[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21702-21714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8706]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0724, FRL-9657-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard; Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) submittals from the State of Idaho demonstrating that the Idaho 
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 
promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is proposing to find that 
the current Idaho SIP meets the following 110(a)(2) infrastructure 
elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 
(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is taking 
no action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) at this time. We will address 
the requirements of this sub-element in a separate action. EPA is also 
proposing to approve a SIP revision that applies Idaho's Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program to greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emitting sources above certain thresholds, updates Idaho's SIP to 
incorporate by reference revised versions of specific federal 
regulations, and removes unnecessary language from the SIP due to the 
incorporation by reference of the federal NAAQS and PSD regulations. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to rescind the Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) put in place to ensure the availability of a permitting authority 
for greenhouse gas emitting sources in Idaho.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2010-0724, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d5f3c3d205d786f61646e524e6260606863797e4d687d6c236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="702241405d2005121c19132f331f1d1d151e0403301500115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2010-0724. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless

[[Page 21703]]

you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at telephone number: 
(206) 553-6357, email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caa2aba6a6e4a1b8a3b9bea3a48aafbaabe4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7018111c1c5e1b02190304191e301500115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>, or the EPA Region 
10 address located in the ADDRESSES section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as 
follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for the action that EPA is proposing?
    a. Section 110(a)(1) and (2)
    b. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of PSD Programs
    c. Annual Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of Federal 
Regulations
III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 
110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. What is the scope of action on infrastructure submittals?
V. What is EPA's analysis of Idaho's submittal?
VI. Scope of Proposed Action
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submittals from the State of Idaho demonstrating that the SIP meets the 
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated for 
ozone on July 18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each 
state, after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs 
to ensure that they meet the requirements of the ``infrastructure'' 
elements of section 110(a)(2). The Idaho Department of Environmental 
Quality (DEQ) submitted a certification to EPA on September 15, 2008, 
certifying that Idaho's SIP meets the infrastructure obligations for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The 
certification included an analysis of Idaho's SIP as it relates to each 
section of the infrastructure requirements with regard to the 1997 8-
hour ozone and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Subsequently, on June 24, 
2010, Idaho submitted an updated certification to EPA for CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(D) and 110(a)(2)(G) for multiple NAAQS, including the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the 
following 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), 
(K), (L), and (M). This action does not address infrastructure 
requirements with respect to the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS which EPA 
intends to act on at a later time.
    EPA is also proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision 
submitted by Idaho DEQ on June 20, 2011. This SIP revision includes 
updates to the incorporation by reference of certain federal 
regulations, changes to Idaho's rules on the sulfur content of fuels, 
and revisions to sections of the Idaho SIP that have become unnecessary 
due to the incorporation by reference of federal NAAQS and PSD 
regulations. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve a portion of 
the June 20, 2011, SIP revision that applies Idaho's Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program to greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emitting sources at the emissions thresholds and in the same time 
frames as those specified in the PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Final 
Rule (Tailoring Rule) (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010). This proposed 
revision addresses the flaws discussed in EPA's SIP call to states 
which found that several state SIPs, including Idaho's, did not apply 
PSD to GHG-emitting sources.\1\ EPA subsequently issued a FIP which 
included Idaho.\2\ Upon final approval of this GHG-related PSD program 
revision, EPA is proposing to rescind the FIP at 40 CFR 52.37 which 
provides for EPA to be the PSD permitting authority for GHG-emitting 
sources in Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the PSD 
Program to Sources of GHG Emissions: Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy and SIP Call (75 FR 77698, Dec. 13, 2010).
    \2\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the PSD 
Program to Sources of GHG Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan (75 
FR 82246, Dec. 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of the June 20, 2011, 
revision that updates the incorporation by reference of the following 
regulations revised as of July 1, 2010: Requirements for Preparation, 
Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51; 
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 
part 50; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 
52; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR 
part 53; and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. EPA is 
also proposing to approve the addition of the incorporation by 
reference of the final rule for the Primary National Air Quality 
Standards for Sulfur Dioxide (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). EPA is not 
acting on the portions of the June 20, 2011, SIP revision that are not 
related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA 
or the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the Act. Finally, EPA 
is proposing to approve the portions of the June 20, 2011, revision 
that remove language from the Idaho SIP that has become unnecessary due 
to Idaho's incorporation by reference of the federal NAAQS at 40 CFR 
part 50 and the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. Specifically, 
EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the subsections of IDAPA 
58.01.01.577 ``Ambient Air Quality Standards for Specific Pollutants'' 
that relate to pollutants for which EPA has promulgated a NAAQS, and 
which are now unnecessary because Idaho has incorporated the federal 
NAAQS by reference into the state SIP at IDAPA 58.01.01.107. EPA is 
also proposing to approve the changes to Idaho's PSD regulations at 
IDAPA 58.01.01.581.01 to remove the increments table in its entirety, 
and to instead reference the federal PSD increment requirements 
contained in 40 CFR 52.21(c), which are incorporated by reference in 
the Idaho SIP at IDAPA 58.01.01.107. EPA is not acting on the revision 
to IDAPA 58.01.01.008 because

[[Page 21704]]

it is related to Idaho's Tier I Operating Permit Program required under 
title V of the CAA and is not part of the SIP. In addition, EPA is not 
acting on the revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.751 because it is related to a 
non-criteria pollutant and is not part of the SIP. The proposed 
revisions to Idaho's rules for the sulfur content of fuels are not 
being acted on at this time. EPA intends to address the remainder of 
the June 20, 2011, SIP revision in a subsequent rulemaking.

II. What is the background for the action that EPA is proposing?

a. Section 110(a)(1) and (2)

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone. EPA 
revised the ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour averaging period which 
replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the 
NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 
38856).
    The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states within 3 years after 
promulgation of a new or revised standard. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 
require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions 
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and 
maintenance of the standards, so-called ''infrastructure'' 
requirements. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However, intervening 
litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone standard created uncertainty 
about how to proceed, and many states did not provide the required 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the newly promulgated standard.
    To help states meet this statutory requirement for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements under 
section 110(a)(1) and (2).\3\ This guidance provides that to the extent 
an existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, 
states need only to certify that fact via a letter to EPA. Section 
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to 
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may 
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the 
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and 
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the 
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary 
depending upon what provisions the state's federally-approved SIP 
already contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states 
typically have met the basic program elements required in section 
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous 
ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, 
October 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of PSD Programs

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions 
that provide the background for this action. Please see the preambles 
for these GHG-related actions for more background.
    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the 
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct from 
one another, establish the overall framework for the proposed action on 
the Idaho SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly 
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute 
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action (74 FR 66496, Dec. 
15, 2009), the ``Johnson Memo Reconsideration'' (75 FR 17004, Apr. 2, 
2010), the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule'' (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010), and 
the ``Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010). Taken together and 
in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory 
requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor 
vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took 
effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 
sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD 
requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last 
action in the Tailoring Rule, which more specifically, established 
appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability 
of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.

c. Annual Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of Federal Regulations

    Idaho incorporates by reference various portions of Federal 
regulations codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). However, 
when a Federal regulation originally incorporated by reference into the 
Idaho SIP at IDAPA 58.01.01 on a specific date is subsequently changed, 
IDAPA 58.01.01 becomes out of date, and in some cases, inconsistent 
with the revised version of the Federal regulation. To avoid potential 
inconsistencies and keep IDAPA 58.01.01 up to date with changes in 
Federal regulations, Idaho submits a revision to its SIP on an annual 
basis, updating the IBR citations in IDAPA 58.01.01 so they reflect any 
changes made to the Federal regulations during that year. Idaho's 
current SIP includes the approved incorporation by reference of 
specific federal regulations revised as of July 1, 2008. In Idaho's 
June 20, 2011, SIP revision, the state has included the 2009 and 2010 
annual IBR updates. The updates for the 2009 annual IBR update are 
superseded by the 2010 annual IBR update which revises the citation 
dates for specific federal regulations as of July 1, 2010.

III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2)?

    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements 
for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. 
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for 
``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly established or 
revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP infrastructure elements 
such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are 
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 
requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed 
below:
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the 
applicable requirements of part D.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
and visibility protection.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.
    EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance clarified that two elements 
identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3 year 
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 
necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within 3 years 
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the 
time the nonattainment area plan

[[Page 21705]]

requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 172. These requirements 
are: (i) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent 
that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title 
I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) 
which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, 
Title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address 
infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 
nonattainment new source review (NSR) or 110(a)(2)(I).
    This action also does not address the requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which have been 
addressed by two separate actions issued by EPA. On November 26, 2010, 
EPA approved the SIP submittal from the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality to address provisions of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR 72705). The 
provisions approved in this action included three prongs of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i): significant contribution to nonattainment of these 
NAAQS in any other state (prong 1); interference with maintenance of 
these NAAQS by any other state (prong 2); and interference with any 
other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration 
(PSD) of its air quality with respect to these NAAQS (prong 3). 
Subsequently, on June 22, 2011, EPA approved portions of a SIP revision 
submitted by Idaho as meeting the requirements of the fourth prong of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as it applies to visibility for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (prong 4) (76 FR 36329, June 22, 2011).
    This action also does not address the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding state boards. EPA will address the 
requirements of this sub-element in a separate action. Furthermore, EPA 
interprets the section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not 
being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in 
part C are not changed by a new NAAQS.

IV. What is the scope of action on infrastructure submittals?

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for various states across the country. 
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns 
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive 
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP 
submissions.\4\ The commenters specifically raised concerns involving 
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other 
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part 
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) existing 
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA 
and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); and (ii) 
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions 
limits with limited public process or without requiring further 
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's 
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues 
for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address 
the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new 
source review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements 
of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor 
source NSR''); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration programs that may be inconsistent with 
current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule'' (67 FR 
80186, Dec. 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR 
Reform''). In light of the comments, EPA believes that its statements 
in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to 
these four individual issues should be explained in greater depth. It 
is important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same position with 
respect to these four substantive issues in this action on the 
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS submittal from 
Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated 
May 31, 2011. Docket <greek-i> EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse 
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that 
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this 
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this 
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate 
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these 
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice 
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of 
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not 
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under 
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP 
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of 
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger 
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted 
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP 
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess 
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further 
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such 
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for 
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor 
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear 
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit 
reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four 
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on 
the 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP for Idaho.
    Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted 
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM 
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts 
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA 
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context 
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the 
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for 
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any 
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. 
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not 
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive 
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with 
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP 
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it 
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP 
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to 
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) 
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from 
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain 
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four 
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may

[[Page 21706]]

be addressed separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA 
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP 
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and 
that these SIPS are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, 
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA 
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states 
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as 
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the 
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of 
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a 
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other 
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions 
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, 
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility 
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review 
permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of 
part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that 
address other specific matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general 
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) 
provides more details concerning the required contents of these 
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory 
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required 
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of 
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal 
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions, 
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and 
substantive provisions.\5\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) 
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require 
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through 
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must 
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under 
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a substantive program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section 
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to 
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event 
of such an emergency.
    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure 
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent 
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require 
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic 
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., 
``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 
Revisions to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; Final Rule'' (70 FR 25162, 
May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase ``contribute 
significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP 
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long 
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally 
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for 
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\7\ This illustrates that 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be 
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA 
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of 
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without 
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate 
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with 
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with 
different schedules.\8\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that 
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into 
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS 
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere 
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's SIP. 
Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be 
relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or 
revised NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that 
NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary 
for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very 
different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 
the content of an infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element 
from a state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus 
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \8\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See, ``Guidance for State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from 
William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to 
Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \9\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required 
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), 
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements 
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by 
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear 
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements 
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D 
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be 
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type 
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) 
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA 
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the 
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent 
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has 
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes 
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP 
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in 
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in 
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for 
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for 
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
and

[[Page 21707]]

the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\10\ Within this guidance document, EPA 
described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the 
Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs, which 
it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including 
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment 
and maintenance of the standards.'' \11\ As further identification of 
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the 
guidance document included a short description of the various elements 
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of 
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such 
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic 
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an 
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief 
description of the required elements.'' \12\ EPA also stated its belief 
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self 
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should 
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA 
Regions.'' \13\ For the one exception to that general assumption, 
however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the 
submittals for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, EPA assumed that each 
State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine 
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic 
structure of the State's SIP for the NAAQS in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett, 
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \11\ Id., at page 2.
    \12\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \13\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by 
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues 
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and 
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in 
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be 
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed 
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations 
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\14\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure 
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, but 
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific 
1997 ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 2007 
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among 
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the 
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific 
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues 
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues 
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform 
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the 
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended 
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to 
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context 
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make 
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP 
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA 
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP 
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies 
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states 
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues 
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as 
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to 
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as 
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds 
true for this action on the 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP for 
Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' 
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25, 
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP 
requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for 
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic 
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. 
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and 
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include 
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the 
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to 
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are 
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus 
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP 
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's 
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS because of 
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for 
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in 
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\15\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\16\

[[Page 21708]]

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure 
SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential 
existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent 
reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for 
action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate 
to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's 
discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure 
SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 
bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a 
subsequent action.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific 
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of 
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21,639 (April 18, 2011).
    \16\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors 
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See, 
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 
Implementation Plans; Final Rule'' (75 FR 82536, Dec. 30, 2010). EPA 
has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \17\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado 
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion 
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 
110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 
26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is EPA's analysis of Idaho's submittal?

    The Idaho SIP submittal cites an overview of the Idaho air quality 
laws and regulations including portions of the Idaho Environmental 
Protection and Health Act (EPHA) and the Rules of the Control of Air 
Pollution in Idaho. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 
annually updates and refers to EPA for incorporation by reference of 
all NAAQS and updates to 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W--Guidelines on Air 
Quality Models. The Idaho submittal addresses the elements of section 
110(a)(2) as described below. A more detailed review and analysis of 
the Idaho infrastructure SIP elements is provided in the Technical 
Support Document (TSD), which is found in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission 
limits and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as 
schedules and timetables for compliance. EPA notes that the specific 
nonattainment area plan requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(I) are 
subject to the timing requirement of Section 172, not the timing 
requirement of Section 110(a)(1).
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal cites several laws and 
regulations including Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(d) which provides 
Idaho DEQ with the broad power to supervise and administer a system to 
safeguard air quality. In addition, Idaho Code Section 39-115 provides 
Idaho DEQ with specific authority for the issuance of air quality 
permits and to charge and collect permit fees. Rules relating to air 
quality permits are found at IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 228, 300 
through 399 and 400 through 410. Estimates of ambient concentrations 
are based on air quality models, databases and other requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality 
Models). Idaho DEQ annually updates and refers to EPA for incorporation 
by reference of all national ambient air quality standards and updates 
to 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. IDAPA 58.01.01.401.03 provides DEQ with 
the authority to require a Tier II permit if it determines emission 
rate reductions are necessary to attain or maintain any ambient air 
quality standard or applicable prevention of significant deterioration 
(PSD) increments. Specific requirements for major sources in attainment 
or unclassifiable areas are listed in IDAPA 58.01.01.202, 205, and 209. 
Specific requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas are 
listed in 58.01.01.202, 204, and 209. Federal NSR requirements are 
incorporated in both IDAPA 58.01.01.204 and 205. Please see the TSD in 
the docket for this action for a detailed description of the above-
referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: EPA most recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107, which 
incorporates by reference EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50 for the 
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, revised 
as of July 1, 2008, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). We are 
proposing to concurrently approve the portion of the June 20, 2011, SIP 
revision which updates the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 
50, 40 CFR part 51, 40 CFR part 52, 40 CFR part 53, and 40 CFR part 58 
at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 as of July 1, 2010. Idaho has no areas 
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Idaho 
regulates emissions of ozone and its precursors through its SIP-
approved major and minor source permitting programs. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. 
EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are 
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance \18\ and the Agency plans 
to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to 
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 
Shutdown.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, August 11, 
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance 
provisions. EPA believes that a number of states may have such 
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 
FR 45109), November 24, 1987, and the Agency plans to take action in 
the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance 
provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to 
correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide 
for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, 
collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these 
data available to EPA upon request.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal references IDAPA 
58.01.01.107 and IDAPA 58.01.01.576.05 in response to this requirement. 
These rules incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 50 National Primary 
and Secondary Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 52 Approval and 
Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 53 Ambient Air 
Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, and 40 CFR part 58 
Appendix B Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Quality Assurance 
Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration. These rules 
give Idaho authority to implement ambient air monitoring surveillance 
systems in accordance with the requirements of referenced sections of 
the CAA.
    Idaho DEQ collects and reports to EPA ambient air quality data for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, CO, ozone and 
SO<INF>X</INF>. These data are reviewed, verified and validated prior 
to being submitted to EPA's Air Quality System, or AQS, no later than 
90 days from the end of the calendar quarter from which the data was 
collected. On July 1 of each year,

[[Page 21709]]

the previous year's ambient air monitoring data is certified by the 
Idaho DEQ Air Division Administrator as being true, accurate and 
complete.
    EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended 
to meet requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Idaho to EPA on 
January 15, 1980 (40 CFR 52.670) and approved by EPA on July 28, 1982. 
This air quality monitoring plan has been subsequently updated, with 
the most recent submittal dated July 1, 2011. EPA approved the plan on 
September 6, 2011. This plan includes, among other things, the 
locations for the ozone monitoring network. Idaho makes this plan 
available for public review on Idaho DEQ's Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. The 
Web site also includes an interactive map of Idaho's air monitoring 
network. We are proposing to concurrently approve the portion of the 
June 20, 2011, SIP revision which updates the incorporation by 
reference of 40 CFR part 50, 40 CFR part 51, 40 CFR part 52, 40 CFR 
part 53, and 40 CFR part 58 at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 as of July 1, 
2010. Based on the foregoing, EPA proposes to approve the Idaho SIP as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing 
for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction 
of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD 
and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal refers to Idaho Code 
Section 39-108 which provides DEQ with the authority to enforce both 
administratively and civily the Idaho Environmental Protection and 
Health Act (EPHA), or any rule, permit or order promulgated pursuant to 
the EPHA. Criminal enforcement is authorized at Idaho Code Section 39-
109. Emergency order authority, similar to that under section 303 of 
the CAA, is located at Idaho Code Section 39-112. The Idaho submission 
also refers to laws and regulations requiring stationary source 
compliance with the NAAQS discussed in their response to 110(a)(2)(A). 
Please see the TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed 
description of the above-referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: To generally meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C), a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and 
minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. As explained above, in this action EPA is not evaluating 
nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program 
required by part D of the CAA. In addition, Idaho has no nonattainment 
areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA believes Idaho code provides DEQ with the authority to enforce 
the Idaho EPHA, air quality regulations, permits, and orders 
promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. Idaho DEQ staffs and maintains an 
enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. Idaho 
DEQ may issue emergency orders to reduce or discontinue emission of air 
contaminants where air emissions cause or contribute to imminent and 
substantial endangerment. Enforcement cases may be referred to the 
state Attorney General's Office for civil or criminal enforcement. EPA 
therefore proposes to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements 
of 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on 
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). Idaho's PSD program includes NOx as a 
precursor for ozone. However, EPA previously noted that Idaho's PSD 
program had a deficiency because the state did not have the authority 
to implement the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG emissions 
(75 FR 77698, Dec. 13, 2010). Since that time, Idaho undertook rule 
revisions and submitted a SIP revision to EPA on June 20, 2011, which 
addresses this deficiency. The Idaho SIP revision includes an update to 
the state's incorporation by reference of federal PSD program 
regulations at 40 CFR part 52, including 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 
2010, and adds a new incorporation by reference of the Tailoring Rule 
because it became effective after the July 1, 2010, citation date. 
These federal rules are incorporated by reference into Idaho rules at 
IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03. As a result of EPA's approval of the SIP 
revision, Idaho's SIP will apply to GHG emitting sources as specified 
in the amended definition of ``subject to regulation'' in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(49). Idaho's SIP will also phase in PSD program applicability 
to sources at the emissions thresholds and time frames laid out in the 
Tailoring Rule. In this action EPA is proposing to approve the portion 
of Idaho's June 20, 2011, SIP revision to apply Idaho's PSD program to 
greenhouse gas emitting sources at the emissions thresholds and in the 
same time frames as those specified in the Tailoring Rule. In 
conjunction with this proposed approval of Idaho's PSD program for GHG-
emitting sources, EPA is proposing to rescind the FIP at 40 CFR 52.37 
which provides for EPA to be the PSD permitting authority for GHG-
emitting sources in Idaho. As a result, EPA is proposing to approve 
Idaho's SIP as consistent with the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C) 
as it relates to PSD for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
state rules with regard to NSR Reform requirements for major sources. 
EPA most recently approved changes to Idaho's NSR program, including 
NSR Reform, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). In addition, EPA has 
determined that Idaho's minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section 
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates emissions of ozone and its 
precursors. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove the state's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent 
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. 
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that 
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA 
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with 
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in 
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to 
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states 
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets 
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable 
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to 
new and modified minor sources.
    Based on the foregoing, EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho SIP 
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, or from interfering with 
measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 
or to protect visibility in another state.
    As noted above, this action does not address the requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone

[[Page 21710]]

NAAQS which have been addressed by two separate findings issued by EPA 
on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72705) and June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36329). 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring 
compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). 
Specifically, section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to 
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
    EPA analysis: EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD 
program on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). Idaho's PSD regulations 
provide for notice consistent with the requirements of the EPA PSD 
program. Idaho issues notice of its draft permits and neighboring 
states consistently receive copies of those drafts. The state also has 
no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. EPA is 
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary 
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and 
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited 
by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or 
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the 
requirements respecting state boards under CAA Section 128 and (iii) 
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or 
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation 
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring 
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal addresses 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding adequate personnel, funding and authority and 
refers to specific Idaho statute including Idaho Code Section 39-106 
which gives the Idaho DEQ Director the authority to hire personnel to 
carry out duties of the department. In addition, Idaho Code 39-105 lays 
out the powers and duties of Idaho DEQ's director and gives the 
director the power to utilize any federal aid and grants. Finally, 
Idaho Code Section 39-107B establishes the Department of Environmental 
Quality Fund which receives appropriated funds, transfers from the 
general fund, federal grants, fees for services, permitting fees and 
other program income.
    With regard to the state boards requirements under CAA Section 128, 
Idaho indicated in its submission that the state's Board of 
Environmental Quality, established pursuant to Idaho Code Section 39-
107, meets the requirements of Section 128. Idaho refers to the State's 
Ethics in Government Act of 1990 at Idaho Code Section 59-701, et seq. 
which lays out the ethics requirements for public officials including 
acting in the public interest, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and 
procedures for excusing board members where conflicts exist.
    With regard to assurances that the state has responsibility for 
ensuring adequate implementation of the plan where the state has relied 
on local or regional government agencies, DEQ addressed the agreements 
with locals on nonattainment plans. On certain nonattainment plans, DEQ 
has entered into agreements for local implementation and enforcement of 
measures such as wood stove and street sweeping ordinances. When DEQ 
relies on local enforcement it also is able to enforce the local 
ordinance under its own authorities. For instance, failure to street 
sweep when required may constitute a violation of the requirement to 
control fugitive dust, IDAPA 58.01.01.650-651. If a resident failed to 
comply with a woodstove ordinance, then DEQ could issue the resident a 
Tier II permit and enforce the ordinance terms then included in the 
permit. Please see the TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed 
description of the above-referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: EPA is proposing to find that the above-listed laws 
and regulations provide Idaho DEQ with adequate authority and resources 
to carry out SIP obligations with respect to the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 
proposing to find that Idaho has provided necessary assurances that, 
where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, 
or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the 
state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the 
SIP with regards to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore EPA is 
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Idaho's SIP submission did not address all of the requirements of CAA 
Section 128, specifically the provision which requires a SIP to specify 
that a board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under 
the CAA to have at least a majority of members who represent the public 
interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from 
persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. EPA is 
taking no action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) at this time and will 
address these requirements in a separate action.

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, 
and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary 
steps by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions 
from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of 
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) 
correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission 
limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports 
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal states that DEQ's air 
quality permits are practically enforceable and contain requirements to 
(i) install, maintain and replace equipment, (ii) monitor emissions, 
and (iii) submit reports. IDAPA 58.01.01.121 provides authority to 
Idaho DEQ to require monitoring, recordkeeping and periodic reporting 
where sources may violate air quality provisions, orders or rules. In 
addition, the Idaho DEQ may issue information orders including 
requirements to conduct emissions monitoring, record keeping, reporting 
and other requirements. IDAPA 58.01.01.157 specifies test methods and 
procedures for source testing and reporting to the Idaho DEQ. Records 
are available for public inspection under Idaho's Public Records Act. 
Please see the TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed 
description of the above-referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: The provisions cited by Idaho's SIP submittal provide 
authority for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
sources subject to major and minor source permitting. EPA is proposing 
to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 
110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to 
address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to 
public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency 
episode provisions in their SIPs.

[[Page 21711]]

    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal cites Idaho Code 39-108 
which provides emergency order authority comparable to that in CAA 
Section 303. In addition, the Idaho submittal cites several Idaho 
regulations that comprise Idaho's Air Pollution Emergency Rules (IDAPA 
58.01.01.550-562) the purpose of which is ``to define criteria for an 
air pollution emergency, to formulate a plan for preventing or 
alleviating such an emergency, and to specify rules for carrying out 
the plan.'' Please see the TSD in the docket for this action for a 
detailed description of the above-referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: As noted in EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance, the 
significant harm level for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall remain 
unchanged at 0.60 ppm ozone, 2-hour average, as indicated in 40 CFR 
51.151. EPA believes that the existing ozone-related provisions of 40 
CFR 51 Subpart H remain appropriate. Idaho's regulations listed above, 
which were previously approved by EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217), 
continue to be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151. 
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of 
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of 
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality 
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of 
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of 
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to 
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal refers to Idaho Code 
Section 39-105(3)(d) which provides DEQ with the broad authority to 
revise rules, in accordance with Idaho administrative procedures for 
rulemaking, to meet national ambient air quality standards as 
incorporated by reference in IDAPA 58.01.01.107. Idaho also refers to 
provisions cited in their submittal related to permitting at CAA 
Section 110(a)(2)(A) discussed above to demonstrate that the Idaho SIP 
satisfies this requirement. Please see the TSD in the docket for this 
action for a detailed description of the above-referenced Idaho 
provisions.
    EPA analysis: EPA finds that Idaho has adequate authority to 
regularly update the state SIP to take into account revisions of the 
NAAQS and other related regulatory changes. In practice, Idaho 
regularly submits SIP revisions to EPA in order to revise the SIP for 
recent federal regulatory changes. EPA most recently approved revisions 
to Idaho's SIP on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    There are two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) not governed 
by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due 
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather 
due at the time of the nonattainment area plan requirements pursuant to 
section 172. These requirements are: (i) submissions required by 
section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit 
program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions 
required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment 
planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. As a result, this 
action does not address infrastructure elements related to section 
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or section 110(a)(2)(I).

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for 
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying 
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. Section 
110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are 
exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that 
can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, section 110(a)(2)(J) 
requires states to meet applicable requirements of Part C related to 
prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal cites laws and 
regulations relating to public participation processes for SIP 
revisions and permitting programs. Idaho DEQ consults with other state 
agencies, local agencies, and nongovernmental organizations, as well as 
with the environmental agencies of other states regarding air quality 
issues. Idaho refers to Idaho Code Section 39-105.03(c) which promotes 
outreach with local governments and Idaho Code Section 39-129 which 
provides authority for Idaho DEQ to enter into agreements with local 
governments. In addition, Idaho refers to its transportation conformity 
rules, and states that Idaho DEQ generally incorporates by reference 
the federal PSD and Nonattainment new source review programs. Please 
see the TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed description of 
the above-referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: Idaho's SIP includes specific provisions for 
consulting with local governments and Federal Land Managers as 
specified in CAA section 121, including the Idaho rules for major 
source PSD permitting and Tier II operating permits. Idaho DEQ 
routinely coordinates with local governments, states, federal land 
managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues and provides 
notice to appropriate agencies related to permitting actions. Idaho 
regularly participates in regional planning processes including the 
Western Regional Air Partnership which is a voluntary partnership of 
states, tribes, federal land managers, local air agencies and the US 
EPA whose purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air 
quality issues in the West. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for 
consultation with government officials for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Idaho actively participates and submits information to EPA's AIRNOW 
and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs. Idaho also provides the 
daily air quality index to the public on their Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm, as well as measures that can be 
taken to prevent exceedances. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 
the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 
for public notification for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP 
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, EPA 
has evaluated this requirement in the context of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
with respect to permitting. EPA most recently approved revisions to 
Idaho's PSD program on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). Idaho's PSD 
program regulates NO<INF>X</INF> as a precursor for ozone. Idaho has no 
nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA believes 
that, conditioned upon the finalization of the

[[Page 21712]]

rescission of the GHG FIP and approval of the SIP revision pertaining 
to the application of PSD permitting to the specified GHG sources that 
is part of this action, Idaho's SIP meets the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(J) for PSD for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As 
referenced in the analysis for section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA previously 
noted that Idaho's PSD program had a deficiency because the state did 
not have the authority to implement the PSD permitting program with 
respect to GHG emissions (75 FR 77698, Dec. 13, 2010). Since that time, 
Idaho undertook rule revisions and submitted a SIP revision to EPA on 
June 20, 2011, a portion of which addresses this deficiency. The Idaho 
SIP revision includes an update to the state's incorporation by 
reference of 40 CFR part 52, including federal PSD program regulations 
at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2010, and adds a new incorporation by 
reference of the Tailoring Rule because it became effective after the 
July 1, 2010 citation date. These federal rules are incorporated by 
reference into Idaho rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03. As a result, 
Idaho's SIP will apply to GHG emitting sources as specified in the 
amended definition of ``subject to regulation'' in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49). 
In this action EPA proposes to approve the portion of Idaho's June 20, 
2011, SIP revision to apply Idaho's PSD program to GHG emitting sources 
at the emissions thresholds and in the same time frames as those 
specified in the Tailoring Rule. In conjunction with this proposed 
approval of Idaho's PSD program for GHG-emitting sources, EPA is 
proposing to rescind the FIP at 40 CFR 52.37 which provides for EPA to 
be the PSD permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in Idaho. As a 
result, EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) with regard to PSD for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the 
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we 
find that there is no new visibility obligation triggered under section 
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the 
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may 
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air 
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the 
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, 
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air 
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    Idaho's submittal: Air quality modeling is conducted during 
development of revisions to the SIP, as appropriate for the state to 
demonstrate attainment with required air quality standards. Modeling is 
also addressed in Idaho's source permitting process as discussed at 
Section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Estimates of ambient concentrations are 
based on air quality models, data bases and other requirements 
specified in 40 CFR 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models) 
which is incorporated by reference under IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03. Please 
see the TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed description of 
the above-referenced Idaho provisions.
    EPA analysis: EPA previously approved Idaho regulations on air 
quality modeling into the SIP. EPA most recently approved IDAPA 
58.01.01.107, which incorporates by reference EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models) revised as of 
July 1, 2008, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719).
    We are proposing to concurrently approve the portion of the June 
20, 2011, SIP revision which updates the incorporation by reference of 
40 CFR part 50, 40 CFR part 51, 40 CFR part 52, 40 CFR part 53, and 40 
CFR part 58 at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 as of July 1, 2010, as previously 
discussed above. While Idaho has no nonattainment areas for ozone, 
Idaho has submitted modeling data to EPA related to other pollutants. 
For example, Idaho submitted to EPA the PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance 
Plan for Ada County/Boise Idaho Area which was supported by air quality 
modeling data. The maintenance plan was approved by EPA as a SIP 
revision on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61106). EPA is proposing to approve 
the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary 
source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, 
approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such time as the 
SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the state's 
title V operating permit program.
    Idaho's submittal: The Idaho SIP submittal states that CAA section 
110(a)(2)(L) requires owners and operators of major stationary sources 
to pay to the permitting authority fees to cover the costs of review, 
implementation and enforcement until a fee requirement is superseded 
with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee 
program under title V. EPA approved Idaho's title V permitting program 
on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective date of November 5, 
2001. EPA regularly reviews DEQ's title V fee program to determine if 
the fee structure is adequate to pay for the program and assure the 
funding is only going toward title V implementation.
    EPA analysis: EPA approved Idaho's title V permitting program on 
October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective date of November 5, 
2001. While Idaho's operating permit program is not formally approved 
into the state's SIP, it is a legal mechanism the state can use to 
ensure that Idaho DEQ has sufficient resources to support the air 
program, consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before EPA can 
grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to collect 
adequate fees. Idaho's title V permitting program included a 
demonstration that the state will collect a fee from title V sources 
above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). 
Idaho collects sufficient fees to administer the title V permit 
program. Therefore, EPA is proposing to conclude that Idaho has 
satisfied the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation 
and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP.
    Idaho's submittal: Consultation with a variety of different state 
and local organizations is a regular part of Idaho DEQ's process of 
developing SIP revisions. The requirements for plan preparation and 
public process include 40 CFR part 51, incorporated by reference under 
IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03.a. Idaho also referenced rules cited under 
110(a)(2)(J) above. Please see the TSD in the docket for this action 
for a detailed description of the above-referenced Idaho provisions.

[[Page 21713]]

    EPA analysis: EPA most recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107, which 
incorporates by reference EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51--
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation 
Plans--on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). As previously discussed 
above, we are proposing to approve portions of the June 20, 2011, SIP 
revision which update the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 51 
as of July 1, 2010, among other federal regulations. EPA most recently 
approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and 58.01.01.404 
which provide opportunity and procedures for public comment and notice 
to appropriate federal, state and local agencies on January 16, 2003 
(68 FR 2217). EPA is proposing to approve Idaho's SIP as meeting the 
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.

VI. Scope of Proposed Action

    Idaho has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce IDAPA 
Chapter 58 within ''Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.\19\ 
Therefore, EPA proposes that this SIP approval not extend to ``Indian 
Country'' in Idaho. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include 
enforceable emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate 
authority under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6) 
(nonattainment SIPs shall include enforceable emission limits). This is 
consistent with EPA's previous approval of Idaho's PSD program, in 
which EPA specifically disapproved the program for sources within 
Indian Reservations in Idaho because the State had not shown it had 
authority to regulate such sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also 
consistent with EPA's approval of Idaho's title V air operating permits 
program. See 61 FR 64622 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval does not 
extend to Indian Country); 66 FR 50574 (October 4, 2001) (full approval 
does not extend to Indian Country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ''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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP submittal from the State of 
Idaho demonstrating that the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated for 
ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is proposing to approve in full the 
following section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for Idaho for the 
1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), 
(H), (J), (K), (L), (M). EPA is taking no action on CAA section 
110(A)(2)(E)(ii) at this time. EPA will address the requirements of 
this sub-element in a separate action. EPA is also proposing to approve 
a portion of Idaho's June 20, 2011, SIP submittal that applies Idaho's 
PSD Program to GHG-emitting sources at the emissions thresholds and in 
the same time frames as those specified in the Tailoring Rule. In 
conjunction with this proposed approval of Idaho's PSD program for GHG-
emitting sources, EPA is proposing to rescind the FIP at 40 CFR 52.37 
which provides for EPA to be the PSD permitting authority for GHG-
emitting sources in Idaho.
    EPA is also proposing to approve portions of Idaho's June 20, 2011, 
annual IBR SIP update to revise the incorporation by reference of 
federal regulations revised as of July 1, 2010, in order to ensure 
Idaho's SIP is up to date with changes to federal regulations. EPA is 
not acting on the portions of the SIP revision that are not related to 
the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the Act or the 
requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the Act. Finally, EPA is 
proposing to approve the removal of language from the Idaho SIP that 
has become unnecessary due to Idaho's incorporation by reference of the 
federal NAAQS and the federal PSD regulations. Specifically, EPA is 
proposing to approve the removal of the subsections of IDAPA 
58.01.01.577 ``Ambient Air Quality Standards for Specific Pollutants'' 
that relate to pollutants for which EPA has promulgated a NAAQS, and 
which are now unnecessary because Idaho has incorporated the federal 
NAAQS by reference into the state SIP. EPA is also proposing to approve 
the changes to Idaho's PSD regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.581.01 to 
remove the increments table in its entirety, and to instead reference 
the federal PSD increment requirements contained in 40 CFR 52.21(c), 
which are incorporated by reference in the Idaho SIP. This action is 
being taken under section 110 and part C of the CAA.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 
Idaho, and EPA notes that it

[[Page 21714]]

will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.

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.

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

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-8706 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>