[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9423-9427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03573]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1f7c7d601d382f21242e120e2220202823393e0d283d2c632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c3e5d5c413c190e00050f332f0301010902181f2c091c0d420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    <bullet> 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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3aba2afafeda8b1aab0b7aaad83a6b3a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1d9d0dddd9fdac3d8c2c5d8dff1d4c1d09fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising 
the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> from 
65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ 
(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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on July 14, 2014 (79 FR 40662).

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

[[Page 9424]]

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in another state, nor did it 
attempt to quantify Idaho's obligation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and 
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, please 
see our July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 
transport for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
    \4\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 
(2014).
    \5\ USCA Case #11-1302, Document #1518738, Filed 10/23/2014.
    \6\ Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 
48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (``2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS.\8\ The 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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.
    \8\ See 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' 
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
    \9\ The 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS with 
respect to Idaho that the EPA explained in the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

[[Page 9425]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport submittal addressed the 
interstate transport requirements of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 1997 
ozone, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The 
EPA has addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in surrounding states, source apportionment 
data that provides information on how Idaho sources influence 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The Idaho submittal made clear 
that such submittal did not address the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The EPA designated areas nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on November 13, 2009, including the Logan UT-
ID nonattainment area, commonly referred to as the Cache Valley 
nonattainment area (74 FR 58688).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 three-year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013) to determine which areas were violating the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty 
maintaining the standard. If a monitoring site measured a violation of 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS during the most recent three-
year 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
during the most recent three-year period (2011-2013) but a violation in 
at least one of the previous two three-year 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

[[Page 9426]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values above 
the level of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA has also considered potential PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at any 
location further east. See TSD at Section II.C.
    \13\ Because 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.
    \14\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the 
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Idaho emissions on nonattainment 
receptors within Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (March 25, 
2014; 79 FR 16201).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, including 
the ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for 
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>),'' 
(73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and

[[Page 9427]]

    <bullet> 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


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