 25, 

2010, SIP submittal as meeting the 

requirements for interstate transport for 

visibility of the CAA and certain 

requirements of the regional haze 

program including the requirements for 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART). This Federal Register notice 

addresses the requirements of the Act 

and EPA’s rules that require states to 

prevent any future and remedy any 

existing anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’).This 

action proposes to approve the 

remaining regional haze SIP elements 

for which EPA previously took no 

action in the June 22, 2011, notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before June 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0930 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.

gov. 

• Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, 

Suite 900, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 

98101 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

WA 98101. Attention: Steve Body, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 

107. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

0930. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at www.

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed below to view a hard copy of the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body at telephone number (206) 

553–0782, body.steve@epa.gov, or the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

F. Long Term Strategy 

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions 

C. Idaho Emissions Inventories 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Idaho Class I Areas 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

1. Idaho’s Reasonable Progress Analysis 

2. Reasonable Progress Goals and 

Demonstration of Reasonable Progress 

3. EPA’s Determination Whether the SIP 

Submittal Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d) 

G. Long Term Strategy 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Requirements 

I. Consultation with States and Federal 

Land Managers 

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

V. Scope of Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in the 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to 

implement sections 169A and 169B of 

the Act. These regulations require states 

to develop and implement plans to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility in mandatory Class 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30249 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 2 Id. 

3Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

4See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/regional.

html for description of the regional planning 

organizations. 

5The WRAP Web site can be found at http://

www.wrapair.org. 

I Federal areas 1 (Class I areas). 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 

(October 13, 2006). 

On behalf of the State of Idaho, the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality submitted its Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (Regional 

Haze SIP submission or SIP submittal) 

to EPA on October 25, 2010. In a 

previous action EPA approved certain 

provisions in Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP 

submission. 76 FR 36329. This previous 

action approved the provisions 

addressing Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) (40 CFR 51.308(e), 

calculation of baseline and natural 

conditions (40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)) and 

state wide emission inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory 

Class I area. In that same action, EPA 

also approved portions of the October 

25, 2010 SIP submittal as meeting the 

requirements for interstate transport for 

visibility of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the provisions of Idaho’s 

Regional Haze SIP submission that 

address the remaining regional haze 

requirements for establishing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) and 

the Long Term Strategy (LTS). 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by 

emission of air pollution produced by 

numerous sources and activities, located 

across a broad regional area. The 

sources include but are not limited to, 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources 

including non-anthropogenic sources. 

These sources and activities may emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). 

Atmospheric fine particulate reduces 

clarity, color, and visual range of visual 

scenes. Visibility reducing fine 

particulate is primarily composed of 

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon 

compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 

dust, and impairs visibility by scattering 

and absorbing light. Fine particulate can 

also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. See 64 

FR at 35715. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

The average visual range in many Class 

I areas in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without manmade air pollution.2

Id. Visibility impairment also varies 

day-to-day and by season depending on 

variation in meteorology and emission 

rates. 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in Class I areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(a)(1). On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. 

These regulations represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713) (the regional haze rule or 

RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulation, provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this rulemaking. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.3 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze impairment can originate 

from across state lines, even across 

international boundaries, EPA has 

encouraged the States and Tribes to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations 4 (RPOs) were 

created nationally to address regional 

haze and related issues. One of the main 

objectives of the RPOs is to develop and 

analyze data and conduct pollutant 

transport modeling to assist the States or 

Tribes in developing their regional haze 

plans. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP),5 one of the five RPOs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

nationally, is a voluntary partnership of 

State, Tribal, Federal, and local air 

agencies dealing with air quality in the 

West. WRAP member States include: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP 

Tribal members include Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the West, all states in the 

WRAP region contributed information 

to a Technical Support System (TSS) 

which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each state to the visibility degradation of 

each Class I area. The WRAP States 

consulted in the development of 

reasonable progress goals, using the 

products of this technical consultation 

process to co-develop their reasonable 

progress goals for the Western Class I 

areas. The modeling done by the WRAP 

relied on assumptions regarding 

emissions over the relevant planning 

period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions 

reductions in each of the States in the 

WRAP, including reductions from 

BART and other measures to be adopted 

as part of the State’s long term strategy 

for addressing regional haze. The 

reasonable progress goals in the draft 

and final regional haze SIPs that have 

now been prepared by States in the 

West accordingly are based, in part, on 

the emissions reductions from nearby 

States that were agreed on through the 

WRAP process. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.6

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (which are 

interim visibility goals towards meeting 

the national visibility goal), defining 

baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20% least impaired 

(‘‘best’’) and 20% most impaired 

(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified 

time period at each of their Class I areas. 

In addition, states must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule (EPA–454/B– 

03–004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20% least 

impaired days and 20% most impaired 

days for each calendar year from 2000 

to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 

through 2004, states are required to 

calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based 

on the average of annual values over the 

five-year period. The comparison of 

initial baseline visibility conditions to 

natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary 

to attain natural visibility, while the 

future comparison of baseline 

conditions to the then current 

conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000– 

2004 baseline time period is considered 

the time from which improvement in 

visibility is measured. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of visibility 

impairment in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the reasonable progress 

goals and on the development and 

implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment. Further, a state 

must include in its SIP a description of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30251 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

8Upon EPA’s final action, The Amalgamated 

Sugar Company (TASCO) filed a petition for review 

in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging 

EPA’s approval of Idaho’s BART determination for 

TASCO. See Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA, Ninth 

Circuit Petition No. 11–72445. The case is pending 

before the 9th Circuit. 

how it addressed any comments 

provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP 

must provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the state and 

FLMs regarding the state’s visibility 

protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 

States to revise their SIPs to contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources 7 built 

between 1962 and 1977, to procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ (‘‘BART’’) as 

determined by the state. States are 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. The regional haze SIP 

must include source-specific BART 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for each source subject to 

BART. Once a State has made its BART 

determination, the BART controls must 

be installed and in operation as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date EPA 

approves the regional haze SIP. See 

CAA section 169A(g)(4)); 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

EPA previously approved Idaho’s 

BART determination for the sources 

subject to BART in its jurisdiction. See 

76 FR 36329.8 Please refer to that action 

for details of the BART requirements 

and EPA’s rationale for approval of the 

BART provisions in the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP submission. 

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) (i.e., two distinct 

goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one for the 

‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I area for 

each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

Memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 

4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

state’s Class I areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

F. Long Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that 

states include a LTS in their regional 

haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a state will use 

during the implementation period of the 

specific SIP submittal to meet 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9EPA evaluated the technical work products of 

the WRAP used by Idaho in support if this Regional 

Haze SIP submittal. The results of that evaluation 

are included in the document ‘‘WRAP Technical 

Support Document’’ or WRAP TSD. 

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. Each state also is required to 

submit a report to EPA every five years 

that evaluates progress toward achieving 

the RPG for each Class I area within the 

state and outside the state if affected by 

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The first progress report is 

due five years from submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP revision. At the 

same time a 5-year progress report is 

submitted, a state must determine the 

adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve 

the established goals for visibility 

improvement. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Idaho 

Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

There are five mandatory Class I 

areas, or portions of such areas, within 

Idaho. Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness Area, 

and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area 

lie completely within Idaho State 

borders. Idaho is responsible for 

developing reasonable progress goals for 

these Class I areas. Hells Canyon 

Wilderness Area is a shared Class I area 

with Oregon, and Yellowstone National 

Park is a shared Class I area with 

Wyoming. See 40 CFR 81.410. Through 

agreement with Idaho, Oregon and 

Wyoming respectively will address 

reasonable progress goals, monitoring, 

and other core requirements for these 

Class I areas. Idaho consulted with 

Oregon and Wyoming to determine 

Idaho’s contribution to regional haze in 

those Class I areas and to determine 

appropriate measures for Idaho’s longterm strategy. See the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP submittal, chapter 13, section 

13.2; see, also the WRAP Technical 

Support Document, February 28, 2011 9

(WRAP TSD) supporting this action and 

76 FR 36329. 

The Idaho SIP submittal addresses the 

three Class I areas that are completely 

within the State border and, as 

appropriate, the Class I areas with 

shared jurisdiction with Oregon and 

Wyoming and Class I areas in 

neighboring states and the visibility 

impacts of Idaho sources on Class I 

areas in neighboring states. 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions 

EPA previously evaluated and 

approved Idaho’s identification of 

baseline and natural conditions for 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness Area, 

and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, 

and the statewide emissions inventory 

of pollutants that are from Idaho that 

impact nearby Class I areas. See 76 FR 

1579, Jan. 11, 2011 and 76 FR 36329, 

June 22, 2011 (proposed and final rule 

respectively). However, that discussion 

is relevant when evaluating the States’ 

Reasonable Progress Goals which we are 

proposing to approve today. Thus, the 

discussion below summarizes EPA’s 

previous explanation of the baseline and 

natural conditions in these Class I areas. 

Idaho established baseline and natural 

visibility conditions as well as the 

uniform rate of progress (URP) to 

achieve natural visibility conditions in 

2064 for all three of the Class I areas 

within its borders. While Idaho is 

responsible for establishing baseline and 

natural conditions for these three areas, 

the SIP submittal also included these 

conditions for Hells Canyon Wilderness 

Area and Yellowstone National Park, as 

determined by WRAP and established 

by Oregon and Wyoming. 

Baseline visibility was calculated 

from monitoring data collected by 

IMPROVE monitors for the mostimpaired (20% worst) days and the 

least-impaired (20% best) days. Idaho 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30253 

used the WRAP derived natural 

visibility conditions. In general, WRAP 

based their natural condition estimates 

on EPA guidance, Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Program 

(EPA–45/B–03–0005 September 2003) 

but incorporated refinements which 

EPA believes provides results more 

appropriate for western states than the 

general EPA default approach. See 

WRAP TSD section 2.E. 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument: An IMPROVE monitor is 

located in Craters of the Moon National 

Monument. Based on baseline 2000 to 

2004 data, the average 20% worst days 

visibility is 14 dv and the average 20% 

best days visibility is 4.3 dv. Natural 

visibility for the average 20% worst 

days is 7.53 dv. 

Sawtooth Wilderness Area: Sawtooth 

Wilderness Area has an IMPROVE 

monitor located within the Wilderness 

Area. Based on baseline 2000 to 2004 

data, the average 20% worst days 

visibility is 13.78 dv and the average 

20% best days visibility is 3.99 dv. 

Natural visibility for the average 20% 

worst days is 6.42 dv. 

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area: 

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area 

visibility is represented by an IMPROVE 

monitor located 20 km east of the 

Wilderness Area in Sula, Montana. This 

site also represents visibility in the 

Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area in 

Montana. Based on baseline 2000 to 

2004 data, the average 20% worst days 

visibility is 13.41 dv and the average 

20% best days visibility is 2.58 dv for 

both areas. Natural visibility for the 

Selway-Bitteroot and the AnacondaPintler Wilderness Areas average 20% 

worst days is 7.43 dv. 

C. Idaho Emission Inventories 

EPA previously evaluated and 

approved Idaho’s emissions inventory of 

pollutants that impact the three Class I 

areas in Idaho, as well as the impacts of 

emissions from Idaho on nearby Class I 

areas in other states and the sources of 

visibility impairment in the Class I areas 

located in Idaho. See 76 FR 1579, and 

76 FR 36329. As explained in more 

detail in the notices for that rulemaking, 

in general, smoke from wild and 

prescribed fire, as measured by organic 

and elemental carbon, dominates 

visibility impairment in Idaho Class I 

areas, with the exception of Craters of 

the Moon National Monument where 

ammonium nitrate dominates at 39%. 

Smoke is the second largest contributor 

to impairment at Craters of the Moon 

National Monument at 37%, followed 

by sulfate at 13%. Smoke represents 

84% of impairment at the Sawtooth 

Wilderness Area, followed by sulfate at 

7% and nitrate at 2%. Smoke represents 

60% impairment at the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Area, followed by 

sulfate at 19% and nitrate at 7%. See 

Tables 7–2, 7–20, and 7–31 in the SIP 

submittal. Chapter 9 of the SIP 

submission demonstrates that generally 

half of the sulfate and 25% of the nitrate 

contributing to impairment in Idaho 

Class I areas originates from outside the 

United States. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Idaho Class I Areas 

Idaho used a two-step process to 

identify the contribution of each source 

or source category to existing visibility 

impairment. First, ambient pollutant 

concentration by species (sulfate, 

nitrate, organic carbon, fine particulate, 

etc) was determined from the IMPROVE 

sampler representing each Class I area. 

These concentrations were then used to 

determine the extinction coefficient and 

distribute existing impairment among 

the measured pollutant species. 

Extinction was then converted to 

deciview values. Second, the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx) and Particulate 

Matter Source Apportionment 

Technology (PSAT) models were used 

to determine which sources and source 

categories contributed to the ambient 

concentration of each pollutant species. 

Thus, impairment was distributed by 

source and source category. 

The WRAP and Western States 

selected CAMx in conjunction with 

PSAT first to determine source 

contribution to ambient sulfate and 

nitrate concentrations and then to 

decide which geographic source regions 

contribute to haze at specific Class I 

areas. Description of these tools and our 

evaluation of them are described in 

more detail in section 6 of the WRAP 

TSD. 

Figure 7–1 in the Idaho Regional Haze 

SIP submittal presents the light 

extinction for the base year at each Class 

I area by visibility impairing pollutant 

species for the average of the 20% worst 

days. In addition the SIP submission 

identifies in Figures 7.2 through Figure 

7.52, light extinction by pollutant 

species for the average of the 20% worst 

and average of the 20% best days for 

each of the Class I areas. 

To determine potential impacts of 

emission sources in Idaho on Class I 

areas in other states, Idaho used the 

WRAP analysis of interstate impacts. 

Ambient sulfate and nitrate 

concentrations for the 20% worst and 

best days for baseline (2002–2004) and 

2018 at each western Class I area is 

distributed among all states in the 

WRAP. The SIP submittal provides an 

analysis of the Class I areas in nearby 

states. See chapter 9.3 of the Idaho 

Regional Haze SIP submission. The 

Class I areas are: 

Shared Class I Areas With Oregon and 

Wyoming 

• Hells Canyon Wilderness Area: 

Idaho contributes 9.6% of the sulfate, 

35% of the nitrate, 63% of the organic 

and elemental carbon, 42% of the fine 

particulate and 44% of the coarse 

particulate in the Hells Canyon 

Wilderness Area. 

• Yellowstone National Park: Idaho 

contributes 8% of the sulfate, 24% of 

the nitrate, 15% of the organic carbon, 

17% of the elemental carbon, 28% of 

the fine and coarse particulate in 

Yellowstone National Park. 

Class I Areas outside Idaho: See 

section 9.3 of the SIP submittal for a 

detailed presentation of the contribution 

of Idaho sources on Class I areas outside 

Idaho. 

• Glacier National Park in Montana: 

Idaho is ranked 3rd behind Montana 

and Washington in contribution of 

visibility impairing pollutants on the 

20% worst days. 

• Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area 

in Montana: Idaho is ranked 3rd behind 

Oregon and Washington in contribution 

to visibility impairing pollutants on the 

20% worst days. 

• Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in 

Montana: Idaho is ranked 3rd behind 

Montana and Washington in 

contribution to visibility impairing 

pollutants on the 20% worst days. 

• Gates of the Mountain Wilderness 

in Montana: Idaho is ‘‘ranked 3rd’’ 

behind Montana and Washington in 

contribution to visibility impairing 

pollutants on the 20% worst days. 

• North Absaroka Wilderness in 

Wyoming: Idaho is ranked 2nd behind 

Wyoming in contribution to visibility 

impairing pollutants on the 20% worst 

days. 

• Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming: 

Idaho is ranked 2nd behind Wyoming in 

contribution to visibility impairing 

pollutants on the 20% worst days. 

• Eagle Cap Wilderness Area Oregon: 

Idaho is ranked 3rd behind Oregon and 

Washington in contribution to visibility 

impairing pollutant on the 20% worst 

days. 

• Jarbidge Wilderness Area in 

Nevada: Idaho is ranked 1st in 

contribution of sulfate and nitrate to the 

Jarbidge Wilderness area. 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

EPA previously reviewed and 

approved Idaho’s BART determinations 

for all sources subject to BART in Idaho. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

See 76 FR 36329. As explained in the 

Federal Register notice the State made 

BART determinations for the following 

sources: 

• Amalgamated Sugar: Paul Facility 

• Amalgamated Sugar: Twin Falls 

• Amalgamated Sugar: Nampa 

• NuWest/Agrium 

• J.R. Simplot Don Plant 

• Monsanto/P4 Production 

• Potlatch Pulp and Paper 

BART for all but two of the BARTeligible sources (Amalgamated Sugar 

Nampa and Monsanto/P4 Production) is 

existing control because they were 

determined to not cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

At Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa, the 

Riley Boiler is the only emission unit at 

the facility that is subject to BART. 

BART for the Riley Boiler was 

determined to be Low NOX Burners 

with overfire air for NOX, wet flue gas 

desulfurization for SO2 and the existing 

baghouse for particulate matter. 

BART for Monsanto/P4 Production 

SO2 emissions is the hydro-sonic wet 

scrubbers to remove sub-micron 

particles and lime-concentrated dualalkai (LCDA) scrubbers on their calciner 

kiln which reduced emissions from 

12,252 tons per year (tpy) in 2004 to a 

permitted potential to emit of 626 tpy. 

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

1. Idaho’s Reasonable Progress Analysis 

The RHR requires States to show 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward natural 

visibility conditions over the time 

period of the SIP, with 2018 as the first 

milestone year. The RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) also requires that the State 

establish a goal, expressed in deciviews 

(dv), for each Class I area within the 

State that provides for reasonable 

progress towards achieving natural 

visibility conditions by 2064. As such 

the State must establish a Reasonable 

Progress Goal (RPG) for each Class I area 

that provides for visibility improvement 

for the most-impaired (20% worst) days 

and ensures no degradation in visibility 

for the least-impaired (20% best) days in 

2018. 

RPGs are estimates of the progress to 

be achieved by 2018 through 

implementation of the LTS which 

includes anticipated emission 

reductions from all State and Federal 

regulatory requirements implemented 

between the baseline and 2018, 

including but not limited to BART and 

any additional controls for non-BART 

sources or emission activities including 

any Federal requirements that reduce 

visibility impairing pollutants. As 

explained above, the rate needed to 

achieve natural conditions by 2064 is 

referred to as the uniform rate of 

progress or URP. 

If the State establishes a reasonable 

progress goal that provides for a slower 

rate of improvement than the rate that 

would be needed to attain natural 

conditions by 2064, the State must 

demonstrate based on the factors in 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that the rate of 

progress for the implementation plan to 

attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable; and the progress goal 

adopted by the State is reasonable. The 

State must provide to the public for 

review as part of its implementation 

plan an assessment of the number of 

years it would take to attain natural 

conditions if visibility continues at the 

rate of progress selected by the state. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(B)(ii). 

The primary tool relied upon by Idaho 

for determining regional haze 

improvements by 2018 and for 

establishing the RPGs, was the CMAQ 

modeling conducted by WRAP. The 

CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 

visibility conditions in Idaho and all 

Western Class I areas, based on 

application of the regional haze 

strategies included in this plan. 

WRAP developed air quality 

modeling inputs including annual 

meteorology and emissions inventories 

for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions base 

case, (2) a planning case to represent the 

2000–04 regional haze baseline period 

using average emissions for key 

emissions categories, and (3) a projected 

2018 case to determine improvements 

achievable by 2018. EPA approves the 

use of the CMAQ model to determine 

future visibility conditions in Idaho 

Class I areas. A more detailed 

description of the CMAQ modeling 

performed by WRAP can be found in the 

WRAP TSD. 

In setting the RPGs for its Class I 

areas, Idaho considered a number of 

factors including the statutory four 

factors: Cost of compliance, time 

necessary for compliance, the non-air 

environmental and energy impacts, and 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Based on these four 

factors, Idaho considered whether it was 

reasonable to control anthropogenic 

sources of visibility impairing emissions 

under its regulatory jurisdiction. Idaho 

focused its evaluation of sources for the 

purpose of achieving further reasonable 

progress on SO2 and NOX because these 

pollutants have the greatest visibility 

impairing characteristics and because 

organic and elemental carbon primarily 

originates from wildfire. In 

consideration of the amount of SO2 and 

NOX emitted, Idaho identified the 

following source categories subject to 

the statutory four-factor analysis: (1) 

External combustion boilers; (2) 

elemental phosphorus production; (3) 

sulfuric acid processing plants; (4) pulp 

and paper processing; (5) cement 

manufacturing; (6) sugar beet 

processing; and (7) natural gas 

compressing stations. Idaho’s four-factor 

analysis of the significant stationary 

source categories is summarized below. 

The External Combustion Boilers 

source category includes boilers used to 

generate steam or hot water in 

manufacturing, material processing, 

mining, refining, and/or electricity. SOx 

and NOX are the visibility impairing 

pollutants of concern for this category. 

Tables 11–2 and 11–3 in the Idaho SIP 

submittal show a total of 3,118 tpy of 

SO2 and 4,647 tpy of NOX in the 

emission inventory for this category. SIP 

submittal Table 11–7 presents a number 

of control options for each visibility 

impairing pollutant for different fuels. 

See section 11.4.1 of the SIP submittal 

for additional detail regarding the 

State’s analysis of this source category. 

Sulfuric Acid Contact Processing 

emits sulfur dioxide as the only 

visibility impairing pollutant of concern 

from this type of facility. Idaho SIP 

submittal Table 11–2 shows a total of 

364 tpy of SO2 in the emission 

inventory for this category. SIP 

submittal Table 11–8 presents the cost 

for two control technologies: increased 

absorption efficiency to New Source 

Performance Standards and tail gas 

treatment. See SIP submittal section 

11.4.3 for additional detail regarding the 

State’s analysis of this source category. 

Cement manufacturing emits NOX

which is the only visibility impairing 

pollutant of concern. Idaho has only one 

cement plant, Ash Grove Cement in 

Inkom, Idaho. Both SO2 and NOX

emissions from the rotary kiln have 

emission limits established in its PSD 

permit. Sulfur dioxide is limited to 76 

tpy from Kiln #1 and 21 tpy from kiln 

#2. See Table 4–2 of the Permit to 

Operate issued December 23, 2010, by 

the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ). Table 11–3 Idaho SIP 

shows a total of 461 tpy of NOX in the 

emission inventory for this category. 

Table 11–9 of the SIP submittal presents 

the estimated costs for compliance for 

the control options. See SIP Submittal 

section 11.4.4 for additional detail 

regarding the State’s analysis of this 

source category. 

Interstate Transport of Natural Gas 

(natural gas fueled internal combustion 

engines for compressing stations on the 

interstate natural gas pipeline) emits 

NOX which is the only visibility 

impairing pollutant of concern from the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30255 

compressing stations. Table 11–3 in the 

Idaho SIP shows a total of 2,590 tpy of 

NOX in the emission inventory for this 

category. Table 11–10 of the SIP 

submittal presents the costs of control 

options for both reciprocating engines 

and gas turbines. See SIP submittal 

section 11.4.6 for additional detail 

regarding the State’s analysis of this 

source category. 

In spite of the relatively low cost 

effectiveness for controls in these source 

categories, Idaho concludes that 

additional control measures for these 

source categories are not reasonable at 

this time. Idaho recognized that 

according to the modeling, the Class I 

areas are not expected to achieve the 

URP for 2018. Nevertheless, Idaho also 

concludes that the goals established for 

each of Idaho’s Class I areas for the first 

planning cycle of 2018 are reasonable. 

These conclusions are based upon the 

significant impact of wildfire on all of 

Idaho’s Class I areas and the amount of 

sulfate and nitrate originating outside 

the United States. As discussed 

previously in this notice, wildfire 

significantly contributes to impairment 

in all three Class I areas. More 

specifically, anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic fire contributes between 

37% and 84% to visibility impairment 

in the Class I areas in Idaho. Nonanthropogenic fire emissions are 85% 

and anthropogenic fire emissions are 

15% of total fire emissions in Idaho. 

(Calculated from Table 8–4 of the SIP 

submission.) Idaho concluded that 

additional controls on individual 

sources, even if cost effective, will not 

alter the magnitude of the visibility 

impact attributable to wildfire. 

Additionally, Idaho further refined its 

analysis and considered a URP 

individually for sulfate and nitrate 

impairment. This analysis found that 

due to the anticipated reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions in both Idaho and 

neighboring states which will result 

from required controls on point sources, 

the remaining sulfate and nitrate 

emissions are near to or exceed URP for 

those pollutants. Idaho concluded that 

additional controls on SO2 or NO2

sources are not helpful in achieving the 

URP. 

Idaho also qualitatively considered 

two new developments in emission 

source projections since the WRAP 

modeling was completed that result in 

lower emissions than the emission 

estimates used in the WRAP modeling. 

When the WRAP modeling was 

performed, it was assumed that a new 

coal-fired power plant would be built 

and operating in Jerome, Idaho by 2018 

and the expected emissions from this 

proposed plant were incorporated into 

the model projections. Subsequently, 

the Idaho Governor issued a moratorium 

on new coal-fired power plants. Thus 

the estimated emissions associated with 

the new facility will not occur. Also, 

requirements for new controls on 

marine vessels operating within 200 

miles of the West Coast were not 

included in the projected improvements 

in visibility. Both of these actions are 

likely to result in lower emissions than 

were used in the model and achieve 

better visibility in future years than the 

model predicts. 

2. Reasonable Progress Goals and 

Demonstration of Reasonable Progress 

After conducting the CMAQ 

modeling, Idaho established RPGs for 

each Class I area and, based on the RPG 

and linear progress to natural 

conditions, it determined the number of 

years needed to achieve natural 

conditions. The results follow: 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument; 

• Baseline 20% worst days: 14 dv 

• 2018 RPG 20% worst days: 13.06 dv 

• 2018 URP 20% worst days: 12.49 dv 

• Baseline 20% best days: 04.31 dv 

• 2018 RPG 20% best days: 03.89 dv 

• Years needed to achieve natural 

conditions: 112 yrs 

Sawtooth Wilderness Area; 

• Baseline 20% worst days: 13.78 dv 

• 2018 RPG 20% worst days: 13.22 dv 

• 2018 URP 20% worst days: 12.06 dv 

• Baseline 20% best days: 03.99 dv 

• 2018 RPG 20% best days: 03.78 dv 

• Years needed to achieve natural 

conditions: 161 yrs 

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area; 

• Baseline 20% worst days: 13.41 dv 

• 2018 RPG 20% worst days: 12.94 dv 

• 2018 URP 20% worst days: 12.02 dv 

• Baseline 20% best days: 02.58 dv 

• 2018 RPG 20% best days: 02.48 dv 

• Years needed to achieve natural 

conditions: 221 

Idaho concludes, after considering the 

contribution of visibility impairment 

coming from natural sources rather than 

anthropogenic sources, the emissions 

reductions of SO2 and NOX that can be 

expected from anthropogenic sources, 

the four-factor analysis, and ‘‘on-thebooks’’ controls and long term 

strategies, that no additional control is 

reasonable at this time and that Idaho’s 

visibility goals are reasonable. The focus 

should be on sources that could be 

controlled. Thus, in its evaluation of 

potential sources or source categories 

for reasonable progress the state 

primarily considered point sources. 

Idaho determined that the key 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment are SO2, NOX and organic 

and elemental carbon. Idaho also only 

considered controls for SO2 and NOX

emissions which are typically 

associated with anthropogenic sources. 

Idaho determined that the major source 

of organic and elemental carbon was 

natural fire and after reviewing the 

WRAP modeling results, Idaho found 

that particulate matter (PM) emissions 

from point sources only contribute a 

minimal amount to the visibility 

impairment in the Class I areas in Idaho. 

Idaho concluded that little gain would 

be achieved from further reduction in 

sulfur dioxide, organic carbon and 

nitrogen oxides from point sources in 

Idaho at this time. 

3. EPA’s Determination Whether the SIP 

Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d) 

In a previous action, EPA approved 

Idaho’s determination of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions in each 

Class I area in Idaho. See 78 FR 36329. 

The linear progress from baseline 

visibility to natural visibility in 2064 

defines the URP. ‘‘2018 URP’’ is the rate 

of progress to be achieved by 2018 in 

order to stay on track to achieve natural 

conditions by 2064. EPA independently 

evaluated whether there are reasonable 

control measures available for sources 

located within Idaho’s regulatory 

jurisdiction that would achieve further 

progress toward achieving the 2018 

URP. 

We began this analysis using a 

screening methodology called ‘‘Q/d’’ to 

determine which stationary (point) 

sources would be candidates for 

controls under reasonable progress. The 

value Q/d is the ratio of the 

mathematical sum of actual SO2, NOX

and PM emissions in tons per year, 

denoted as ‘‘Q’’ divided by the distance 

(in kilometers, denoted as ‘‘d’’) of the 

point source to the nearest Class I area. 

A high Q/d would indicate the 

likelihood of the source causing or 

contributing to impairment in that Class 

I area. 

To determine the Q/d value that 

would provide assurance that a source 

would, or would not cause or contribute 

to impairment in any Class I area, we 

considered the modeled visibility 

impacts from the CALPUFF modeling 

used to determine the BART eligible 

sources subject to BART in EPA Region 

10 and the distance of the source to the 

nearest Class I area. There were 19 

BART eligible sources used in this 

analysis. See memorandum to the files 

from Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, dated 

March 21, 2012. All sources with a Q/ 

d ratio of less than 26.1 had visibility 

impacts of less than 0.5 dv. The 

resultant average of the range is about 

0.3 dv, which is a more conservative 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30256 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reasonable progress threshold than the 

0.5 dv that was used in determining 

which sources would be subject-toBART under the federal BART 

regulations. Since the threshold is more 

conservative than the subject-to-BART 

threshold, we believe that a Q/d value 

of 20 is reasonable for determining 

which sources the State should consider 

for the reasonable progress analysis. 

The evaluation of potential RP 

sources involved all Idaho’s stationary 

sources with actual SO2, NOX, or PM10

emissions greater than 40 tpy. We 

identified 24 sources (both BART 

eligible and non-BART eligible) as 

exceeding the 40 tpy threshold. Of the 

24 sources, 17 are not BART eligible and 

all had Q/d ratios of less than 20. The 

source with the highest ratio had a 

Q/d value of 17. 

EPA does not believe these 17 nonBART sources would cause or 

contribute to impairment in any Class I 

area. Therefore, EPA does not believe 

that additional analysis of the 17 nonBART sources would result in an 

outcome different from Idaho’s 

conclusion that additional control of 

these non-BART sources is not 

reasonable at this time. Thus, EPA 

agrees with Idaho’s conclusion that 

additional controls of non-BART point 

sources for reasonable progress 

purposes are not reasonable at this time, 

because even though there are cost 

effective controls identified, visibility 

improvement is anticipated to be 

relatively small. This includes those 

point sources in the four categories that 

Idaho identified above for the fourfactor analysis: (1) External combustion 

boilers; (2) sulfuric acid contact 

processing; (3) cement manufacturing; 

and (4) natural gas compressing stations. 

It should be noted that while 

elemental phosphorus production was 

identified by Idaho as a potential source 

category for the reasonable progress 

analysis, the only source is Monsanto/ 

P4, a source subject to BART, for which 

a control technology evaluation was 

conducted and a BART determination 

made. Implementation of BART for 

Monsanto/P4 will result in an 

approximate 9,000 tpy reduction in SO2, 

roughly over half the total statewide 

point source SO2 emissions in 2002. The 

BART evaluation for NOX determined 

there are no feasible NOX controls for 

this process. 

Idaho identified sugar beet processing 

as a potential source for further fourfactor analysis. The boilers used in 

sugar beet processing are addressed in 

the evaluation of external boilers. 

Likewise, Idaho identified pulp and 

paper as a potential source for further 

four-factor analysis. The only pulp mill 

in Idaho is the Potlatch Pulp & Paper 

Mill located in Lewiston, Idaho. The 

Potlatch facility is a BART-eligible 

source and was addressed in our 

previous Federal Register action dated 

June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36329). 

EPA also considered control measures 

for anthropogenic fire; prescribed forest 

fire and agricultural fire. Idaho operates 

a robust enhanced smoke management 

program for prescribed forest fire and 

agricultural burning. The agricultural 

smoke management program was 

previously approved by EPA. See 73 FR 

44915. There are no other source 

categories that appear to emit visibility 

impairing pollutants sufficient to 

warrant consideration for additional 

control. 

The Idaho SIP results in improvement 

in visibility on the 20% worst days and 

no degradation in visibility on the 20% 

best days, however the URP for 2018 is 

not expected to be achieved in any Class 

I area in Idaho. Nevertheless, as 

explained below, EPA proposes to 

approve the State’s determination that it 

is not reasonable to achieve the UPR in 

2018 and that these RPGs for the Class 

I areas in Idaho presented in the SIP 

submittal are reasonable. 

a. Findings from the statutory fourfactor analysis. As discussed above, 

based on the general level of review for 

the major source categories, Idaho 

determined it was not reasonable to 

control additional source categories at 

this time. 

b. Evidence that natural sources affect 

the ability to achieve the 2018 URP goal. 

Idaho’s analysis in the SIP for natural 

emission sources supports the finding 

that the contributions of natural sources, 

such as natural wildfire and windblown 

dust, and the pollutants associated with 

these sources (organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, fine particulate, and coarse 

particulate) are the primary reason for 

not achieving the 2018 URP for Idaho 

Class I areas. For example, the state 

found that 82% of the organic carbon 

emissions and 72% of the elemental 

carbon emissions were from natural fire 

and that natural fire and windblown 

dust together contribute over 40% and 

60% of PM2.5 and PM emissions. See 

Table 11–1 of the SIP submittal. 

c. Sources outside the modeling 

domain. Sources of SO2 and NOX

emissions outside the modeling domain 

contribute from 45 to 51% of the SO2

emissions, and from 25 to 37% of the 

NOX emissions that impact visibility in 

Class I areas in Idaho. See Table 12–2. 

These sources are not under the 

jurisdiction of Idaho nor surrounding 

States, and therefore will not be 

significantly controlled by 2018. 

d. Not reasonable to meet URP. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides that: If the 

state establishes a RPG that provides for 

a slower rate of improvement in 

visibility than the rate that would be 

needed to attain natural conditions by 

2064, the state must demonstrate based 

on the four-factors that the rate of 

progress for the implementation plan to 

attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable and that the progress goal 

adopted by the state is reasonable. This 

demonstration is twofold. Idaho 

demonstrated that achieving the URP is 

not reasonable due to the overwhelming 

visibility impacts of wildfire and 

emissions from sources outside the 

modeling domain, both uncontrollable 

source categories. Idaho’s analysis also 

uses an approach based on looking at 

each pollutant species, showing that 

URP is achieved or almost achieved for 

SO2 and NOX. This approach goes 

beyond what was contemplated by the 

RHR and but even without using the 

pollutant species approach, the State’s 

RPGs are reasonable because of the 

source category analysis and the 

contribution from sources outside the 

modeling domain and from nonanthropogenic sources. Although Idaho 

is anticipated to achieve reasonable and 

significant reductions of NOX and SO2

during the first planning period, 

reaching the URP is not reasonable since 

the visibility benefits from potential SO2

and NOX controls on other source 

categories is minimal, and the majority 

of visibility impairment is due to 

uncontrollable emissions. 

As explained in the EPA’s RPG 

Guidance, the 2018 URP estimate is not 

a presumptive target and the State’s 

RPGs may be lesser, greater or 

equivalent to the glide path. The glide 

path to 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states must use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. EPA 

believes the RPGs established by Idaho 

for the Class I areas in Idaho, although 

not achieving the URP, are reasonable 

because of the significant visibility 

improvement expected from BART 

controls for SO2 and NOX. Idaho 

determined that other measures needed 

to reach the URP are not reasonable at 

this time because of the overwhelming 

influence of natural fire to visibility 

impairment and the fact that additional 

control measures on sources of sulfate 

and nitrate are not estimated to 

contribute substantial visibility 

improvement by the end of the first 

planning period. Consequently, we 

propose to find that the State has 

demonstrated that its 2018 RPGs are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30257 

reasonable and consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) and 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

G. Long Term Strategy 

The Long Term Strategy required by 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) is a compilation of 

all existing and anticipated new air 

pollution control measures (both those 

identified in this plan as well as 

measures resulting from other air 

pollution requirements.) The LTS must 

include ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within or effected by 

emissions from the State. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). In developing a LTS, Idaho 

identified existing programs and rules, 

additional new controls that may be 

needed for other CAA requirements, and 

additional measures which may be 

required to achieve reasonable progress 

in Class I areas in Idaho. 

Idaho adequately addressed the RHR 

requirements in developing its LTS. The 

LTS provides sufficient documentation 

to ensure that Idaho will meet its 

emission reduction obligations for all 

Class I areas it affects in the first 

planning period. Idaho relied on 

monitoring, emission inventories and 

modeling information from the WRAP 

as the technical basis for its LTS. 

Coordination and consultation occurred 

with other states through the WRAP, in 

which all western states participated in 

developing the technical analysis upon 

which their SIPs are based. The state’s 

analysis included identifying all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment including major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources. The anticipated net effect 

on visibility over the first planning 

period due to changes in point, area and 

mobile source emissions is an 

improvement in visibility in all Class I 

areas in Idaho. 

Idaho has a number of ongoing 

programs and regulations that directly 

protect visibility or provide for 

improved visibility by generally 

reducing emissions: 

• Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration/New Source Review 

Regulations 

Two primary regulatory programs for 

addressing visibility impairment from 

industrial sources are the BART and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration/ 

New Source Review (PSD/NSR) rules. 

The PSD/NSR rules protect visibility in 

Class I areas from emissions from new 

industrial sources and major 

modifications to existing sources. 

Idaho’s regulations (IDAPA58.01.01.200 

through 228) and SIP require visibility 

impact assessment and mitigation 

associated with emissions from new and 

modified major stationary sources 

through protection of air quality related 

values (AQRVs). AQRVs are scenic and 

environmentally related resources that 

may be adversely affected by a change 

in air quality, including visibility, odor, 

noise, vegetation, and soils. These 

requirements were approved by EPA in 

1983. Idaho’s continued implementation 

of PSD/NSR requirements with FLM 

involvement for Class I area impact 

review will assist in maintaining the 

least impaired days from further 

degradation and assure that no Class I 

area experiences degradation in 

visibility resulting from expansion or 

growth of stationary sources in the state. 

• Regional Haze BART Controls 

The RHR includes the requirements 

for states to implement BART for 

eligible sources within the State that 

may reasonably cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 

51.308(e). The installation of BART 

emission limits is an integral part of the 

state’s LTS. Idaho regulations in IDAPA 

58.01.01 contain the requirements for 

BART under the regional haze rule 

including measures necessary to address 

RAVI. Idaho has completed analysis of 

the identified BART-eligible sources in 

Idaho and has determined BART 

emission limits for all BART-subject 

sources. Each source subject to BART is 

required to install and operate BART 

five years after the EPA approval of the 

implementation plan. Once controls are 

implemented, facilities subject to BART 

must ensure that control equipment is 

properly operated and maintained. EPA 

previously approved the BART portions 

of the Idaho Regional Haze plan. 76 FR 

36329. 

• Local, State and Federal Mobile 

Source Control Programs 

Estimated mobile source emissions 

show decreases in NOX, SO2, and VOCs 

in Idaho during the period 2002–2018. 

These declines in emissions are due to 

numerous rules already in place, most 

of which are federal regulations. The 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) is the federal certification 

program that requires all new cars sold 

in 49 states to meet specific emission 

standards. As part of the FMVCP, all 

new cars must meet their applicable 

emission standards on a standard test 

cycle called the Federal Test Procedure 

(FTP). These standards vary according 

to vehicle age, with the newer vehicles 

required to be considerably cleaner than 

older models. The result of this decline 

over time in allowable emissions from 

newly manufactured vehicles has been 

a drop in overall emissions from the 

vehicle fleet, as older, dirtier vehicles 

are replaced with newer, cleaner 

vehicles. 

EPA’s Tier 2 emission standards for 

passenger cars, light trucks and larger 

passenger vehicles are focused on 

reducing emissions most responsible for 

ozone and particulate matter. The 

control equipment introduced to meet 

these standards will result in reductions 

in visibility impairing pollutants. 

Various federal rules establishing 

emission standards and fuel 

requirements for diesel on-road and 

non-road equipment are expected to 

significantly reduce emissions of 

particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and 

sulfur oxides from emission sources 

over the first planning period. 

• Implementation of Programs to Meet 

PM10 NAAQS 

Northern Ada County (Boise) and 

Portneuf Valley (Pocatello) are PM10

maintenance areas. See 68 FR 61106 and 

71 FR 39574. These areas previously 

exceeded the PM10 NAAQS primarily 

due to residential wood combustion and 

road dust. To control the PM10

emissions and bring the area into 

attainment, Idaho put in place strict 

controls that regulate wood burning and 

control road dust in these communities. 

• Measures To Mitigate Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

In developing its LTS, Idaho 

considered the impact of construction 

activities on visibility in the Class I 

areas in Idaho. State regulations IDAPA 

58.01.01.651 and 652 require that 

entities that cause or permit bulk 

materials to be handled, transported, or 

stored or who engage in industrial 

activities or construction projects shall 

take reasonable precautions to prevent 

particulate matter from being airborne. 

In determining ‘reasonable precautions’ 

the rule specifically identifies activities 

and proximity to any Class I area. Types 

of precautions include: use of water or 

chemicals, application of dust 

suppressants, use of control equipment, 

covering truck loads, paving of roads, 

and prompt removal of material. 

• Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance 

Emission limits and compliance 

schedules for stationary sources are 

specified under Idaho and federal 

regulations in accordance with the Act. 

Additionally as discussed above, the 

BART provisions previously approved 

by EPA establish federally enforceable 

emission limitations and compliance 

schedule for BART sources. Idaho 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30258 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined under 18 U.S.C. 

1151 as: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the United 

States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of 

any patent, and including rights-of-way running 

through the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian 

communities within the borders of the United 

States, whether within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 

without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats 

as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the 

use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 

formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho, 

Indian country includes, but is not limited to, the 

Coeur d’Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley 

Reservation, the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, 

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce 

Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce 

Treaty. 

anticipates that future SIP updates may 

identify additional emission controls 

that could be implemented in the future 

and commits to include limits and 

compliance schedules as appropriate in 

future Regional Haze plan updates. 

• Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

Idaho’s continued implementation of 

NSR and PSD requirements, with the 

FLMs Review of impacts to Class I areas, 

will assure that there is no degradation 

of visibility in Idaho Class I areas on the 

least impaired days from expansion or 

growth of stationary sources in the 

State. Idaho will track source retirement 

and replacement and include known 

retirement schedules in periodic 

revisions to its Regional Haze SIP. 

• Smoke Management Techniques for 

Agricultural and Forestry Burning 

Smoke from wildland and prescribed 

fire is a major contributor to visibility 

impairment in Idaho’s Class I Areas. 

Idaho’s implementation of effective 

smoke management techniques through 

regulation and an enhanced smoke 

management plan will mitigate impacts 

of planned burning on visibility in the 

Class I areas. For example, Idaho 

regulates agricultural burning through 

its crop residue burning regulations. See 

IDAPA 58.01.01.617–623. In accordance 

with these regulations, Idaho requires 

permits and daily burn approval for 

crop residue burning. Idaho regulates 

prescribed fire through IDAPA 

58.01.01.614 and works cooperatively 

with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 

to address air quality impacts from 

wildland fire. The Montana/Idaho 

Airshed Group is composed of Federal, 

State, Tribal and private land managers 

dedicated to the preservation of air 

quality in Idaho and Montana. The 

Airshed Group manages prescribed fire 

throughout Idaho and Montana by daily 

authorization of individual burns. 

• Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

The BART emission limits and 

control measures are enforceable as a 

matter of state law by virtue of IDAPA 

58.01.01.655 through 668, and are 

federally enforceable when approved as 

part of its SIP. As previously mentioned, 

EPA approved Idaho’s BART emission 

limits and controls on June 22, 2011. 76 

FR 36329. 

Idaho projected the emissions 

inventory changes to the point, area and 

mobile sources by 2018. The changes 

are predicted based on the WRAP’s most 

recent emissions inventory and include 

the BART and LST components known 

at the time of the inventory 

development. Amore detailed 

discussion of the reductions may be 

found in section 8 of the SIP Submittal. 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Idaho is the IMPROVE 

network. As discussed above, there are 

currently IMPROVE sites at Craters of 

the Moon National Monument, 

Sawtooth Wilderness Area and SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Area. IMPROVE 

monitoring data from 2000–2004 serves 

as the baseline for the regional haze 

program, and is relied upon in the Idaho 

Regional Haze submittal. Idaho commits 

to rely on the IMPROVE network for 

complying with the regional haze 

monitoring requirement in EPA’s RHR 

for the current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. See section 4.4 

of the SIP submittal. Data produced by 

the IMPROVE monitoring network will 

be used for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. 

I. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

Through the WRAP, member states 

and Tribes worked extensively with the 

FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture to develop 

technical analyses that support the 

regional haze SIPs for the WRAP states. 

The proposed Regional Haze plan for 

Idaho was provided to the FLM for 

comment between June 3, 2010 and 

August 5, 2010. See section 13.1 of the 

SIP submittal. Idaho also consulted with 

the States of Washington, Oregon, 

Nevada, Wyoming and Montana. Idaho 

also commits to continued consultation 

with the FLMs and the other states as 

part of the continued implementation of 

the plan and for future progress reports 

and revisions. This continuing 

consultation process will provide the 

opportunity for on-going opportunities 

to address a host of items including, for 

example, the implementation of 

emission control programs, changes to 

the monitoring strategy or monitoring 

locations, status of state actions to meet 

commitments for future assessments or 

rulemaking, and work on the five-year 

reviews and ten-year revisions. 

Additionally, Idaho consulted with the 

tribes during development of their plan 

through the WRAP activities and direct 

outreach to the tribes. Accordingly, 

Idaho adequately addressed the 

consultation requirements in the RHR 

and appropriately documented its 

consultation with FLMs and other 

states. 

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires 

that the regional haze plans be revised 

and submitted to EPA by July 31, 2018 

and every 10 years thereafter. 40 CFR 

51.308(g) requires the state to submit a 

progress report to EPA every five years 

evaluating progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals for each Class 

I area in the State and each Class I area 

located outside the State which may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

State. Idaho has committed to evaluate 

and reassess its Regional Haze plan and 

to provide a Regional Haze SIP revision 

by July 31, 2018 for the next 10 year 

planning cycle. See section 13.5 of the 

SIP submission. Idaho has also 

committed to submitting the five-year 

review and report on the Regional Haze 

plan. See section 13.1 of the SIP 

submittal. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

On June 22, 2011, EPA approved 

portions of the Idaho Regional Haze 

Plan submitted October 25, 2011, 

including Idaho’s emission inventory, 

determination of baseline and natural 

condition and the BART controls and 

emission limits. Today, for the reasons 

explained above, EPA is proposing to 

approve the remaining parts of the 

Idaho Regional Haze submittal as 

meeting the requirements set forth in 

section 169A and 169B of the Act and 

in 40 CFR 51.300–308 regarding 

regional haze. 

V. Scope of Action 

Idaho has not demonstrated authority 

to implement and enforce IDAPA 

chapter 58 within ‘‘Indian Country’’ as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.10 Therefore, 

EPA proposes that this SIP approval not 

extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’ in Idaho. 

See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall 

include enforceable emission limits), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30259 

authority under State law to carry out 

SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs 

shall include enforceable emission 

limits). This is consistent with EPA’s 

previous approval of Idaho’s PSD 

program, in which EPA specifically 

disapproved the program for sources 

within Indian Reservations in Idaho 

because the State had not shown it had 

authority to regulate such sources. See 

40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent 

with EPA’s approval of Idaho’s title V 

air operating permits program. See 61 

FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) 

(interim approval does not extend to 

Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 

(October 4, 2001) (full approval does not 

extend to Indian Country). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the rule 

neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless provided a consultation 

opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon, 

and Washington in letters dated January 

14, 2011. EPA received one request for 

consultation, and we have followed-up 

with that Tribe. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 15, 2012. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12411 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS