This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

834 

Vol. 80, No. 4 

Wednesday, January 7, 2015 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0477, FRL–9921–41– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

partially approve the May 22, 2014, 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from Idaho to revise the SIP 

to update the incorporation by reference 

of Federal air quality regulations into 

the SIP. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing to partially disapprove 

Idaho’s incorporation by reference of 

certain provisions of the Federal 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting rules that have been 

vacated by a Federal Court. Upon final 

action, the Idaho SIP would incorporate 

by reference certain Federal regulations 

as of July 1, 2013. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0477, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Heather Valdez, EPA Region 

10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics 

(AWT–150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Heather Valdez, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, (AWT–150). 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–2014– 

0477. The 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 

the disclosure of which 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 the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the 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 

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. 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: 

Heather Valdez at: (206) 553–6220, 

valdez.heather@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. Analysis of State Submittal 

A. Summary and Analysis of Submittal 

B. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and 

Remanding Certain Federal Rules 

1. PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Provisions 

2. PM2.5 PSD Provisions 

3. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions From 

Biogenic Sources 

4. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) specifies the general 

requirements for states to submit SIPs to 

implement, maintain and enforce the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and the EPA’s actions 

regarding approval of those SIPs. On 

May 22, 2014, the State of Idaho (the 

State) submitted a SIP revision to the 

EPA to account for regulatory updates 

adopted by the Idaho Board of 

Environmental Quality on October 17, 

2013. Idaho incorporates by reference 

(IBR) various portions of Federal 

regulations codified in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) into the Rules 

for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

(IDAPA 58.01.01). Idaho then submits 

parts of IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for 

approval into the Federally-approved 

Idaho SIP (generally those provisions 

that relate to the criteria pollutants 

regulated under section 110 of the CAA 

for which the EPA has promulgated 

NAAQS or other specific requirements 

of section 110). To ensure that its rules 

remain consistent with the EPA 

requirements, Idaho generally updates 

the IBR citations in IDAPA 58.01.01 on 

an annual basis and submits a SIP 

revision to 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, 2012, at IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

‘‘Incorporation by Reference.’’ 

II. Analysis of State Submittal 

A. Summary and Analysis of Submittal 

On May 22, 2014, the State submitted 

for approval into the Idaho SIP updates 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 835 

1 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.). 

2 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). 

3Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012). 

4Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Withdrawal of Implementation Guidance for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6, 2013). 

5As discussed above, Idaho’s submittal also 

includes revisions to the Idaho SIP to update the 

incorporation by reference of the Federal PSD 

permitting rule at 40 CFR 52.21. Because the 

requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to 

nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas (including PSD permitting 

rules) to be affected by the Court’s decision in 

NRDC v. EPA. 

to the incorporation by reference of 

specific Federal regulations revised as of 

July 1, 2013. The submitted provisions 

are found in IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

‘‘Incorporations by Reference.’’ A 

description of the submitted provisions 

and how they meet the requirements of 

section 110 of the CAA is provided 

below. 

In IDAPA 58.01.01.107.02 

‘‘Availability of Reference Materials,’’ 

paragraph (b) was revised to include a 

reference to the State of Idaho statutes. 

This is an informational provision 

describing where documents that are 

incorporated by reference elsewhere in 

the rules are available. This revision to 

IDAPA 58.01.01.107.02(b) is consistent 

with CAA requirements as the revision 

merely identifies where reference 

materials can be obtained and does not 

itself impose any regulatory 

requirements. 

IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 ‘‘Documents 

Incorporated by Reference’’ updates the 

citation dates of specific Federal 

provisions incorporated by reference. 

Paragraph (a) incorporates by reference 

the Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, 

with the exception of certain visibilityrelated provisions, as of July 1, 2013. 

This updated incorporation by reference 

of Federal regulations makes paragraph 

(a) consistent with Federal law. The 

incorporation by reference date of July 

1, 2013, includes the portion of 40 CFR 

part 51 relating to nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements at 40 

CFR 51.165, which is relied on as part 

of Idaho’s nonattainment area major 

stationary source permit provisions in 

IDAPA 58.01.01.204. On January 4, 

2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia issued a decision 

related to 40 CFR 51.165. The effect of 

this decision is discussed below in 

Section II.B.1. For the reasons above and 

for the reasons provided in Section 

II.B.1 relating to 40 CFR 51.165, the EPA 

proposes to find that paragraph (a) is 

consistent with CAA requirements. 

Paragraph (c) of IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03 incorporates by 

reference the Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 

40 CFR part 52 subparts A and N and 

appendices D and E, including the 

Federal PSD permitting rules in part 52 

subpart A at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 

2013. This updated incorporation by 

reference, except for the incorporation 

by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) 

(relating to the PM2.5 significant 

monitoring level) and 40 CFR 

52.21(k)(2)(relating to the PM2.5

significant impact level), make the 

Idaho SIP consistent with Federal law. 

The excepted provisions, 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(k)(2), are the 

subject of a Court decision and the effect 

of that decision is discussed in Section 

II.B.2 below. Idaho’s incorporation by 

reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) 

related to a deferral of permitting 

requirements from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources and 40 CFR 

52.21 related to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions are also the subject of recent 

court decisions and are discussed in 

Sections II.B.3 and II.B.4, respectively, 

below. For the reasons above and for the 

reasons provided in Section II.B.2, II.B.3 

and II.B.4, the EPA proposes to 

determine that paragraph (c) is 

consistent with CAA requirements, 

except for the portion of paragraph (c) 

that incorporates by reference 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(k)(2), which 

the EPA proposes to disapprove as 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

Paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (q) of 

IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 incorporate by 

reference the following provisions 

revised as of July 1, 2013: (b) National 

Primary and Secondary Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 50; (d) 

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and 

Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; (e) 

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 

CFR part 58; and (q) Determining 

Conformity of Federal Actions to State 

or Federal Implementation Plans, 40 

CFR part 93, subpart A, sections 93.100 

through 93.129, although certain 

subsections are specifically excluded 

from the State’s incorporation by 

reference. The EPA proposes to 

determine that paragraphs (b), (d), (e), 

and (q) are consistent with CAA 

requirements. 

B. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating 

and Remanding Certain Federal Rules 

1. PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Provisions 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) v. EPA,1 issued a decision that 

remanded the EPA’s 2007 and 2008 

rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. Relevant here, the EPA’s 2008 

implementation rule addressed by the 

Court decision, ‘‘Implementation of 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule),2 promulgated NSR 

requirements for implementation of 

PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/

unclassifiable areas (PSD). The Court 

concluded that the EPA had improperly 

based the implementation rule for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely upon the 

requirements of part D, subpart 1 of the 

CAA, and had failed to address the 

requirements of part D, subpart 4, which 

establishes additional provisions for 

particulate matter nonattainment areas. 

The Court ordered the EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Id. at 437. As a result of the Court’s 

decision, the EPA withdrew its 

guidance for implementing the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 3 because the guidance 

was based largely on the remanded rule 

promulgated to implement the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.4 In response to the Court 

decision, on June 2, 2014, the EPA 

promulgated the Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions 

for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (79 

FR 31566). This rule promulgated 

classifications and deadlines under 

subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA for 

2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

including the only PM2.5 nonattainment 

area in Idaho, Franklin County (Logan 

UT–ID 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area). 

In light of the EPA’s response to the 

Court decision, we are proposing to 

approve into the Idaho SIP Idaho’s 

incorporation by reference at IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03(a) of the Federal 

nonattainment NSR requirements at 40 

CFR 51.165 for purposes of meeting the 

subpart 1 requirements. Because the 

EPA has not yet proposed revisions to 

the nonattainment NSR permitting 

requirements in response to the remand, 

the EPA is not evaluating at this time 

whether Idaho’s submittal for Franklin 

County will require additional revisions 

to satisfy the subpart 4 requirements.5

2. PM2.5 PSD Provisions 

As discussed above, IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03(c) incorporates by 

reference the Federal PSD permitting 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
836 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 7 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 8 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). 

rules at 40 CFR 52.21. The current Idaho 

SIP incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by 

reference as of July 1, 2012. Idaho’s 

submittal updates the incorporation by 

reference date of the PSD permitting 

rules to July 1, 2013 and includes 

revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to 

the significant monitoring concentration 

(SMC)) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to 

the significant impact level (SIL)) that 

added a SMC and SIL for PM2.5 as part 

of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864). 

On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 

in Sierra Club v. EPA,6 issued, with 

respect to the SMC, a judgment that, 

inter alia, vacated the provisions adding 

the PM2.5 SMC to the Federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) 

and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In its decision, the 

Court held that the EPA did not have 

the authority to use SMCs to exempt 

permit applicants from the statutory 

requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the 

CAA that ambient monitoring data for 

PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit 

applications. Thus, although the PM2.5

SMC was not a required element of a 

state’s PSD program, where a state PSD 

program contains such a provision and 

allows issuance of new permits without 

requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring 

data, such application of the vacated 

SMC would be inconsistent with the 

Court’s opinion and the requirements of 

section 165(e)(2) of the CAA. 

At the EPA’s request, the decision 

also vacated and remanded to the EPA 

for further consideration the portions of 

the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 

CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The 

EPA requested this vacatur and remand 

of two of the three provisions in the 

EPA regulations that contain SILs for 

PM2.5 because the wording of these two 

SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with 

the explanation of when and how SILs 

should be used by permitting authorities 

that we provided in the preamble to the 

Federal Register publication when we 

promulgated these provisions. The third 

SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was 

not vacated and remains in effect. We 

also note that the Court’s decision does 

not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5

promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The EPA 

has amended its regulations to remove 

the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

provisions from the PSD regulations 

(December 9, 2013, 78 FR 73698). The 

EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking 

in the future regarding the PM2.5 SILs 

that will address the Court’s remand. In 

the meantime, the EPA is advising states 

to begin preparations to remove the 

vacated provisions from state PSD 

regulations. 

In response to the vacatur of the EPA 

regulations as they relate to the PM2.5

SMC and the PM2.5 SILs, Idaho stated in 

the Idaho 2013 IBR Update submittal 

cover letter dated May, 22, 2014 that the 

State will not apply either the PM2.5

SMC provisions at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) or the PM2.5 SIL 

provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) in 

Idaho’s implementation of the PSD 

program. In addition, the May, 22, 2014, 

cover letter stated that Idaho intends to 

remove the vacated provisions to ensure 

consistency with Federal law as soon as 

practicable. Therefore, consistent with 

our action on Idaho’s most recent IBR 

update (March 3, 2014, 79 FR 11712), 

we are proposing to partially disapprove 

the Idaho submittal with respect to the 

incorporation by reference at IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03(c) of the vacated 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 (namely, 40 

CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 

52.21(k)(2)). 

3. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions 

From Biogenic Sources 

In 2011, the EPA revised the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ at 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) to defer for 

three years (until July 21, 2014) PSD 

permitting requirements to carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy 

and other biogenic stationary sources 

(Deferral for CO2 Emissions from 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 

Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76 

FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)). 

Idaho’s update to incorporate by 

reference the EPA’s PSD permitting 

rules as of July 1, 2013, includes this 

revision to 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). 

On July 12, 2013 the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia, in 

Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,7

vacated the provisions of the Biogenic 

CO2 Deferral Rule. While the 

opportunity to seek rehearing of this 

D.C. Circuit decision remains open and 

thus the ultimate disposition of the 

Federal regulations implementing the 

Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule has not yet 

been determined, the deferral expired 

on July 21, 2014, and by its terms is no 

longer in effect. 

4. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

As discussed above, IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03(c) incorporates by 

reference the Federal PSD permitting 

rules at 40 CFR 52.21. The current Idaho 

SIP incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by 

reference as of July 1, 2012. Idaho’s 

submittal updates the incorporation by 

reference date of the PSD permitting 

rules to July 1, 2013. Therefore Idaho’s 

submittal includes revisions to 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(v) (relating to the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions) 

promulgated under the Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 

31514) (Tailoring Rule). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. Environmental Protection 

Agency,8 issued a decision addressing 

the application of PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. The 

Supreme Court said that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source (or 

modification thereof) required to obtain 

a PSD permit. The Court also said that 

the EPA could continue to require that 

PSD permits, otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). In order to act consistently with 

its understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action before 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia to effectuate the decision, 

the EPA is not continuing to apply the 

EPA regulations that would require that 

SIPs include permitting requirements 

that the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is 

not applying the requirement that a 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) 

that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

The EPA anticipates a need to revise 

Federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. In addition, 

the EPA anticipates that many states 

will revise their existing SIP-approved 

PSD programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. The timing and 

content of subsequent EPA actions with 

respect to the EPA regulations is 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. 

The EPA is not expecting states to have 

revised their existing PSD program 

regulations at this juncture, before the 

D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues 

and before the EPA has revised its 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 837 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. 

However, the EPA is evaluating PSD 

program submissions to assure that the 

state’s program correctly addresses 

GHGs consistent with the Supreme 

Court’s decision. 

Idaho’s existing approved SIP 

contains the GHG permitting 

requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21, 

as amended in the Tailoring Rule. As a 

result, the PSD permitting program in 

Idaho previously approved by the EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT when sources emit or increase 

GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per 

year (measured as carbon dioxide 

equivalent). Although the approved 

Idaho PSD permitting program may also 

currently contain provisions that are no 

longer necessary in light of the Supreme 

Court decision, this does not prevent the 

EPA from approving this SIP 

submission. Idaho’s May 22, 2014, SIP 

submission does not add any GHG 

permitting requirements that are 

inconsistent with the Supreme Court 

decision. While Idaho’s submission 

incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for 

completeness, the submission mostly 

reincorporates PSD permitting 

requirements for GHGs that are already 

in the Idaho SIP. 

This revision does add to the Idaho 

SIP the elements of the EPA’s 2012 rule 

implementing Step 3 of the phase-in of 

PSD permitting requirements for GHGs 

described in the Tailoring Rule. 77 FR 

41051 (July 12, 2012). This rule became 

effective on August 13, 2012. 

Specifically, the incorporation of the 

Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHGemitting sources to obtain plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs) for their GHG 

emissions on a carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e) basis. The GHG PAL 

provisions, as currently written, include 

some provisions that may no longer be 

appropriate in light of the Supreme 

Court decision. Since the Supreme 

Court has determined that sources and 

modifications may not be defined as 

‘‘major’’ solely on the basis of the level 

of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for 

GHGs may no longer have value in some 

situations where a source might have 

triggered PSD based on GHG emissions 

alone. However, PALs for GHGs may 

still have a role to play in determining 

whether a modification that triggers PSD 

for a pollutant other than GHGs should 

also be subject to BACT for GHGs. These 

provisions, like the other GHG 

provisions discussed previously, will 

likely be revised pending further legal 

action. However, these provisions do 

not add new requirements for sources or 

modifications that only emit or increase 

GHGs above the major source threshold 

or the 75,000 tons per year GHG level 

in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the 

PALs provisions provide increased 

flexibility to sources that wish to 

address their GHG emissions in a PAL. 

Since this flexibility may still be 

valuable to sources in at least one 

context described above, we believe that 

it is appropriate to approve these 

provisions into the Idaho SIP at this 

juncture. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to partially 

approve the May 22, 2014, submittal 

from Idaho to update the incorporation 

by reference of Federal air quality 

regulations into the SIP. Specifically, we 

are proposing to approve the revisions 

to IDAPA 58.01.01.107.02 ‘‘Availability 

of Reference Materials’’ and IDAPA 

58.01.01.107.03 ‘‘Incorporations by 

Reference,’’ except that we are 

proposing to partially disapprove the 

revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03(c) as 

it relates to the incorporation by 

reference of specific vacated provisions 

at 40 CFR 52.21 (namely, 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) 

for the reasons discussed in Section 

II.B.2 of this proposal. Upon final 

action, the Idaho SIP would incorporate 

by reference specific Federal regulations 

as of July 1, 2013. 

IV. 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 (Public Law 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 the 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 23, 2014. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00014 Filed 1–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS