Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66929 

• 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 CAA; 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 SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian 

country, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 7, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 13, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520(e), is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register notice Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

4/18/2008 11/8/2012 [Insert citation of publication] ......... With the exception of section 

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

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

9/23/2009 11/8/2012 [Insert citation of publication] ......... With the exception of section 

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

[FR Doc. 2012–27223 Filed 11–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0930, FRL9750–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Idaho; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 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 Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) sections 169A and 169B and 

federal regional haze regulations. 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 CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and certain 

requirements of the regional haze rule, 

including the requirements for best 

available retrofit technology (BART). On 

May 22, 2012, EPA proposed to approve 

the remaining portion of the Regional 

Haze SIP submittal, including those 

portions that address CAA provisions 

that require states to set Reasonable 

Progress Goals (RPGs) for their Class I 

areas, and to develop a Long Term 

Strategy (LTS) to achieve these goals. In 

this Federal Register notice, EPA 

finalizes its approval of the remaining 

Regional Haze SIP elements as proposed 

in the May 22, 2012 notice. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

December 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2010–0930. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
66930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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.’’ 

2Upon EPA’s final action, The Amalgamated 

Sugar Company (TASCO) filed a petition for review 

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging 

EPA’s approval of Idaho’s BART determination for 

TASCO. See Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA, No. 11– 

72445 (9th Cir.). The case is pending before the 

Ninth Circuit. 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

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 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Scope of Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. Background 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in 

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 

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

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

39104 (July 6, 2005). 

On behalf of the State of Idaho, the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) 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, June 

22, 2011. Specifically, the previous 

action approved the BART provisions 

(40 CFR 51.308(e)), the calculation of 

baseline and natural conditions (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)), and the statewide 

emission inventory of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I area.2 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) with 

respect to the visibility prong for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 

On May 22, 2012, EPA proposed to 

approve the remaining provisions of 

Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP submission, 

including the regional haze 

requirements for establishing RPGs and 

the LTS, see 77 FR 30248. The public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

ended on June 21, 2012. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received five comments on the 

May 22, 2012, proposed action to 

approve portions of the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP submittal. Responses to issues 

raised in these comment letters are 

discussed in this section. 

A. Correction of Ownership for 

Clearwater Paper 

Comment: One comment requested a 

correction of ownership of one of 

Idaho’s regulated facilities, the 

Clearwater Paper Corporation. 

Response: EPA agrees with this 

request and acknowledges that the pulp 

mill in Lewiston, Idaho, previously 

referred to as the Potlatch Pulp and 

Paper Mill is owned by the Clearwater 

Paper Corporation. 

B. Approach to Identifying Stationary 

Source Controls To Meet the Reasonable 

Progress Requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule 

Comment: Four commenters, the 

National Park Service (NPS), Safe Air 

for Everyone (SAFE), Save Our 

Summers NW (SOS NW), and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality 

Department, expressed concerns over 

Idaho’s reasonable progress analysis for 

stationary sources. 

The NPS indicated that the Idaho plan 

did appropriately identify the major 

source categories to evaluate for controls 

under reasonable progress, but noted 

however, that Idaho did not properly 

consider what emission controls might 

be reasonable to implement for specific 

sources within those categories to 

‘‘assure reasonable progress towards 

meeting the national goal of preventing 

future and remedying any existing 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I federal areas.’’ The NPS 

recommended that Idaho reconsider the 

decision that no controls are reasonable 

for sources under the reasonable 

progress requirements. The commenter 

noted further that Idaho did not 

consider controls for stationary sources 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2). The NPS 

pointed out that EPA determined that 

several of the Idaho stationary sources 

have visibility impacts between 0.3–1.3 

deciviews (dv) and urged EPA and the 

State to evaluate specific control 

measures for these sources. The NPS 

expressed specific concerns regarding 

J.R. Simplot, a phosphate fertilizer 

manufacturing facility which is 86 km 

from Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and has 1,609 tons per year 

(tpy) of SO2 emissions. 

SAFE, whose comments were 

endorsed by SOS NW, asserts that it is 

not reasonable for Idaho to submit a SIP 

that provides no additional controls for 

reasonable progress given that none of 

Idaho’s Class I areas are projected to 

meet the uniform rate of progress by 

2064. This commenter further indicates 

that the State should adopt low-cost 

controls on stationary sources that could 

produce additional progress. 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air 

Quality Department commented that 

Idaho needs to demonstrate that it is 

making reasonable progress within the 

State, especially with respect to nonBART sources in eastern Idaho. The 

comment adds that the SIP submittal 

was not detailed enough to report 

emissions of haze pollutants from BART 

and non-BART units for three plants: 

The J.R. Simplot Don Plant, Nu West/ 

Agrium, and P4 Production LLC 

(formerly Monsanto) and that EPA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66931 

should require a fast track revision to 

the SIP submittal which includes the 

necessary additional details in a fourfactor analysis. 

For J.R. Simplot, the ShoshoneBannock Tribes Air Quality Department 

further notes that the Western Regional 

Air Partnership (WRAP) identified 31 

separate emission units within the plant 

and that the most significant sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants were 

non-BART emission units. This 

comment adds that the plant has 

operated with few process changes over 

the years and has been well 

characterized and permitted by IDEQ, 

and that the State should have carried 

out the four-factor reasonable progress 

analysis as required by the CAA. The 

commenter noted that the 2007 Toxic 

Release Inventory shows that the facility 

emitted 4 tons per day of SO2, and that 

in view of the potential significance of 

these emissions to visibility at Craters of 

the Moon National Monument, and 

Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, 

the SIP submittal should have included 

detailed emission sources at the J.R. 

Simplot plant, potential control 

technologies, and regulatory plans to 

limit these non-BART emissions. 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air 

Quality Department was also critical of 

IDEQ’s claim that an additional five 

years (i.e., two years for modeling and 

3 years to install emission controls) was 

needed for a thorough four-factor 

analysis for the J.R. Simplot facility and 

other large stationary sources, 

particularly in light of the tardiness of 

the SIP submittal. The commenter 

points out that the delay in providing a 

four-factor analysis is erroneous 

underscored by the fact that the J.R. 

Simplot facility recently applied for a 

construction permit to make 

improvements at one of the sulfuric acid 

units at the plant and indicated that 

only one year was necessary for 

installing an improved scrubber. Given 

the projected five-year delay for the 

analysis plus installation of controls and 

that the SIP submittal was three years 

past the deadline, the commenter 

believes that the deferral is 

unreasonable and that EPA should 

require the State to complete the 

reasonable progress analyses on a 

realistic schedule and not approve the 

existing submittal. Finally the 

commenter offers that the State, by 

requesting an unreasonable timetable for 

compliance and projecting the five-year 

delay, is establishing the possibility that 

J.R. Simplot and other sources may not 

be ready for emission reductions even in 

time for the five year review period (i.e., 

the five-year progress report). The 

comment calls for EPA to review this 

issue and require IDEQ to revise the SIP 

accordingly. 

Response: EPA has conducted a 

screening analysis to verify that the 

Idaho plan contains appropriate 

reasonable progress provisions for 

stationary sources. 

EPA agrees with commenters that as 

part of its reasonable progress analysis, 

the State did not thoroughly assess 

controls for specific sources after having 

identified cost-effective options for 

certain source categories. The Idaho SIP 

submittal, however, concluded that 

additional controls on stationary 

sources of SO2 or oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) would not be helpful in achieving 

the uniform rate of progress (URP). 

Because the Idaho SIP submittal did not 

contain sufficient analysis to support 

this conclusion, EPA conducted its own 

independent screening analysis. 

As explained in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action, as 

part of our review of the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP submittal, EPA independently 

evaluated whether additional control 

measures were reasonable for non-BART 

stationary sources located within 

Idaho’s regulatory jurisdiction that 

would achieve further progress toward 

the national goal. See 77 FR 30255. In 

our evaluation, we used a screening 

methodology referred to as ‘‘Q/d.’’ We 

used the CALPUFF modeling results 

from a number of BART-eligible sources 

in combination with the ratio of each of 

these source’s emissions (denoted by the 

variable Q) divided by the source’s 

distance, in kilometers, from the nearest 

Class I area (denoted by the variable d). 

See the memorandum with subject 

‘‘Q/d Analysis of BART Sources in 

Idaho, Oregon and Washington to 

Establish a Threshold for Estimating 

Visibility Impacts from non-BART 

Sources’’ from Keith Rose, EPA Region 

10, dated March 21, 2012, which can be 

found in the docket for this action. 

Based on the CALPUFF modeling 

results, we concluded that the BARTeligible sources having a Q/d ratio less 

than 20 would not make a significant 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. Likewise, we then 

assumed that the non-BART sources in 

Idaho having a Q/d ratio less than 20 

would not significantly impair visibility 

in the Class I areas in Idaho. We 

calculated the Q/d ratio for all nonBART stationary sources emitting more 

than 40 tpy of SO2, NOX, or PM10. The 

40 tpy threshold is consistent with the 

de minimis level of exemption for the 

BART determination. As discussed in 

the proposal, our analysis demonstrated 

that all 17 of the non-BART stationary 

sources above 40 tpy in Idaho have a 

baseline Q/d less than 17. Thus, we 

agreed with Idaho’s conclusion that no 

additional controls on non-BART 

stationary sources in Idaho are 

reasonable for this planning period, 

because any visibility improvement 

expected from additional controls 

would likely be minimal. We are not 

changing that conclusion in this final 

action. 

Regarding the NPS and ShoshoneBannock Tribes Air Quality Department 

comments about assessing SO2 controls 

for J.R. Simplot, we agree that the State 

did not consider SO2 controls under 

reasonable progress with a four-factor 

analysis specific to this facility. The 

majority of the SO2 emissions from the 

facility are emitted from the #300 and 

#400 sulfuric acid plants, which are not 

BART-eligible sources. A total of over 

1,600 tons of SO2 was emitted from 

these two units in 2011. In terms of 

assessing these units under reasonable 

progress, we note that they are currently 

controlled and are regulated under the 

New Source Performance Standards for 

sulfuric acid plants at a rate of 4 pounds 

of SO2 per ton of sulfuric acid produced. 

(see 40 CFR 60.2). Further, in May 2012, 

J.R. Simplot and the State entered a 

Consent Order to reduce emissions at 

the #400 plant to less than 2 pounds of 

SO2 per ton of sulfuric acid produced. 

(See J.R. Simplot Company—Don Siding 

Plant Consent Order—Case No. E– 

2012.0006 2012AAI287.) The 

requirement to meet this emission limit 

became effective September 1, 2012. 

The Consent Order also requires a Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

analysis to be completed for the #400 

plant by June 1, 2013. In its SIP 

submittal, the State did not account for 

the SO2 reductions resulting from the 

Consent Order when it established the 

RPGs for the Class I areas in Idaho. As 

part of its interim progress report for 

regional haze due in October 2015, the 

State may choose to provide details of 

the SO2 reductions resulting from this 

Consent Order and any corresponding 

improvements to visibility. In addition 

to the reasons explained in the proposal, 

because of the existing controls on the 

sulfuric acid units and the additional 

SO2 reductions and visibility 

improvement expected to result from 

the May 2012, Consent Order, we agree 

with Idaho’s conclusion that no 

additional SO2 controls for the purposes 

of meeting the reasonable progress 

requirements of the regional haze rule 

are warranted at the J.R. Simplot facility 

during this planning period. EPA’s Q/d 

analysis supports this conclusion, and 

EPA notes that taking into account the 

requirements of the Consent Order, the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
66932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3The agricultural/crop residue burning of 

concern to the commenter is included in the SIP 

under the broader category of ‘‘Anthropogenic fire’’. 

4See Table 8–6 in the Idaho SIP submittal. The 

emissions inventory, which is used for modeling 

purposes and categorizes primary and secondarily 

formed particles separately, was obtained from the 

WRAP technical Support System at: http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/ 

Emissions.aspx. 

Simplot facility has a Q/d of less than 

20. 

With regard to the Nu West/Agrium 

facility, we disagree with the 

commenter that not enough detail about 

the BART and non-BART units is 

provided in the SIP submittal. IDEQ 

appropriately determined that the 

facility is BART-eligible. SO2 is the 

largest emitted pollutant (See Table 10– 

2 in the Idaho SIP submittal which lists 

SO2 emissions at 945 tpy). Modeled 

visibility impacts for this facility were 

minimal and the facility was exempt 

from further BART review (See 76 FR 

36334). Emissions from the non-BART 

units are relatively small and the 

visibility impact is expected to be very 

minor as the Q/d ratio for the facility is 

less than 8. Also, contrary to the 

comment, the BART determination for 

Monsanto/P4 Production LLC was 

discussed thoroughly in Chapter 10 of 

the Idaho SIP submission and addressed 

in EPA’s final action for BART, dated 

June 22, 2011 (See 76 FR 36329). 

Controls installed for BART at P4 are 

expected to achieve approximately 

9,000 tpy of sulfur oxide reductions at 

the kiln. Among the non-BART units at 

P4, the largest emitting sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants are two 

furnaces, and the State reasonably 

concluded that additional controls on 

these furnaces are not technically 

feasible due to the very high process 

temperatures. 

C. Comments Related to Crop Residue 

Burning 

Comment: Three commenters, SAFE, 

SOS NW, and the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes Air Quality Department, 

expressed concerns over Idaho’s 

reasonable progress analysis for 

assessing additional controls on crop 

residue burning.3

The comment submitted by SAFE, 

and endorsed by SOS NW, indicates 

that stronger controls on field burning 

are reasonable and cost-effective and 

can achieve some additional progress. 

SOS NW emphasizes that crop residue 

burning should not be left out of 

consideration when it comes to the 

regional haze plan. The comment from 

SAFE claims that Idaho’s rationale for 

doing nothing seems to be that wildfires 

are responsible for most of the visibility 

problem at Class I areas in the State. 

SAFE offers additional details on 

agricultural burning, noting that the SIP 

submittal estimates a 54% reduction in 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions 

from anthropogenic fires by 2018, 

compared to 2002 data.4 However, the 

commenter points out that between 

2002 to the present, there has been a 

48% increase in agricultural acres 

burned in Idaho, particularly in the 

southern areas which are closer to the 

Class I areas of concern. The commenter 

also states that it makes good sense to 

ramp down the emissions from 

agricultural field burns in those areas to 

offer the best chance of meeting the 

Regional Haze goals. The commenter 

letter from the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes Air Quality Department indicates 

that the recent increase in acreage 

burned resulted in emissions that were 

not recognized in the regional haze SIP 

submission nor reviewed adequately for 

visibility impacts. 

SAFE also points out that current 

Idaho regulation limits burn approvals 

to days when air quality levels are 

below 75% of any NAAQS. SAFE 

further noted that the IDEQ recently 

considered lifting the 75% of NAAQS 

limit for ozone, and that SAFE is 

therefore concerned that this would 

increase the amount of agricultural 

burning. To ensure the 75% of NAAQS 

limit remains effective in Idaho and as 

one way to limit the growth of 

agricultural burning from contributing 

to the deterioration of visibility in Class 

I areas, SAFE requests that EPA 

establish the limit as a federally 

enforceable limit in the Regional Haze 

SIP. The comment states that the long 

term strategy must contain enforceable 

emission limits, compliance schedules, 

and other measures as necessary to 

achieve the reasonable progress goals. 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air 

Quality Department adds that the 

strategy of permitting crop residue 

burns and other prescribed burns is to 

disperse the smoke by the prevailing 

winds, and although this reduces 

downwind concentrations, it increases 

haze on a regional scale and increases 

visibility impacts in downwind Class I 

areas, particularly in the fall when field 

burning is scheduled. The commenter 

asserts that the permit program for crop 

residue burning is allowing burning to 

increase with the new ‘‘Crop Residue 

Burning’’ section of IDEQ’s rules, and is 

largely a registration program rather 

than a program with tools to monitor 

Class I impacts or safeguard Class I air 

sheds. The commenter indicates that the 

resulting haze from burning should be 

reviewed, modeled for impacts, and 

included in the long term strategy. 

SAFE also commented that Idaho 

contributes significantly to visibility 

impairment in Montana and Wyoming 

Class I areas and that Yellowstone 

National Park, Bridger Wilderness, and 

Glacier National Park are all 

significantly off the target of achieving 

natural conditions by 2064. Referencing 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), the comment 

contends that Idaho cannot demonstrate 

that it has included all measures 

necessary to improve visibility in these 

areas unless it places limits on field 

burning. Finally, the comment notes 

that there should be acreage restrictions 

on burning, and that there would be no 

special equipment to purchase and no 

hindrance to growing crops by using 

alternative methods to burning. 

Response: Regarding the comment on 

the amount of acreage burned, we 

acknowledge that the reported data does 

indicate an increase in acreage burned 

as the commenters point out. However, 

the likelihood that there has been an 

increase in acreage burned is attenuated 

by the fact the registration program has 

greatly reduced the amount of fires that 

go unreported. There is considerable 

uncertainty in comparing the present 

acreage reported with acreage estimates 

from 2002. Over time, trends in the data 

will become more reliable with 

improved data quality. In addition, we 

note that Idaho is relying, in part, on the 

visibility improvement expected due to 

reduced emission from anthropogenic 

fires in its SIP. As part of IDEQ’s 

obligation to submit a periodic progress 

report (see 40 CFR 51.308(g)), it will be 

incumbent upon the State to accurately 

assess any significant changes in 

emissions from anthropogenic fire, 

including agricultural burning and 

acreage burned. At that time, IDEQ can 

assess whether any additional measures 

are necessary for ensuring that the 

relevant reasonable progress goals will 

be met. 

In response to comments concerning 

the State’s claim that wildfire is 

responsible for most of the visibility 

problem and that the State should do 

more to control field burning, we note 

that the emissions from natural fire (i.e. 

wildfires) are indeed significantly 

greater than from anthropogenic fire, as 

shown in the emission inventory of the 

SIP submittal. Visibility impairment 

from fire of any type is primarily due to 

emissions of organic carbon and 

elemental carbon, and to a lesser extent, 

direct fine particulate emissions. As 

shown in Tables 8–4 through 8–6 in the 

SIP submittal, emissions from natural 

fires of all three of these pollutant 

constituents are from three to ten times 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66933 

5 ‘‘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. 

greater than anthropogenic fires. For 

example, the State is projecting about 

48,000 tons of organic carbon emissions 

in 2018 from natural fires compared to 

4,100 tons from anthropogenic fires. 

With regard to visibility impairment 

from fires, the graphs in Chapter 9 of the 

SIP submittal show that the 

overwhelming amount of visibility 

impairment due to fire on the 20% 

worst days at Idaho’s Class I areas is 

from natural fire. As shown in Figure 9– 

9, nearly 70% of the organic carbon on 

the 20% worst days at Craters of the 

Moon comes from natural fire while less 

than 7% comes from anthropogenic fire. 

Anthropogenic burning makes up such 

a small portion of the total statewide 

emissions inventory that the predicted 

visibility improvement attributable to 

reductions in agricultural burning 

emissions is very minor. A reduction in 

agricultural burning emissions would be 

expected to have only a minimal overall 

influence on the glide slopes (i.e., rates 

of progress) for the State’s Class I areas 

when compared to the dominating 

influence of natural fire and other 

sources. The dominant influence of 

natural fire on visibility can be 

compounded by the significant year to 

year variability of natural fire emissions 

which can easily offset any visibility 

improvement from reductions in 

anthropogenic fire. Additional 

constraints on anthropogenic burning, 

such as acreage restrictions or 

alternative burning techniques would 

therefore not necessarily lead to more 

progress than that expected from the 

greater than 50% reductions in PM2.5, 

elemental carbon, and organic carbon 

emissions that the State is projecting. 

Consequently, we disagree that the state 

must do more to control field burning to 

ensure reasonable progress during this 

first planning period. 

With regard to the comment 

concerning Idaho’s contributions to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

Montana and Wyoming and the need to 

further control crop residue burning, we 

note that Idaho appropriately satisfied 

the interstate consultation requirements 

of Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) of the Regional 

Haze Rule and collaborated extensively 

with Montana, Wyoming, and the EPA 

via numerous Western Regional Air 

Program (WRAP) forums. See Chapter 2 

of the Idaho SIP submittal. Both Idaho 

and neighboring states agreed that the 

implementation of BART and other 

existing measures in state regional haze 

plans were sufficient, and that future 

consultation would address any new 

strategies or measures needed. Source 

apportionment modeling does show that 

Idaho contributes significant emissions 

of primary organic aerosol to the Class 

I areas in Montana and Wyoming. 

However, the majority of these 

emissions are due to natural fire and not 

anthropogenic fire. As shown in Figure 

9–84 of the SIP submittal, 

anthropogenic burning in Idaho has the 

greatest impact in the Cabinet Mountain 

Wilderness Area in Montana, but even 

though Idaho contributes about 38% of 

the total primary organic aerosol at 

Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area, of 

that, just 9% is from anthropogenic 

burning. (Most of the remaining primary 

organic aerosol emissions are from 

natural fire). Further, the 9% 

attributable to anthropogenic burning is 

projected to decrease to less than 5% in 

2018. Also it is important to note that 

neither Montana nor Wyoming 

requested that Idaho reduce emissions 

when setting their reasonable progress 

goals. Contrary to what the commenter 

states, we believe Idaho is achieving its 

share of visibility progress at Class I 

areas in Montana and Wyoming. 

Finally, the requirement prohibiting 

field burning when air quality is above 

75% of any NAAQS is already a 

federally enforceable SIP measure. See 

73 FR 44915 (August 1, 2008) (Final 

action approving Idaho’s Revised Crop 

residue Disposal rules which included 

the 75% of NAAQS limit).Thus, adding 

the 75% limit to the Regional Haze SIP 

would provide no additional authority 

to regulate burning. Additionally, as 

described briefly in the Regional Haze 

SIP submittal Section 12.65 regarding 

the Long Term Strategy, crop residue 

burning is regulated with a permit-byrule process which EPA has previously 

approved in the SIP. Id. 

D. Consultation 

Comment: The Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes Air Quality Department 

expressed concerns that the Idaho SIP 

submittal did not provide enough detail 

of Wyoming’s comments and 

consultation nor resolve the comments 

submitted by the federal land managers 

(FLMs). 

Response: EPA disagrees with these 

comments regarding consultation. EPA’s 

review of Idaho’s SIP submittal 

indicates that Idaho conducted and 

documented the required consultation 

with States and FLMs. Appendix I of the 

Idaho Regional Haze SIP submission 

includes Idaho’s responses to the FLM 

comments. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the remaining 

portions of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP 

submission of October 25, 2010, as 

meeting the requirements set forth in 

section 169A and 169B of the Act and 

in 40 CFR 51.308 for preventing any 

future and remedying any existing 

visibility impairment in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographical area. 

Specifically included is EPA’s approval 

of the reasonable progress provisions 

and the long term strategies. 

IV. 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. 1151.5 Therefore, 

EPA is not extending this SIP approval 

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 

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 prevention 

of significant deterioration (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). 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). 

V. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
66934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; 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 SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian Country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 7, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: October 24, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart N—Idaho 

■ 2. Section 52.670 is amended in 

paragraph (e) by adding an entry to the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze SIP 

Revision.

State-wide .............. 10/25/10 11/8/12 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

The remaining portion of the regional 

haze SIP elements as proposed in the 

May 22, 2012 notice. 77 FR 30248. 

■ 3. Section 52.672 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.672 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) EPA approves the remaining 

portions of the Regional Haze SIP 

revision submitted by the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

on October 25, 2010, as meeting the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

section 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 

51.308. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27216 Filed 11–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66935 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 02–278; FCC 12–21] 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) is correcting a final 

rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register of October 16, 2012. The 

document announces the effective date 

of rules containing information 

collection requirements approved by the 

Office of the Management and Budget 

that were adopted to address unwanted 

telemarketing calls. 

DATES: Effective October 16, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Johnson, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer 

Policy Division, at (202) 418–7706 or 

email Karen.Johnson@fcc.gov 

<mailto:Karen.Johnson@fcc.gov>. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document makes the following 

corrections to the final rule published 

October 16, 2012, at 77 FR 63240: 

Corrected 

1. On page 63240, column 2, revise 

the DATES section to read as follows: 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

64.1200(a)(2) and 64.1200(a)(3), 

published at 77 FR 34233, June 11, 

2012, are effective October 16, 2013. 47 

CFR 64.1200(a)(7), except 

64.1200(a)(7)(i)(B), published at 77 FR 

34233, June 11, 2012 is effective 

November 15, 2012. 

47 CFR 64.1200(a)(7)(i)(B), published 

at 77 FR 34233, June 11, 2012, is 

effective January 14, 2013. 47 CFR 

64.1200(b)(3), published at 77 FR 34233, 

June 11, 2012, is effective January 14, 

2013. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27118 Filed 11–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES