21702 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.915; 

2. The reasonably available control 

measures demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.912(d); 

3. The reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 40 CFR 51.910; 

4. The attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.908; 

5. The contingency measures for 

failure to make RFP or to attain as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9); and 

6. The motor vehicle emission 

budgets for the attainment year of 2008, 

which are derived from the attainment 

demonstration, as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Nitrogen 

Dioxide, Volatile Organic Compounds. 

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

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8729 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10– 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21703 

1Action 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). 

2Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

under the PSD Program to Sources of GHG 

Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan (75 FR 

82246, Dec. 30, 2010). 

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: 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3William 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 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, October 2, 2007. 

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. 

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: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21705 

4See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # 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. 

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 PM2.5 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. 

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 PM2.5 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5For 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. 

6For 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 

NOX SIP Call; Final Rule’’ (70 FR 25162, May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

7See, 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)). 

8EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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. 

9For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

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

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

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 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21707 

10See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 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. 

14See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 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’’). 

15EPA 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). 

16EPA 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 EmittingSources 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, 

Continued 

the 1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 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. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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. 

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 PM2.5 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


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

17EPA 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). 

18Steven 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. 

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

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 abovereferenced 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. 

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 PM2.5, 

PM10, NOX, CO, ozone and SOX. 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, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 abovereferenced 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 GHGemitting 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 abovereferenced 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 abovereferenced 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 NOX 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 GHGemitting 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 PM10 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21713 

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. 

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). 

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 GHGemitting 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: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Idaho, and EPA notes that it 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Flammability Assessment of Bulk-Packed, Non 

rechargeable Lithium Primary Batteries in Transport 

Category Aircraft; June 2004 (DOT/FAA/AR–04/26); 

and Flammability Assessment of Bulk-Packed, 

Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Cells in Transport 

Category Aircraft; April 2006 (DOT/FAA/AR–06/ 

38). 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 172, 173, and 175 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0095 (HM–224F)] 

RIN 2137–AE44 

Hazardous Materials: Transportation of 

Lithium Batteries 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for additional comment. 

SUMMARY: In this document, PHMSA is 

seeking comment on the impact of 

changes to the requirements for the air 

transport of lithium cells and batteries 

that have been adopted into the 2013– 

2014 International Civil Aviation 

Organization Technical Instructions on 

the Transport of Dangerous Goods by 

Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). 

PHMSA is considering whether to 

harmonize with these requirements and 

is publishing this notice to allow 

interested persons an opportunity to 

supplement comments to our January 

11, 2010, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). 

DATES: Comments Due Date: May 11, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by identification of the docket number 

(PHMSA–2009–0095) by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Hand Delivery: To Docket 

Operations, Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice at the beginning 

of the comment. To avoid duplication, 

please use only one of these four 

methods. All comments received will be 

posted without change to the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS), 

including any personal information. 

Docket: For access to the dockets to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://www.

regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket 

Operations Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Asking for Confidential Treatment: If 

you want PHMSA to give your comment 

confidential treatment, you must file it 

in paper form and take the following 

steps in accordance with 49 CFR 105.30: 

(1) Mark ‘‘confidential’’ on each page 

of the original document you would like 

to keep confidential. 

(2) Send us, along with the original 

document, a second copy of the original 

document with the confidential 

information deleted. 

(3) Explain why the information you 

are submitting is confidential (for 

example, it is exempt from mandatory 

public disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 or it is 

information referred to in 18 U.S.C. 

1905). 

PHMSA will decide whether or not to 

treat your information as confidential. 

We will notify you, in writing, of a 

decision to grant or deny confidentiality 

at least five days before the information 

is publicly disclosed, and give you an 

opportunity to respond. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin A. Leary, Standards and 

Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, telephone (202) 366– 

8553, or Michael Locke, Program 

Development Division, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, telephone (202) 366– 

1074. 

Background 

On January 11, 2010 (75 FR 1302), 

PHMSA, in coordination with the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to address the air 

transportation risks posed by lithium 

cells and batteries. Some of the 

proposals in the NPRM were intended 

to harmonize provisions in the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 

49 CFR parts 171–180) with provisions 

in the ICAO Technical Instructions; 

other proposals in the NPRM were 

intended to address safety concerns 

arising from research findings from the 

FAA Technical Center suggesting that 

current aircraft systems and procedures 

may not be sufficient to combat a fire 

involving lithium batteries (from either 

an external cargo fire or internal source 

from manufacturing defects).1 The FAA 

Technical Center issued an additional 

report in 2010 that supplements the 

previous studies. All of these reports are 

available in the public docket of this 

rulemaking. Many of the commenters to 

the NPRM urged PHMSA to adopt 

lithium battery transport safety 

standards identical to those in the 2011– 

2012 edition of the ICAO Technical 

Instructions. 

Since PHMSA published the NPRM, 

the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel has 

met several times and devoted 

considerable discussion to the 

provisions applicable to the air 

transport of lithium cells and batteries. 

As a result, there have been many 

changes in the ICAO standards 

applicable to the air transport of lithium 

cells and batteries. Given the increased 

efficiency and clarity in having a 

uniform global standard, PHMSA 

considers harmonization with 

international standards when there is no 

adverse impact to safety. Therefore, 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5120, PHMSA 

is now considering harmonizing the 

HMR with lithium battery provisions 

recently adopted by ICAO and which 

will become effective on January 1, 

2013. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS