28382 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 165.943—Continued 

[Datum NAD 1983] 

Event Location Event date 

(8) Superior 4th of July Fireworks Display.All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of 

no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′28′′N, 092°03′38′′ 

W.

On or around July 4th. 

(9) Point to LaPointe Swim .. All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel between Bayfield and LaPointe, WI 

within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′50′′ N, 

090°48′44′′ W, moving southeast to 46°46′44′′ N, 090°47′33′′ W, then moving 

northeast to 46°46′52′′ N, 090°47′17′′ W, then moving northwest to 46°49′03′′ N, 

090°48′25′′ W, and finally returning to the starting position.

Early August. 

(10) Lake Superior Dragon 

Boat Festival Fireworks 

Display.

All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of 

no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′28′′ N, 092°03′47′′ 

W.

Late August. 

(11) Superior Man Triathlon All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within an 

imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°46′36′′ N, 092°06′06′′ W, 

moving southeast to 46°46′32′′ N, 092°06′01′′ W, then moving northeast to 

46°46′45′′ N, 092°05′45′′ W, then moving northwest to 46°46′49′′ N, 092°05′49′′ 

W, and finally returning to the starting position.

Late August. 

Dated: June 13, 2018. 

E.E. Williams, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Duluth. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13055 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0566; FRL–9979–48– 

Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue 

Burning; Revision to Ozone 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to Idaho’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) related to 

agricultural crop residue burning. The 

Director of the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted the revisions to EPA on 

September 22, 2017. IDEQ 

supplemented the original submission 

with photochemical modeling analyses 

on October 23, 2017. The revisions 

change the ambient ozone concentration 

level at which IDEQ may approve a 

permittee’s request to burn. This final 

action is being taken for the reasons set 

out in EPA’s proposed action in this 

matter. This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act 

or CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

19, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0566. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. 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, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall Ruddick at (206) 553–1999, or 

ruddick.randall@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

intended to refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background 

On September 22, 2017, the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP 

provisions regulating open burning of 

crop residue in the state to EPA for 

approval. On January 22, 2018, the EPA 

proposed to approve all of the revisions 

requested in the September 22, 2017 

submittal. We are taking final action for 

the reasons explained in the January 22, 

2018 notification of proposed approval 

(83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed 

approval for further explanation and the 

basis for our finding. The public 

comment period for this proposal ended 

on February 21, 2018. EPA received 

public comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. Summaries of the 

comments as well as EPA’s responses to 

adverse comments are in Section II of 

this rulemaking action. After 

consideration of the comments, we do 

not believe any changes in the rationale 

or conclusions in the proposed approval 

are appropriate. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received comments on a variety 

of issues related to the proposed 

approval of Idaho’s crop residue 

burning SIP revisions. Out of a total of 

ten comments received, three were 

supportive of EPA’s approval of the SIP 

revisions, four were adverse to the 

EPA’s proposed approval, and three 

were determined to be not germane to 

this action. A full copy of all comments 

received is available in the docket for 

final action. 

Comment 

EPA received public comments 

arguing that the NAAQS are not 

adequately protective of public health in 

the context of crop residue burning and 

should not be relied upon as the basis 

for approval of the proposed crop 

residue burning SIP revisions. One 

commenter stated that because the PM2.5

NAAQS takes the form of a 24-hour 

average that it allows ‘‘spikes’’ of 

emissions that are sufficient to ‘‘kill 

citizens, especially children with 

undeveloped lungs, the elderly, and 

anyone with underlying heart or lung 

diseases.’’ Another commenter urged 

EPA to disapprove the proposed SIP 

revisions, citing studies that they assert 

demonstrate negative human health 

impacts to exposure to ozone at levels 

below the NAAQS. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28383 

1A more detailed summary of the considerations 

in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in 

public comments and EPA’s responses, can be 

found in the Federal Register notification for the 

final action (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015), and 

in the Response to Comments document, which can 

be found in the docket for that action (Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699). 

2A more detailed summary of the considerations 

in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in 

public comments and EPA’s responses, can be 

found in the Federal Register notification for the 

final action (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), and in 

the Response to Comments document, which can be 

found in the docket for that action (Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492). 

Response 

These comments relate to the 

adequacy of the PM2.5 and ozone 

NAAQS, and are therefore outside of the 

scope of this action. The CAA contains 

provisions that specifically address the 

establishment and review of the 

NAAQS. To briefly summarize, under 

sections 108 and 109 of the Act, EPA 

issues ‘‘air quality criteria’’ and 

establishes NAAQS for certain air 

pollutants. CAA section 109(d)(1) 

requires EPA to periodically review, and 

if appropriate, revise the air quality 

criteria to reflect advances in scientific 

knowledge on the effects of the 

pollutant on public health and welfare, 

and to periodically review, and if 

appropriate revise, the NAAQS, based 

on the revised air quality criteria. 

Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary 

(health-based) standard as one ‘‘the 

attainment and maintenance of which in 

the judgment of the Administrator, 

based on such criteria and allowing an 

adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite 

to protect the public health.’’ In setting 

primary NAAQS that are ‘‘requisite’’ to 

protect public health, as provided in 

section 109(b), EPA’s task is to establish 

standards that are neither more nor less 

stringent than necessary for these 

purposes. See generally Whitman v. 

American Trucking Associations, 531 

U.S. 457, 465–472, 475–76 (2001). 

Pursuant to those provisions, EPA 

completed its last review of the ozone 

NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October 

26, 2015). With respect to the primary 

standard, in that review EPA 

determined that the NAAQS should be 

revised to provide the requisite 

protection of public health (80 FR 

65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly, 

based on careful consideration of the 

extensive information in the record, 

including a thorough review of 

scientific evidence and information 

about ozone-related health effects, 

quantitative assessments that estimated 

public health risks associated with just 

meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and 

various alternative standards that were 

considered, advice from EPA’s Clean 

Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

(CASAC), and public comments 

received in response to the proposal, the 

Administrator revised the level of the 

primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts 

per million, and retained the other 

elements of the prior standard 

(indicator, form, and averaging time) (80 

FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so 

doing, she concluded that the revised 

primary standard is requisite to protect 

public health, including the health of atrisk populations, with an adequate 

margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October 

26, 2015).1 EPA provided notice and an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposal for this action (79 FR 75234, 

December 17, 2014) and there was an 

opportunity to file petitions for judicial 

review pursuant to CAA section 307. 

Similarly, EPA completed its last 

periodic review of the PM NAAQS in 

2012, and published notice of its 

decision to revise the PM NAAQS in 

2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). 

With regard to the primary NAAQS for 

PM2.5, in that review EPA revised the 

annual PM2.5 standard, including by 

lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) so as to provide 

increased protection against health 

effects associated with long- and shortterm exposures (including premature 

mortality, increased hospital admissions 

and emergency department visits, and 

development of chronic respiratory 

disease), and retained the 24-hour PM2.5

standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR 

3086, January 15, 2013).2 The 

Administrator concluded that with the 

revisions in that review the suite of 

standards would be requisite to protect 

public health with an adequate margin 

of safety against health effects 

potentially associated with long- and 

short-term PM2.5 exposures (78 FR 3164, 

January 15, 2013). EPA provided notice 

and an opportunity for public comment 

on the proposal for this action (77 FR 

38890, June 29, 2012) and there was an 

opportunity to file petitions for judicial 

review pursuant to CAA section 307. 

Since then, EPA has initiated the next 

periodic review of the air quality criteria 

and NAAQS for PM (see 79 FR 71764, 

December 3, 2014; 81 FR 22977–78, 

April 19, 2016). 

These actions revising the primary 

NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the 

related conclusions that the 2012 PM 

NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are 

requisite to protect the public health 

with an adequate margin of safety, are 

beyond the scope of this action. This 

action concerns a SIP submission under 

CAA section 110, and under section 

110(a) such plans are to ‘‘provide[ ] for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of the primary NAAQS. 

EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the 

NAAQS when taking action on 

proposed SIP modifications related to 

that pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably 

focuses on a determination of whether 

a SIP amendment will ensure 

attainment and maintenance with the 

NAAQS as the relevant and applicable 

standard for approvals of SIP revisions 

under CAA section 110. 

In the matter at hand, Idaho requested 

a revision to the ozone concentration 

level at which IDEQ may authorize 

(authorization level) agricultural crop 

residue burning (CRB). The requested 

revision does not change the 

authorization levels for any other 

NAAQS and all other CRB requirements 

remain unchanged. For the reasons 

provided in our proposal for this action, 

we conclude that approval of Idaho’s 

submitted SIP revisions will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Clean Air 

Act. 83 FR 2955, January 22, 2018. 

Comment 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about Idaho’s failure to evaluate 

how an increase in ozone emissions 

from crop residue burning would 

interact with other pollutants to impact 

public health. The commenters argued 

that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate 

that its proposed SIP revisions will not 

increase risks to public health. Several 

commenters objected to the SIP revision 

on the basis that the changes are not in 

the public interest and constitutes a 

weakening of a health-based standard. 

Commenters cited both impacts to 

public health associated with crop 

residue burning from both ozone and 

fine particles (PM2.5). One commenter 

asserted that Idaho did not consider the 

cumulative public health impacts of 

frequent or multiple exposures to PM 

from sources including both CRB and 

wildfires. They argue that Idaho did not 

adequately consider other pollutants 

(such as PM or CO) described as ‘‘byproducts’’ of biomass burning, and more 

specifically did not consider the 

combined effects of PM2.5, CO and 

ozone, as well as toxics such as 

‘‘benzene, PAH’s [sic] and others’’ that 

are in the air as a result of either CRB 

or from wildfires. One commenter 

argued that in the absence of 

‘‘conclusive studies of the effects of 

breathing all these substances at once, 

. . . maintaining the 75% of all NAAQS 

is the only proven way’’ to protect 

public health. The Idaho Conservation 

League (ICL) argued that Idaho’s SIP 

submission ‘‘failed to provide sufficient 

justification that remaining CAA 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28384 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements would not be violated’’ 

and specifically cited section 101 of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)) to 

support its assertion. 

Response 

As explained in EPA’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking in this matter, 

whether or not a SIP revision will 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA is 

the relevant basis for approval or 

disapproval. SIPs, under CAA section 

110, implement the NAAQS contained 

in CAA section 109 which are specific 

to the six criteria pollutants: Carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) such as benzene and PAHs, in 

general, are not regulated under Title I 

of the CAA and are not relevant to EPA 

determinations of whether or not a SIP 

revision meets the relevant 

requirements of the Act. Contrary to the 

arguments raised by these commenters, 

EPA does not have authority under the 

CAA to consider whether a proposed 

SIP revision will result in a general 

increased risk to public health (whether 

it be from one pollutant considered in 

isolation or the synergistic effects of 

human exposure to multiple pollutants 

interacting with one another) so long as 

the state can demonstrate that the SIP 

will result in the attainment or 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS. 

ICL cites CAA section 101(b)(1) in 

support of its assertion that Idaho’s SIP 

submission does not meet the 

requirements of the CAA, and that Idaho 

had not provided a sufficient 

justification that CAA requirements not 

related to the ozone NAAQS would not 

be violated. CAA section 101(b)(1) 

provides a declaration of one of the 

purposes of Title I of the Act, namely 

‘‘to protect and enhance the quality of 

the Nation’s air resources so as to 

promote the public health and welfare 

and the productive capacity of its 

population.’’ EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that CAA section 

101(b)(1) authorizes EPA to disapprove 

a SIP revision based on the cumulative 

impacts of pollutants in evaluating a 

state’s implementation plan under Title 

I. 

Comment 

One commenter disputed Idaho’s 

assertion that raising the burn 

authorization trigger from 75% to 90% 

of the ozone NAAQS will facilitate 

authorizing burning on days when the 

conditions for pollutant dispersion are 

better. Multiple commenters asserted 

that Idaho did not consider alternative 

options to crop residue burning, 

including the option of simply not 

authorizing burns on days when the 

NAAQS will exceed the current 75% 

burning authorization level (e.g., making 

no changes to the current SIP-approved 

rules). The commenters cited the 

current 75% of the NAAQS SIP limit to 

be the product of a compromise of 

interests, and one that anticipated that 

monitored averages would not be an 

adequate gauge of actual PM2.5 or other 

criteria pollutant exposure, and thus 

provided a margin of safety to public 

health that the proposed SIP revision 

would eliminate. One commenter stated 

that the ozone monitoring network in 

Idaho could be ‘‘more robust.’’ 

Response 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Failure to consider 

alternatives to the proposed SIP revision 

is not a basis for disapproval. Even if the 

existing SIP burning threshold was 

originally established as a consensusbased standard at the state level taking 

into account the factors identified by the 

commenters, EPA cannot substitute its 

judgement or policy preferences for 

Idaho’s lawfully submitted SIP revision 

so long as the SIP revision is consistent 

with the CAA’s requirements. As 

explained in EPA’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking, EPA concludes that Idaho 

has adequately demonstrated that the 

SIP revision will not interfere with 

continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in Idaho. Potential effects of the 

revision on attainment and maintenance 

is limited to the ozone NAAQS because 

the SIP submission does not alter any 

requirements related to other criteria 

pollutants. Under such circumstances, 

nothing in the CAA prohibits a state 

from modifying its SIP requirements to 

address its current air quality 

management needs. 

As explained in EPA’s notification of 

proposed approval, EPA concludes that 

Idaho has adequately demonstrated that 

it will continue to attain the ozone 

NAAQS after raising its ozone burning 

threshold. To the extent that the 

commenter is raising concerns about the 

adequacy of the Idaho ozone monitoring 

network to detect ozone NAAQS 

violations, it is relevant to note that EPA 

regularly assesses the adequacy of 

states’ monitoring networks for all 

pollutants pursuant to its review of each 

state’s Annual Network Monitoring 

Plan. EPA’s most recent evaluation of 

the Idaho ozone monitoring network 

was addressed in its November 8, 2017, 

approval letter (included in the docket 

for this action). EPA’s approval letter 

identified areas where an ozone monitor 

may need to be added in the future. EPA 

will continue to monitor the adequacy 

of the ozone monitoring network to 

determine if the network must be 

expanded to comply with 40 CFR part 

58 requirements. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving, and incorporating 

by reference where appropriate in 

Idaho’s SIP, all revisions requested by 

Idaho on September 22, 2017 to the 

following provisions: 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 (Burn 

Approval Criteria, state effective 

February 28, 2018); and 

• Idaho Code 39–114 (Open Burning 

of Crop Residue, state effective February 

28, 2018). 

We have determined that the 

submitted SIP revisions are consistent 

with section 110 and part C of Title I of 

the CAA. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is approving 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, we are incorporating by reference 

the provisions described above in 

Section III. Final Action and set forth 

below, as amendments to 40 CFR part 

52. EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 10 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

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 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this final 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); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28385 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where 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 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. 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 CAA section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 20, 2018. 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 CAA 

section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Administrative 

practice and procedure, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 7, 2018. 

Chris Hladick, 

Regional Administrator, EPA 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. Section 52.670 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), under table 

entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Idaho 

Regulations and Statutes’’: 

■ i. Revising entry ‘‘621’’; 

■ ii. Removing entry ‘‘Section 1 of 

House bill 557, codified at Idaho Code 

Section 39–114’’; and 

■ iii. Adding an entry at the end of the 

table. 

■ b. In paragraph (e), under the table 

entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Idaho 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures’’, adding an entry 

at the end of the table. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval 

date Explanations 

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

*******

621 ....................................... Burn Determination ............. 2/28/2018, 4/2/2008 6/19/2018, [Insert Federal 

Register citation]; 8/1/ 

2008, 73 FR 44915.

* * * * * * * 

State Statutes 

Section 3 of Senate Bill 

1009, codified at Idaho 

Code Section 39–114.

Open Burning of Crop Residue.2/28/2018 6/19/2018, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * (e) * * * 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
28386 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

*******

Open Burning of Crop Residue State Implementation 

Plan Revisions.

State-wide ........................... 9/22/2017, 10/23/2017 6/19/2018, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Original submission and 

supplemental modeling 

analyses 

[FR Doc. 2018–13046 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, 

and 1852 

NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Technical amendments. 

SUMMARY: NASA is making technical 

amendments to the NASA FAR 

Supplement (NFS) to provide needed 

editorial changes. 

DATES: Effective: June 19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Geoffrey Sage, NASA, Office of 

Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy 

Division, via email at geoffrey.s.sage@

nasa.gov, or telephone (202) 358–2420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

As part of NASA’s retrospective 

review of existing regulations NASA is 

conducting periodic reviews of the 

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to ensure 

the accuracy of information 

disseminated to the acquisition 

community. This rule makes 

administrative changes to the NFS to 

correct typographical errors as well as 

inadvertent omissions from prior 

rulemaking actions. A summary of 

changes follows: 

• Section 1801.105–1, paragraph 

(b)(iii), is revised to update the internet 

link to ‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ 

procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ’’. 

• Section 1803.906, paragraph (d), is 

revised by replacing the word ‘‘Unites’’ 

with the word ‘‘United’’. 

• Section 1804.170 is revised to 

remove the paragraph designations ‘‘(a)’’ 

and ‘‘(b)’’ and combine the two 

paragraphs. 

• Section 1815.203–72 is revised to 

remove the redundant words ‘‘and 

RFOs’’. 

• Section 1815.305–70, paragraph 

(a)(3), is revised by replacing the word 

‘‘eficiencies’’ with the word 

‘‘deficiencies’’. 

• Section 1852.215–79 is revised by 

replacing the clause reference ‘‘52.215– 

21’’ with the clause reference ‘‘52.215– 

9’’. 

• Section 1852.216–76 is revised to 

remove the words ‘‘, e.g., issuance of 

unilateral modification by contracting 

officer’’ from paragraph (c). 

• Section 1852.245–71 is revised to 

provide space for a contracting officer to 

‘‘check’’ if property and services are 

provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(11). 

• Section 1852.247–71 is revised by 

replacing the word ‘‘Mammals’’ with the 

word ‘‘Mammal’’ in paragraph (a). 

List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 1801, 

1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852 

Government procurement. 

Geoffrey Sage, 

NASA FAR Supplement Manager. 

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1803, 

1804, 1815, and 1852 are amended as 

follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for parts 

1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

PART 1801—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS SYSTEM 

1801.105–1 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 1801.105–1 by 

removing ‘‘http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ 

office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm’’ 

from paragraph (b)(iii) and adding 

‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ 

procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ’’ in its place. 

PART 1803—IMPROPER BUSINESS 

PRACTICES AND PERSONAL 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1803.906 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend section 1803.906 by 

removing from paragraph (d) ‘‘Unites’’ 

and adding ‘‘United’’ in its place. 

PART 1804–ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS 

1804.170 [Amended] 

■ 4. Revise section 1804.170 to read as 

follows: 

1804.170 Contract effective date. 

‘‘Contract effective date’’ means the 

date agreed upon by the parties for 

beginning the period of performance 

under the contract. In no case shall the 

effective date precede the date on which 

the contracting officer or designated 

higher approval authority signs the 

document. Costs incurred before the 

contract effective date are unallowable 

unless they qualify as precontract costs 

(see FAR 31.205–32) and the clause 

prescribed at 1831.205–70 is used. 

PART 1815—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

1815.203–72 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend section 1815.203–72 by 

removing the words ‘‘and RFOs’’. 

1815.305–70 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend section 1815.305–70 by 

removing from paragraph (a)(3) the 

word ‘‘eficiencies’’ and adding 

‘‘deficiencies’’ in its place. 

PART 1852—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

1852.215–79 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend section 1852.215–79 by— 

■ a. In the clause heading, removing 

‘‘(DEC 1988)’’ and adding ‘‘(JUN 2018)’’ 

in its place; and 

■ b. Removing ‘‘52.215–21’’ and adding 

‘‘52.215–9’’ in its place. 

1852.216–76 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend section 1852.216–76 by— 

■ a. In the clause heading, removing 

‘‘(APR 2012)’’ and adding ‘‘(JUN 2018)’’ 

in its place; and 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (c) ‘‘, e.g., 

issuance of unilateral modification by 

contracting officer’’. 

1852.245–71 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend section 1852.245–71 by 

revising the date of the clause and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES