Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 729 

section are satisfied and any commercial 

interest is not the primary interest 

furthered by the request. Components 

ordinarily will presume that when a 

news media requester has satisfied the 

requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section, the request is not 

primarily in the commercial interest of 

the requester. Disclosure to data brokers 

or others who merely compile and 

market government information for 

direct economic return will not be 

presumed to primarily serve the public 

interest. 

(3) Where only some of the records to 

be released satisfy the requirements for 

a waiver of fees, a waiver shall be 

granted for those records. 

(4) Requests for a waiver or reduction 

of fees should be made when the request 

is first submitted to the component and 

should address the criteria referenced 

above. A requester may submit a fee 

waiver request at a later time so long as 

the underlying record request is 

pending or on administrative appeal. 

When a requester who has committed to 

pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver 

of those fees and that waiver is denied, 

the requester shall be required to pay 

any costs incurred up to the date the fee 

waiver request was received. 

Dated: December 21, 2016. 

Loretta E. Lynch, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31508 Filed 1–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–BE–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067; FRL–9957–71– 

Region 10] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the 

Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

portions of a state implementation plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of 

Idaho. The SIP submission addresses 

attainment plan requirements for the 

Idaho portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho 

nonattainment area (Logan UT–ID) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted the attainment plan to the 

EPA on December 14, 2012 (2012 SIP 

submission), and supplemented the 

attainment plan on December 24, 2014 

(2014 amendment). The EPA is 

approving certain portions, 

disapproving other portions, and 

deferring action on the remaining 

portions of the attainment plan. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 3, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and is publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. The 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: Jeff 

Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air 

and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 

98101; telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256; email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On October 27, 2016, the EPA 

proposed to approve certain portions 

and disapprove other portions of Idaho’s 

2012 SIP submission and 2014 

amendment (81 FR 74741). An 

explanation of the CAA requirements, a 

detailed analysis of the submittals, and 

the EPA’s reasons for proposing partial 

approval and partial disapproval were 

provided in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and will not be restated 

here. In this action, the EPA is 

approving Idaho’s determination of 

which pollutants must be evaluated for 

control in the Idaho portion of the 

Logan, UT–ID nonattainment area for 

purposes of the Moderate area plan for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is also approving Idaho’s 

evaluation of, and imposition of, 

reasonably available control measure 

and reasonably available control 

technology (RACM/RACT) level 

controls on appropriate sources in the 

Idaho portion of the nonattainment area. 

The EPA is disapproving the Idaho 

attainment plan with respect to the 

contingency measure requirement. 

Finally, the EPA is deferring action on 

the submissions with respect to the 

attainment demonstration, reasonable 

further progress, quantitative milestone, 

and motor vehicle emission budget 

requirements to a future date. 

With respect to the deferred Moderate 

area plan elements the EPA notes that 

on December 16, 2016, the Agency 

published a proposed determination, 

based on complete, quality-assured air 

quality and certified monitoring data, 

that the Logan UT–ID nonattainment 

area failed to attain the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date (81 FR 91088). If the EPA finalizes 

the determination that Logan UT–ID did 

not attain, then the nonattainment area 

will be reclassified from ‘‘Moderate’’ to 

‘‘Serious’’ and Idaho will be required to 

submit a Serious area attainment plan to 

meet additional statutory requirements. 

The EPA anticipates that Idaho may 

elect to reevaluate and address the 

deferred elements of the Moderate area 

plan, as well as the contingency 

measure requirements, in the context of 

developing the Serious area attainment 

plan. 

The EPA received three sets of 

comments on the proposed action that 

pertain to portions of the 2012 SIP 

submission and 2014 amendment that 

are relevant to this final action. The EPA 

is responding to those comments in this 

notice. Comments that pertain to the 

attainment demonstration, reasonable 

further progress, quantitative milestone, 

and motor vehicle emissions budget 

requirements will be addressed when 

the EPA takes final action on these plan 

elements. 

II. Response to Comments 

Commenter 1, comment 1: A citizen 

observed, ‘‘As I have traveled north out 

of Logan toward Idaho I have noticed 

that the inversion gets lighter. The PM2.5

that hangs thick and cloudy over Logan 

turns to spidery, wispy clouds that just 

reach across the mountains. They reach 

and then disappear completely. I don’t 

think the emissions and PM2.5 are 

coming from cars in Franklin County 

Idaho. I think that they are coming from 

Logan and traveling up the valley into 

Franklin County, Idaho.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
730 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Technical Support Document for 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) Designations, Chapter 4.0 ‘‘Technical 

Analyses of Individual Nonattainment Areas’’ 

Section 4.10 ‘‘Region 10 Nonattainment Areas’’ Part 

4.10.2 ‘‘EPA Technical Analysis for Idaho’’ (204_

supplementary material_EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0562–0439.pdf). 

Response: The commenter’s 

observation concerning the appearance 

of air quality during inversions is 

generally consistent with Idaho’s 

monitoring data and air quality studies 

for the area which show lower PM2.5

concentrations outside of the immediate 

Logan area. Monitored levels of ambient 

PM2.5 are typically higher in Utah than 

in Idaho. For example, the measured 

98th percentile of PM2.5 concentrations 

at the Franklin, Idaho monitor in 2015 

was 19 mg/m3. However, in the context 

of the nonattainment area designations 

that were finalized in 2009, the EPA 

determined that emissions from sources 

in Idaho, including not only cars but 

also other area sources of emissions, 

were contributing to violations of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Logan, UT–ID nonattainment area as 

part of the CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) 

designation process.1

Commenter 1, comment 2: The 

commenter also stated, ‘‘Putting auto 

emissions mandates in Franklin County, 

Idaho will not help anything. It will 

only add more financial issues to a rural 

community. I don’t think it is necessary 

for auto emissions to be put in place in 

Franklin County, Idaho.’’ 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking for this action, the 

EPA proposed to agree with the IDEQ’s 

determination that a Franklin County 

inspection and maintenance (I&M) 

program for motor vehicles was not a 

reasonable control approach based on 

factors including the cost of control and 

economic feasibility (see pages 81 FR 

74745–6). We are now finalizing that 

determination. We also note that 

existing federal motor vehicle emission 

regulations and requirements are 

having, and will continue to have, 

significant emission reduction benefits 

in this airshed (see section 5.3.8 of the 

2012 SIP submittal). 

Commenter 1, comment 3: The 

commenter also stated, ‘‘I think that the 

wood stove change-out and burn ban are 

good things to have in place to help 

reduce the carbon that is being put into 

the air; however, I think there needs to 

be more done in the Logan area to 

reduce their emissions and I’m sure they 

are working on it also. Logan is 

continuing to get more people to ride 

the bus.’’ The commenter then 

elaborated on several suggested control 

strategies for Utah portion of the 

nonattainment area. 

Response: As discussed in our 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposed 

to approve the woodstove curtailment, 

device restrictions, and burn ban control 

measures for Franklin County, that are 

already incorporated into the SIP, as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA for 

purposes of RACM/RACT level control 

of appropriate sources in this area for 

purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (see pages 81 FR 74746–7). The 

EPA is finalizing this determination. To 

the extent that the commenter has 

additional suggestions for the Utah 

portion of the Logan, UT–ID 

nonattainment area, these suggestions 

are outside the scope of this action 

which is directed at the EPA’s review of 

Idaho’s attainment plan. 

Commenter 2, comment 1: Another 

commenter noted, ‘‘We like the air the 

way it is. Your meddling in these 

situations is not welcome. Please do not 

pursue these ridiculous ‘rules’ further.’’ 

Response: Under the CAA, states and 

the EPA are required to take actions to 

protect public health from air pollution. 

Exposure to elevated levels of PM2.5

results in serious health impacts up to 

and including premature death from 

respiratory or cardiovascular diseases, 

and is especially unhealthy for sensitive 

populations such as children. Thus, 

CAA section 189(a) requires states with 

areas designated as Moderate 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to develop and submit a 

plan to improve air quality to meet the 

standards, including provisions to 

assure implementation of RACM/RACT 

level controls to reduce emissions. 

Under CAA section 110(k) the EPA has 

a mandatory duty to act on these state 

SIP submissions. In evaluating and 

acting upon Idaho’s attainment plan SIP 

submission in this action, the EPA is 

complying with its own duty under the 

CAA. 

State of Idaho, comment 1: On behalf 

of the State of Idaho, the IDEQ 

submitted several comments. The first 

comment questions the basis of the 

EPA’s December 14, 2009 decision to 

include Franklin County as part of the 

Logan UT–ID nonattainment area (74 FR 

58688). The IDEQ states, ‘‘Upon review 

of the plans submitted by both Idaho 

and Utah it is readily apparent that 

Idaho’s emission sources are truly de 

minimis and the motor vehicle 

commuter pattern is equal with respect 

to the number of vehicles traveling from 

Idaho to Utah and from Utah to Idaho. 

Consequently, Idaho questions the 

technical reasons for its inclusion in 

this NAA, and the jurisdictional 

authority issues have not only held the 

state of Idaho back from obtaining plan 

approval, but also from obtaining a oneyear extension to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

a result, DEQ intends to request that the 

current NAA be split into two separate 

PM2.5 NAAs, similar to the revision that 

occurred in the Power-Bannock 

Counties. 63 FR 59722.’’ 

Response: As noted by the 

commenter, the determination to 

designate Franklin County, Idaho as part 

of the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area 

was completed in December 2009 and is 

outside the scope of this action which 

is directed at the EPA’s review of 

Idaho’s attainment plan SIP submission. 

In addition, should Idaho submit a 

petition to split the nonattainment area, 

the EPA will review the technical merits 

of the petition. However, such a review 

is also outside the scope of this action. 

State of Idaho, comment 2: The IDEQ 

resubmitted its February 26, 2016 

request for a one-year extension of the 

Moderate area attainment date and 

questions the EPA’s rationale for 

determining that the area did not attain 

by the attainment date, stating ‘‘DEQ 

should not be punished for Utah’s acts 

or omissions.’’ 

Response: The EPA has addressed 

whether the Logan, UT–ID 

nonattainment area attained the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the IDEQ’s 

attainment date extension request in the 

rulemaking Determinations of 

Attainment by the Attainment Date, 

Determinations of Failure to Attain by 

the Attainment Date and 

Reclassification for Certain 

Nonattainment Areas for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (81 FR 

91088, December 16, 2016). This 

comment is thus outside the scope of 

this action and the EPA is not restating 

our rationale here. 

State of Idaho, comment 3: The IDEQ 

states, ‘‘It should also be noted that on 

May 25, 2016, a Consent Decree was 

filed in U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California, Oakland 

Division, wherein EPA committed to act 

on the remaining items in Idaho’s Plan 

by December 8, 2016. In the same 

Decree EPA did not commit to act on 

Utah’s NAA plan. EPA is treating the 

two areas separately. Thus, not only 

should the area be split in two NAA for 

technical reasons, for planning 

purposes, the area is on two very 

separate tracts—with Idaho further 

along.’’ 

Response: The EPA acknowledges 

that the Consent Decree in the litigation 

identified by the commenter did not 

include any deadline for an attainment 

plan submission from the State of Utah 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 731 

for the Utah portion of the Logan, UT– 

ID nonattainment area. This is because 

although the litigation at issue initially 

included a claim that the EPA had failed 

to act on such a SIP submission from 

Utah, the State of Utah elected to 

withdraw the SIP submission. Thus, at 

the time of that Consent Decree, the EPA 

did not have a mandatory duty to act on 

the withdrawn Utah SIP submission. 

Utah subsequently resubmitted an 

attainment plan for the Utah portion of 

the Logan, UT–ID nonattainment area 

on December 16, 2014. The EPA is 

currently evaluating that later SIP 

submission in order to meet its statutory 

obligations under CAA section 110(k). 

State of Idaho, comment 4: The IDEQ 

states, ‘‘DEQ, in good faith, complied 

with all regulations and guidance in 

place at the time of submittal for both 

the original Plan in 2012 and the 

amendment in 2014. Table 10 in the 

2012 Plan submittal lists how DEQ 

complied with each requirement at that 

time. In the current proposed action, the 

EPA is evaluating DEQ’ s submittal 

against current regulations. Instead of 

disapproving portions of Idaho’s Plan, 

the EPA could request DEQ address 

certain deficiencies due to the new 

regulations and court decisions; as was 

done to address the Court decision in 

2013.’’ In particular, the IDEQ calls into 

question the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of the attainment plan with 

respect to the reasonable further 

progress, quantitative milestones, and 

contingency measure requirements. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the 

difficulties the January 4, 2013, NRDC v. 

EPA, D.C. Circuit Court decision (706 

F.3d 428) and remand of the prior PM2.5

implementation rule presented for both 

the EPA and Idaho. As noted by the 

commenter, the EPA provided states 

with additional time to withdraw and 

resubmit, or to supplement, prior 

attainment plan SIP submissions in 

order to address any impacts that 

resulted from the court’s decision. See, 

Identification of Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 31566, June 2, 

2014). The EPA appreciates the efforts 

of Idaho to update its attainment plan in 

the 2014 amendment. However, the EPA 

is required by statute to evaluate the 

attainment plan for compliance with 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

and must do so consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA, as interpreted 

by the courts. The EPA will continue to 

work with the IDEQ to meet the 

statutory attainment plan requirements, 

such as the contingency measure 

requirement addressed in this action. In 

addition, the EPA recently promulgated 

the 2016 PM2.5 Implementation Rule in 

order to provide additional regulatory 

certainty and guidance concerning 

attainment plan requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and future 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See, Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; State Implementation Plan 

Requirements; Final Rule (81 FR 58010, 

August 24, 2016). 

State of Idaho, comment 5: The IDEQ 

questions the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of the Idaho contingency 

measures citing the EPA’s basis that the 

emissions reductions were not precisely 

quantified in terms of 1-year’s worth of 

reasonable further progress (RFP). The 

IDEQ also notes that while discussed in 

the preamble of the 2016 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the requirement 

for 1-year’s worth of RFP is not cited in 

the regulatory text of 40 CFR 51.1014. 

Response: The EPA agrees that it did 

not include regulatory text in the final 

2016 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

imposing the requirement that 

contingency measures reflect emissions 

reductions comparable to 1-year’s worth 

of RFP in the attainment plan at issue. 

Nevertheless, this has been the EPA’s 

guidance on the proper interpretation of 

the statutory requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9) for many years, and 

remains so in the preamble to the 2016 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule (see page 81 

FR 58066). Because the contingency 

measures in a Moderate area attainment 

plan are intended to be available in the 

event that the area fails to meet the RFP 

requirement, the EPA has long 

interpreted CAA section 172(c)(9) to 

require control measures that would 

result in emissions reductions 

comparable to 1-year’s worth of RFP in 

the area. 

The EPA acknowledges the IDEQ’s 

concern with the challenges to identify 

and impose additional control measures 

to meet the contingency measure 

requirement in the Logan, UT–ID 

nonattainment area. As discussed in the 

proposal for this action, Franklin 

County is a sparsely populated, rural 

area with a unique emissions inventory. 

Idaho estimated that over 75% of the 

directly emitted PM2.5 comes from road 

dust, using the EPA’s AP–42 road dust 

emission estimation methodology (see 

Appendix C of the 2012 SIP submittal). 

Idaho calculated the remaining directly 

emitted PM2.5 to be 13% residential 

wood combustion, 6% on-road and nonroad mobile emissions, and 6% all other 

remaining source categories. Also as 

discussed in the proposal for this action, 

Idaho estimated that the limiting PM2.5

precursors from Franklin County, 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), come 

primarily from motor vehicles, which 

are expected to decline significantly due 

to federal motor vehicle standards 

already in place (see page 81 FR 74747). 

In considering these emission sources, 

the IDEQ established road sanding 

agreements, woodstove curtailment 

ordinances, and the woodstove changeout program. Because Idaho and Utah 

modeled that the Logan UT–ID 

nonattainment area would attain based 

solely on the Utah control measures, the 

IDEQ reasoned that anticipated 

reductions from the Idaho control 

measures (i.e., the road sanding 

agreements, woodstove curtailment 

ordinances, and the woodstove changeout program), were not otherwise relied 

upon in the control strategy for the area. 

As such, the IDEQ considered these 

early implemented contingency 

measures, as allowed under the EPA’s 

longstanding guidance interpreting 

section 172(c)(9) to allow this approach. 

However, as discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking, a recent decision 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th 

Circuit rejected the EPA’s interpretation 

of CAA section 172(c)(9) to allow 

already implemented control measures 

to meet the contingency measure 

requirements. Bahr v. EPA, No. 12– 

72327 (Sept. 12, 2016). The Court 

concluded that contingency measures 

must be control measures that will take 

effect at the time the area fails to meet 

RFP or fails to attain by the applicable 

attainment date, not before. Id.at 35–36. 

The IDEQ road sanding agreements, 

woodstove curtailment ordinances, and 

the woodstove change-out program 

which have already been implemented, 

do not meet the standard for section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures set out 

by the Bahr decision which is 

controlling for EPA actions on SIP 

submissions from states located within 

the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. For 

this reason, the EPA is disapproving the 

contingency measures in this final 

action. Because the contingency 

measures are invalid as early 

implemented measures, the EPA is not 

addressing whether they would 

otherwise be approvable as contingency 

measures at this time. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving parts of Idaho’s 

attainment plan for the Idaho portion of 

the Logan, UT–ID nonattainment area 

for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS PM2.5

NAAQS. In particular, the EPA is 

approving Idaho’s determination of 

which pollutants must be evaluated for 

control in the Idaho portion of the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
732 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

2On April 1, 1996 the US Department of 

Transportation published a notice in the Federal 

Register describing the criteria to be used to 

determine which highway projects can be funded 

or approved during the time that the highway 

sanction is imposed in an area. (See 61 FR 14363). 

3Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 

transportation conformity rules include reasonable 

further progress plans and attainment 

demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101). 

Logan, UT–ID nonattainment area for 

purposes of the Moderate area plan for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is also approving Idaho’s 

evaluation of, and imposition of, 

RACM/RACT level controls on 

appropriate sources in the Idaho portion 

of the area for this NAAQS. This 

includes approval of Idaho’s woodstove 

curtailment ordinances, burn ban, 

heating device restrictions, and 

woodstove change-out programs as 

meeting the RACM/RACT requirements 

in this area. The EPA is deferring action 

on the submitted attainment plan with 

respect to the Moderate area attainment 

demonstration, RFP, quantitative 

milestone, and motor vehicle emissions 

budget requirements. Lastly, for the 

reasons set forth in our proposed 

rulemaking and discussed above, the 

EPA has determined that the 

contingency measures submitted as part 

of Idaho’s 2012 SIP submittal and 2014 

amendment do not meet CAA 

requirements, as interpreted in the 9th 

Circuit. 

IV. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP 

This section explains the 

consequences of disapproval, in whole 

or in part, of a SIP submission required 

under the CAA. The Act provides for 

the imposition of sanctions and the 

promulgation of a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails 

to submit, and the EPA approve, a plan 

revision that corrects the deficiencies 

identified by the EPA in its disapproval 

of the initial SIP submission. 

The Act’s Provisions for Sanctions 

Once the EPA finalizes disapproval of 

a required SIP submission, such as an 

attainment plan submission, or a 

portion thereof, CAA section 179(a) 

provides for the imposition of sanctions, 

unless the deficiency is corrected within 

18 months of the final rulemaking of 

disapproval. The first sanction would 

apply 18 months after the EPA 

disapproves the SIP submission, or 

portion thereof. Under the EPA’s 

sanctions regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, 

the first sanction imposed would be 2:1 

offsets for sources subject to the new 

source review requirements under 

section 173 of the CAA. If the state has 

still failed to submit a SIP submission 

to correct the identified deficiencies for 

which the EPA proposes full or 

conditional approval 6 months after the 

first sanction is imposed, the second 

sanction will apply. The second 

sanction is a prohibition on the 

approval or funding of certain highway 

projects.2

Federal Implementation Plan Provisions 

That Apply if a State Fails To Submit 

an Approvable Plan 

In addition to sanctions, once the EPA 

finds that a state failed to submit the 

required SIP revision, or finalizes 

disapproval of the required SIP revision 

or a portion thereof, the EPA must 

promulgate a FIP no later than two years 

from the date of the finding—if the 

deficiency has not been corrected 

within that time period. 

Ramifications Regarding Transportation 

Conformity 

The proposal discussed conformity 

freeze implications due to disapproval 

of the control strategy SIP.3 This final 

action only disapproves the contingency 

measures. Section 93.120(a) of the 

conformity rule is not triggered by 

disapproval of contingency measures, so 

the area is not subject to a conformity 

freeze as discussed in the proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, 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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• does not provide the 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land in Idaho 

and is also not approved to apply in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. The 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 March 6, 2017. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 733 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 20, 2016. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart N—Idaho 

■ 2. In § 52.670, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry at the 

end of the table for ‘‘Fine Particulate 

Matter Attainment Plan.’’ 

The addition reads 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 

*******

Fine Particulate Matter 

Attainment Plan.

Franklin County, Logan 

UT–ID PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.

12/19/12; 

12/24/14 

1/4/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation].Approved: reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control technology requirements. 

Disapproved: contingency measures. 

Deferred: Moderate area attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, quantitative 

milestone, and year motor vehicle emissions 

budget requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31643 Filed 1–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES