Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9423 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of the interstate transport SIP provision in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

interference with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility in another state. We previously approved 

the Idaho SIP for purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS on July 14, 2014 (79 FR 40662). 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: February 13, 2015. 

Ted Mitchell, 

Under Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03502 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0581; FRL–9923–37– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting air emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On June 28, 2010, the State 

of Idaho submitted a SIP revision to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these interstate transport 

requirements with respect to the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to find 

that Idaho has adequately addressed 

certain CAA interstate transport 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 25, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0581, 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– 

150), 1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, 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–2013– 

0581. 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 

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 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: 

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 

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 

Interstate Transport 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

C. Guidance 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 

Interstate Transport 

On September 21, 2006, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule revising the 

1997 24-hour primary and secondary 

NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to the EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The EPA 

refers to these specific submittals as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were 

due on September 21, 2009. CAA 

section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan 

submission’’ must meet. 

The interstate transport provisions in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require 

each state to submit a SIP that prohibits 

emissions that will have certain adverse 

air quality effects in other states. CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four 

distinct elements related to the impacts 

of air pollutants transported across state 

lines. In this action, the EPA is 

addressing the first two elements of this 

section, specified at CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),1 for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 3CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For more information on CAIR, please see our July 

30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 

44552). 4EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S.Ct. 1584 (2014). 5USCA Case #11–1302, Document #1518738, 

Filed 10/23/2014. 

6Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

7See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘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),’’ September 25, 2009, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/

memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_

110a12.pdf. 

8See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Submission 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,’’ August 15, 2006, available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/

section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf. 

9The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance stated that EPA was working on a new 

rule to replace CAIR that would address issues 

raised by the Court in the North Carolina case and 

that would provide guidance to states in addressing 

the requirements related to interstate transport in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that states could not 

rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. 

See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

at 4. 

The first element of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ of the 

NAAQS in another state. The second 

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

requires that each SIP contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in the 

state from emitting air pollutants that 

will ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in any other state. 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

The EPA has addressed the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory 

actions.2 The EPA promulgated the final 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(Transport Rule) to address CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion 

of the United States with respect to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). 

The Transport Rule was intended to 

replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) which was judicially 

remanded.3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On 

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). The 

Court also ordered 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 

for the issues that were in front of the 

Supreme Court for review.4 On October 

23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay 

on the Transport Rule.5 While our 

evaluation is consistent with the 

Transport Rule approach, the State of 

Idaho was not covered by either CAIR 

or the Transport Rule, and the EPA 

made no determinations in either rule 

regarding whether emissions from 

sources in Idaho significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in another state, nor did it 

attempt to quantify Idaho’s obligation.6

C. Guidance 

On September 25, 2009, the EPA 

issued a guidance memorandum that 

addressed the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance’’ 

or ‘‘Guidance’’).7 With respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that would contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in any other state, the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance essentially reiterated the 

recommendations for western states 

made by the EPA in previous guidance 

addressing the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.8

The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance advised states 

outside of the CAIR region to include in 

their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs 

adequate technical analyses to support 

their conclusions regarding interstate 

pollution transport, e.g., information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the state and in 

potentially impacted states, distances to 

the nearest areas not attaining the 

NAAQS in other states, and air quality 

modeling.9 With respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that would interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state, the Guidance stated that SIP 

submissions must address this 

independent requirement of the statute 

and provide technical information 

appropriate to support the state’s 

conclusions, such as information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient concentrations in 

the state and in potentially impacted 

states, and air quality modeling. See 

footnotes 5 and 6. 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

use the conceptual approach to 

evaluating interstate pollution transport 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to Idaho that the EPA explained 

in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance. The EPA 

believes that the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

Idaho for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS may be evaluated using a 

‘‘weight of the evidence’’ approach that 

takes into account available relevant 

information. Such information may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

amount of emissions in the state 

relevant to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, the meteorological conditions 

in the area, the distance from the state 

to the nearest monitors in other states 

that are appropriate receptors, or such 

other information as may be probative to 

consider whether sources in the state 

may contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. These 

submissions may rely on modeling 

when acceptable modeling technical 

analyses are available, but if not 

available, other available information 

can be sufficient to evaluate the 

presence or degree of interstate 

transport in a specific situation for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For further 

explanation of this approach, see the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

the docket for this action. 

II. State Submittal 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

section 110(l) require that revisions to a 

SIP be adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9425 

10The Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport submittal 

addressed the interstate transport requirements of 

the 1997 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. In this action, we are only taking 

action with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA has 

addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in a separate 

action (July 14, 2014, 79 FR 40662). In addition, we 

previously approved the Idaho SIP for 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 and 

1997 ozone NAAQS on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 

72705). Finally, we will address the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in a future action. 

11The EPA designated areas nonattainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 

2009, including the Logan UT–ID nonattainment 

area, commonly referred to as the Cache Valley 

nonattainment area (74 FR 58688). 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, and 

an opportunity for a public hearing. 

On June 28, 2010, Idaho submitted a 

SIP to address the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS (Idaho 2010 Interstate 

Transport submittal).10 The Idaho 2010 

Interstate Transport submittal included 

documentation of a public comment 

period from May 11, 2010 through June 

10, 2010, and opportunity for public 

hearing. We find that the process 

followed by Idaho in adopting the SIP 

submittal complies with the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

CAA section 110 and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations. 

With respect to the requirement in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the Idaho 

2010 Interstate Transport submittal 

referred to the applicable rules in the 

Idaho SIP, meteorological and other 

characteristics of areas with 

nonattainment problems for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in surrounding 

states, source apportionment data that 

provides information on how Idaho 

sources influence PM2.5 levels at 

monitors in National Parks and 

wilderness areas surrounding Idaho. 

The Idaho submittal concluded that, 

based on the weight of the evidence, the 

Idaho SIP adequately addresses the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Idaho 

submittal made clear that such 

submittal did not address the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 nonattainment problems in 

the Cache Valley, a mountain valley that 

straddles the Utah-Idaho border. A 

portion of the Cache Valley has been 

designated nonattainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (Logan UT–ID 

nonattainment area (NAA)).11 Idaho 

stated that the State is working directly 

with Utah and EPA Regions 8 and 10 

under a two-state, one airshed approach 

to address the nonattainment problems 

in the Logan UT–ID NAA. A detailed 

discussion of the Idaho 2010 Interstate 

Transport submittal can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

the docket for this action. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements 

are satisfied, the EPA must determine 

whether a state’s emissions will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in other states. If this 

factual finding is in the negative, then 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not 

require any changes to a state’s SIP. 

Consistent with the EPA’s approach in 

the 1998 NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, 

and the 2011 Transport Rule, the EPA 

is evaluating these impacts with respect 

to specific monitors identified as having 

nonattainment and/or maintenance 

problems, which we refer to as 

‘‘receptors.’’ See footnote 2. 

With respect to this proposed action, 

the EPA notes that no single piece of 

information is by itself dispositive of the 

issue. Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together is used to 

evaluate significant contributions to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in another state. Our proposed 

action takes into account the Idaho 2010 

Interstate Transport submittal, a 

supplemental evaluation of monitors in 

other states that are appropriate 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ or 

‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ a review of 

monitoring data considered 

representative of background, and 

revisions made to the Idaho SIP since 

the 2010 Interstate Transport submittal. 

In particular, we have reviewed 

technical information developed since 

the Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport 

submittal, specifically the Idaho SIP 

revision submitted in December of 2012 

for purposes of addressing 24-hour 

PM2.5 problems in the Logan UT–ID 

NAA. The EPA finalized a limited 

approval of portions of this December 

2012 SIP submittal on March 25, 2014 

(79 FR 16201). 

Based on the analysis in our TSD in 

the docket for this action, we believe 

that it is reasonable to conclude that 

emissions from sources in Idaho do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state, with the 

following exception. We are unable to 

determine whether or not emissions 

from Idaho significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah, within the Cache 

Valley. In the event that emissions from 

sources on the Idaho side of the Cache 

Valley do significantly contribute to 

nonattainment on the Utah side of the 

Cache Valley, we have evaluated the 

current Idaho SIP, and control measures 

in the SIP addressing emissions within 

the Cache Valley. We believe it is 

reasonable to conclude that, taking cost 

into account as the EPA has done in 

past interstate transport rulemakings, 

and which has been recently upheld as 

a valid approach by the Supreme Court 

(See footnote 4), Idaho has adequately 

addressed the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not, in this 

action, proposing to make any findings 

with respect to the attainment planning 

requirements of CAA title I, part D for 

the Logan UT–ID NAA. These 

requirements will be addressed in a 

separate action. Below is a summary of 

our evaluation. For the complete 

evaluation, please see the TSD in the 

docket for this action. 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

The EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping threeyear periods (i.e., 2009–2011, 2010– 

2012, and 2011–2013) to determine 

which areas were violating the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas 

might have difficulty maintaining the 

standard. If a monitoring site measured 

a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the most recent threeyear period (2011–2013), then this 

monitor location was evaluated for 

purposes of the significant contribution 

to nonattainment element of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other 

hand, a monitoring site showed 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the most recent threeyear period (2011–2013) but a violation 

in at least one of the previous two threeyear periods (2009–2011 or 2010–2012), 

then this monitor location was 

evaluated for purposes of the 

interference with maintenance element 

of the statute. 

The State of Idaho was not covered by 

the modeling analyses available for the 

CAIR and the Transport Rule. The 

approach described above is similar to 

the approach utilized by the EPA in 

promulgating the CAIR and the 

Transport Rule. By this method, the 

EPA has identified those areas with 

monitors to be considered 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ or 

‘‘maintenance receptors’’ for evaluating 

whether the emissions from sources in 

another state could significantly 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9426 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

12The EPA has also considered potential PM2.5

transport from Idaho to the nearest nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors located in the eastern, 

midwestern, and southern states covered by the 

Transport Rule and believes it is reasonable to 

conclude that, given the significant distance from 

Idaho to the nearest such receptor (in Illinois) and 

the relatively insignificant amount of emissions 

from Idaho that could potentially be transported 

such a distance, emissions from Idaho sources do 

not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors 

also support a finding that emissions from Idaho 

sources neither contribute significantly to 

nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location 

further east. See TSD at Section II.C. 

13Because CAIR did not cover states in the 

western United States, these data are not 

significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR at the 

time and thus could be considered in this analysis. 

14As this analysis is focused on interstate 

transport, the EPA did not evaluate the impact of 

Idaho emissions on nonattainment receptors within 

Idaho. 

15On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

in the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), 

issued a judgment that remanded two of the EPA’s 

rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including the ‘‘Implementation of New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less 

Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule). 

The Court ordered the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these 

rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this 

opinion.’’ Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of 

the CAA establishes additional provisions for 

particulate matter nonattainment areas. On June 2, 

2014, the EPA repromulgated these rules pursuant 

to Subpart 4 (79 FR 31566). 

contribute to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance in, that 

particular area. 

B. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

The EPA reviewed the Idaho 2010 

Interstate Transport submittal and 

additional technical information to 

evaluate the potential for emissions 

from sources in Idaho to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified 

monitoring sites in the western United 

States.12 The EPA first identified as 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ all 

monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

years 2011–2013.13 Please see the TSD 

in the docket for a more detailed 

description of the EPA’s methodology 

for selection of nonattainment receptors. 

All of the nonattainment receptors we 

identified in western states are in 

California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and 

Utah.14

Based on the analysis in our TSD, we 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

emissions from sources in Idaho do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state, with 

the possible exception of Utah, within 

the Cache Valley. We also evaluated 

nonattainment receptors in eastern 

states, as detailed in the TSD, and we 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

emissions from sources in Idaho do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any eastern state. 

On March 25, 2014, the EPA finalized 

a limited approval of specific residential 

wood burning ordinances and road 

sanding agreements addressing 

emissions of PM2.5 on the Idaho side of 

the Cache Valley (79 FR 16201). We 

note that because of a recent court 

remand of related implementing 

regulations,15 and the need to evaluate 

the controls for the Idaho side of the 

Cache Valley in conjunction with the 

controls submitted for the Utah side of 

the Cache Valley, we did not fully 

approve the submittal as meeting all 

statutory nonattainment planning 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(March 25, 2014; 79 FR 16201). 

However, based on the analysis in our 

TSD, we are proposing to determine that 

Idaho’s SIP adequately addresses the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, including with respect to 

Utah, within the Cache Valley. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

The EPA reviewed the Idaho 2010 

Interstate Transport SIP and additional 

technical information to evaluate the 

potential for Idaho emissions to 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified 

monitoring sites in the western United 

States. The EPA first identified as 

‘‘maintenance receptors’’ all monitoring 

sites in the western states that had 

recorded PM2.5 design values above the 

level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(35 mg/m3) during the 2009–2011 and/or 

2010–2012 periods but below this 

standard during the 2011–2013 period. 

Please see our TSD for more information 

regarding the EPA’s methodology for 

selection of maintenance receptors. All 

of the maintenance receptors we 

identified in western states are located 

in California, Montana, and Utah. 

As detailed in the TSD, we believe it 

is reasonable to conclude that emissions 

from sources in Idaho do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in these states. We also 

evaluated maintenance receptors in 

eastern states, as detailed in the TSD, 

and we believe it is reasonable to 

conclude that emissions from sources in 

Idaho do not interfere with maintenance 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

any eastern state. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

Idaho has adequately addressed the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not, 

in this action, proposing to make any 

findings with respect to the attainment 

planning requirements of CAA title I, 

part D for the Logan UT–ID NAA. These 

requirements will be addressed in a 

separate action. 

V. 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 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 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9427 

• 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, 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 5, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03573 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0976; FRL–9922–45] 

RIN 2070–AJ91 

Toluene Diisocyanates (TDI) and 

Related Compounds; Significant New 

Use Rule; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of January 15, 

2015, concerning 2,4-toluene 

diisocyanate, 2,6-toluene diisocyanate, 

toluene diisocyanate unspecified 

isomers (these three chemical 

substances are hereafter referred to as 

toluene diisocyanates or TDI) and 

related compounds. This document 

extends the comment period for 45 

days, from March 16, 2015, to April 30, 

2015. The comment period is being 

extended because EPA received 

comments asserting that there may be 

significant implications for the supply 

chain and it is critical that interested 

stakeholders have sufficient time to 

respond to the proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on January 15, 

2015 (80 FR 2068), is extended. 

Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2011–0976, must be received on 

or before April 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES

in the Federal Register document of 

January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2068) (FRL– 

9915–62). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: 

Katherine Sleasman, Chemical Control 

Division (7405M), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 564–7716; 

email address: sleasman.katherine@

epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends the public comment 

period established in the Federal 

Register document of January 15, 2015. 

In that document, EPA proposed the 

significant new use is any use in a 

consumer product, with a proposed 

exception for use of certain chemical 

substances in coatings, elastomers, 

adhesives, binders, and sealants that 

results in less than or equal to 0.1 

percent by weight of TDI in a consumer 

product. In addition, EPA also proposed 

that the general SNUR exemption for 

persons who import or process these 

chemical substances as part of an article 

would not apply. EPA is hereby 

extending the comment period, which 

was set to end on March 16, 2015, to 

April 30, 2015. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES

in the Federal Register document of 

January 15, 2015. If you have questions, 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 4, 2015. 

Wendy C. Hamnett, 

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03301 Filed 2–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS