Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46707 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0708, FRL–9914–90– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the Idaho 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) as 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010, and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010. 

Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated, the CAA requires states to 

submit a plan for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of such 

NAAQS. The plan is required to address 

basic program elements, including but 

not limited to regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

implement, maintain and enforce the 

standards. These elements are referred 

to as infrastructure requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2013–0708. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at: (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comment 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110 of the CAA specifies the 

general requirements for states to submit 

SIPs to implement, maintain and 

enforce the NAAQS and the EPA’s 

actions regarding approval of those SIPs. 

On September 16, 2013, Idaho made two 

SIP submissions to the EPA 

demonstrating that the Idaho SIP meets 

the infrastructure requirements of the 

CAA for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Idaho’s submissions addressed 

the following CAA section 110(a)(2) 

elements for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). On 

April 17, 2014, we proposed approval of 

Idaho’s September 16, 2013, 

submissions (79 FR 21669). An 

explanation of the CAA requirements 

and implementing regulations that are 

met by these SIP submissions, a detailed 

explanation of the submissions, and the 

EPA’s reasons for the proposed action 

were provided in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking on April 17, 2014, and will 

not be restated here (79 FR 21669). The 

public comment period for our 

proposed action ended on May 19, 2014, 

and we received one anonymous 

comment via the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. 

II. Response to Comment 

Comment: ‘‘Due to the recent 

Supreme Court decision in EME Homer 

City v. EPA, the EPA should disapprove 

the State’s submission with regard to 

Interstate Transport. This is because, 

due to the decision, a State’s SIP is 

obligated to ‘contain adequate 

provisions . . . prohibiting . . . any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will 

. . . contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other State with 

respect to any’ [such primary or 

secondary] NAAQS. Even though the 

lower court’s stay of CSAPR may still be 

in effect, the fact remains that a state is 

required to submit something that 

addresses Interstate Transport. Since the 

State of Idaho did not submit anything 

for Interstate Transport the EPA is left 

with no other option than to disapprove 

the state’s submission since it does not 

address Interstate Transport. Since this 

decision was handed down after this 

rule was published the EPA should 

withdraw this proposed rule and repropose with a disapproval of the 

Interstate Transport section.’’ 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter. In this rulemaking the EPA 

is not taking any final action with 

respect to the provisions in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which address 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state. Idaho did not make a SIP 

submission to address the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

thus there is no such submission upon 

which the EPA could take action under 

CAA section 110(k). The EPA did not 

propose to take any action with respect 

to Idaho’s obligations pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and is not, in 

this rulemaking action, taking any such 

action. Further, the EPA could not, as 

the commenter urges, act to disapprove 

a SIP that has not been submitted to the 

EPA. 

The EPA also disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that the EPA 

should disapprove Idaho’s submissions 

because they do not address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve 

a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or 

approve it in part and disapprove it in 

part, depending on the extent to which 

such plan meets the requirements of the 

CAA. This authority to approve the 

states’ SIP submissions in separable 

parts was included in the 1990 

Amendments to the CAA to overrule a 

decision in the Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit holding that the EPA 

could not approve individual measures 

in a plan submission without either 

approving or disapproving the plan as a 

whole. See S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 22, 

1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 

(discussing the express overruling of 

Abramowitz v. U.S. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 

(9th Cir. 1987)). The authority provided 

by the 1990 Amendments to act on 

particular plan revisions has been 

recognized by the Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit. See Hall v. U.S. EPA, 

273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. August 29, 

2001). 

As such, the EPA interprets its 

authority under CAA section 110(k)(3) 

as affording the EPA the discretion to 

approve or conditionally approve 

individual elements of Idaho’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the 

Transport Rule, see EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and 

ordering the EPA to continue implementing CAIR 

in the interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. 

Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. 

Circuit’s ruling and upheld the EPA’s approach in 

the Transport Rule. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., No. 12–1182, 572 U.S. ____slip op. 

(2014). 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

separate and apart from any action with 

respect to the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA 

views discrete infrastructure SIP 

requirements, such as the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as 

severable from the other infrastructure 

elements and interprets CAA section 

110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on 

individual severable measures in a plan 

submission. In short, we believe we 

have discretion under CAA section 

110(k) to act upon the various 

individual elements of the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals, separately 

or together, as appropriate. 

We note that the EPA is reviewing the 

recent Supreme Court case reversing 

and remanding the EME Homer City 

decision.1 We are evaluating the 

opinion’s impact on states’ CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. We are 

working with state partners, including 

Idaho, to assess next steps to address 

interstate transport of pollution, 

including interstate transport SIP 

requirements for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA is approving the Idaho SIP 

as meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Specifically, we find that the Idaho SIP 

meets the following CAA section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), 

(B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 

(J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the CAA. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and does not provide the 

EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 10, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 29, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart N—Idaho 

■ 2. Section 52.670 is amended in 

paragraph (e) in the table entitled ‘‘EPAApproved Idaho Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures’’ by adding two entries at the 

end to read as follows: 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46709 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or non-attainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS.

State-wide ..................... 9/16/2013 8/11/2014 [Insert FR citation].This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS.

State-wide ..................... 9/16/2013 8/11/2014 [Insert FR citation].This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2014–18810 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–2012–0567; FRL–9914–94– 

Region–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Indiana PSD Increments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a component of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

from Indiana addressing EPA’s 

requirements for the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program. 

The proposed rulemaking associated 

with today’s final action was published 

on August 19, 2013. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0567. 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., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly-available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Andy Chang at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of the SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of the SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This final rulemaking addresses a 

portion of a July 12, 2012, submission 

and a December 12, 2012, supplemental 

submission from the Indiana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(IDEM). These submissions were made 

to satisfy certain EPA requirements for 

the state’s PSD program. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the 

table below. 

TABLE 1: PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic mean 24-hour max 

Class I .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 

Class II ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 9 

Class III ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 18 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES