Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51315 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this notice. Significant comments will 

be considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to this 

proposed rule by following the 

instructions listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 9, 2021. 

Deborah Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19836 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0290; FRL–8942–01– 

R3] 

Air Plan Partial Disapproval; 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Regulations for the 1997 

and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: As a result of the Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, 

dated August 27, 2020, in Sierra Club v. 

U.S. EPA, No. 19–2562 (3rd Cir. 2020), 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is proposing to partially 

disapprove a specific part of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision that 

had been previously approved by EPA. 

On May 19, 2019, EPA fully approved 

certain parts of a SIP revision submitted 

by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

to address reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) for the 1997 and 

2008 ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS), and conditionally 

approved other parts of that submission. 

The court vacated EPA’s approval of a 

portion of the SIP revision, as discussed 

below, and ordered that EPA either 

approve a new SIP revision addressing 

the court’s decision or promulgate a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) 

within two years. EPA is therefore 

proposing to disapprove the portion of 

the SIP submission addressed by the 

court’s decision. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2017–0290 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

gordon.mike@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dave Talley, Planning & Implementation 

Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The 

telephone number is (215) 814–2117. 

Mr. Talley can also be reached via 

electronic mail at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

16, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a revision to its SIP for RACT 

Regulations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

I. Background 

On May 9, 2019, EPA published a 

final action fully approving certain 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
51316 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1 25 Pa Code 129.97(g)(1)(vi) applies to coal-fired 

combustion units with a heat input greater than 250 

million MMBtu/hr that do not have SCR. 

provisions of Pennsylvania’s May 16, 

2016 SIP revision submission to 

implement RACT for both the 1997 and 

2008 Ozone NAAQS (hereafter the 

‘‘RACT II rule’’), and conditionally 

approving other provisions of the SIP 

revision. 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019). 

Specifically, EPA’s action fully 

approved ‘‘25 Pa. Code sections 121.1, 

129.96, 129.97, and 129.100 as meeting 

certain aspects of major stationary 

source RACT in CAA section 172, 182, 

and 184 for the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS submitted May 16, 2016’’ and 

conditionally approved ‘‘25 Pa. Code 

sections 129.98 and 129.99 based on the 

commitment provided by Pennsylvania 

to submit additional SIP revisions to 

address the deficiencies identified by 

EPA in the May 16, 2016 SIP revision.’’ 

Id. at 20290. The RACT requirements in 

CAA section 182(b)(2) apply to all ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate or higher (Serious, Severe, or 

Extreme). Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the 

CAA also applies RACT to all areas 

located within ozone transport regions 

established pursuant to section 184 of 

the CAA. The entire Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania is part of the Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR) established 

under section 184 of the CAA and 

therefore subject statewide to the RACT 

requirements. The May 16, 2016 SIP 

submittal was intended to satisfy CAA 

sections 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 for 

the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for all major sources of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) in Pennsylvania not 

subject to control techniques guidelines 

(CTG), with a few exceptions not 

relevant to this action. 

The Sierra Club commented on EPA’s 

proposed approval of the RACT II rule, 

and following EPA’s final approval, 

filed a petition for review with the U.S. 

Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The 

petition challenged EPA’s approval of 

that portion of the RACT II rule 

applicable to coal-fired electricity 

generating units (EGUs) equipped with 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for 

control of NOX, which is a precursor 

pollutant to ozone regulated under CAA 

section 182. Specifically, the petition 

challenged EPA’s approval of the 

presumptive RACT NOX limit for these 

EGUs of 0.12 pounds of NOX per 

Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) 

of heat input (lbs/MMBtu) when the 

inlet temperature to the SCR was 600 

degrees Fahrenheit or above, found at 25 

Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii); the 

application of the less stringent NOX

limits of 25 Pa Code 129.97(g)(1)(vi) to 

EGUs with SCR when the inlet 

temperature to the SCR was below 600 

degrees Fahrenheit; 1 and the failure of 

the RACT II rule at 25 Pa. Code 

129.100(d) to specifically require these 

EGUs to keep temperature data for the 

inlet temperature to the SCRs and report 

that data to PADEP. 

On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit 

found for the Sierra Club on all three of 

these issues, vacated the Agency’s 

approval of the SIP submission on each 

of these three pieces of the Pennsylvania 

plan as it pertained to coal-fired EGUs 

equipped with SCRs, and remanded to 

the Agency. The court further stated that 

‘‘[o]n remand, the agency must either 

approve a revised, compliant SIP within 

two years or formulate a new federal 

implementation plan.’’ Sierra Club, 972 

F.3d 290, 309 (3d Cir. 2020). 

II. Summary of SIP Provisions Being 

Proposed for Disapproval 

The purpose of this action is to 

propose a partial disapproval for those 

portions of Pennsylvania’s RACT II SIP 

for which the Third Circuit vacated 

EPA’s approval. In light of the court’s 

order regarding EPA actions on remand, 

EPA is proposing this action in part to 

ensure that we have authority to 

promulgate a FIP if Pennsylvania does 

not submit a timely or approvable SIP 

revision addressing the Third Circuit’s 

decision. 

The specific section of Pennsylvania’s 

regulation in the SIP that is at issue here 

is 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii), which 

sets a ‘‘presumptive’’ RACT limit for 

coal-fired combustion units equipped 

with SCR. The court held that EPA’s 

approval of 25 Pa. Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii) was arbitrary and 

capricious because the record did not 

support EPA’s finding that the emission 

limit of 0.12 lb NOX/MMBtu of heat 

input was RACT for these EGU sources, 

particularly in light of submitted 

evidence that EGUs in Pennsylvania 

regulated by 25 Pa. Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii) had achieved much 

lower emission rates for NOX in the 

past, and that other states had adopted 

lower RACT NOX limits for coal-fired 

sources. Sierra Club at 299–303. In 

addition, the court held that EPA’s 

approval of the 600 degree Fahrenheit 

temperature ‘‘exemption’’ to the 0.12 lb/ 

MMBtu limit for NOX in 25 Pa Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii) was arbitrary and 

capricious because the record failed to 

support the need for the 600 degree 

exemption or explain why 600 degrees 

was chosen as the threshold for the 

exemption. Id. at 303–307. Thus, the 

court vacated EPA’s approval of these 

two provisions, both of which are only 

found in 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii). 

See Id. at 309. 

Regarding the reporting and record 

keeping requirement of 25 Pa. Code 

129.100(d), the court also found EPA’s 

approval of the specific SIP revisions 

discussed above to be arbitrary and 

capricious based upon the lack of a 

specific record keeping and reporting 

requirement for the 600 degree inlet 

temperature exemption to the SCR. See 

Id. Specifically, the court held that 

‘‘[b]ecause the SIP’s 600-degree 

threshold necessarily depends upon 

accurate temperature reporting, the 

EPA’s approval of such inadequate 

requirements on this record was 

arbitrary and capricious.’’ Id. at 309. 

Lacking evidence in the record that this 

language would require sources subject 

to 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii) to keep 

specific SCR temperature inlet data, 

report that data to PADEP, and make it 

available to the public, the court agreed 

with the Sierra Club that in this scenario 

the terms are too vague to be 

enforceable. Id. at 308. Further, the 

court explained that ‘‘[t]he combination 

of this lack of mandatory reporting and 

the temperature waiver created a potent 

loophole for polluters to walk through.’’ 

Id. at 297. For these reasons, EPA now 

finds that the previously approved 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

are inadequate in this specific context, 

which further supports this proposed 

partial disapproval. 

EPA has been and will continue to 

work with PADEP to address revised 

RACT determinations during the state’s 

development of the SIP revision in 

response to the court decision. 

III. Proposed Action 

Consistent with the Third Circuit’s 

decision, and based on the reasoning 

contained therein, EPA is proposing 

under CAA section 110(k)(3) to revise 

its full approval of certain provisions of 

the Pennsylvania RACT II rule that were 

vacated and remanded to EPA by the 

Third Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA’s 

proposed partial disapproval of this 

previously-approved SIP revision is 

limited to the regulatory provision 

related to presumptive RACT 

requirements for coal-fired combustion 

units at EGUs equipped with SCR, 

specifically 25 Pa. Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii). Because we are now 

proposing to disapprove 25 Pa. Code 

129.97(g)(1)(viii), and the 600 degree 

temperature threshold along with the 

0.12 lbs/MMBtu limit is contained 

entirely within this section, no 

additional federal regulatory revisions 

are necessary to address the court’s 

holding that EPA’s approval of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51317 

record-keeping requirement was 

arbitrary and capricious. 

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

the Administrator to promulgate a FIP at 

any time within two years after the 

Administrator finds that a state has 

failed to make a required SIP 

submission, finds a SIP submission to 

be incomplete, or disapproves a SIP 

submission, unless the state corrects the 

deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the SIP revision, before the 

Administrator promulgates a FIP. 

Therefore, if EPA finalizes this proposed 

partial disapproval, EPA will be 

obligated under CAA section 110(c)(1) 

to promulgate a FIP within two years 

after the effective date of the partial 

disapproval, unless the State submits 

and the EPA approves SIP revisions to 

correct the identified deficiencies in the 

RACT II rule before EPA promulgates 

the FIP. Notwithstanding this timeframe 

established under CAA section 110(c)(1) 

for EPA’s promulgation of a FIP, the 

Third Circuit has ordered the EPA to 

issue a FIP within two years of the date 

of its decision in Sierra Club, 972 F.3d 

290, 309 (3rd Cir., August 27, 2020), if 

the Agency has not approved a SIP 

correcting the identified deficiencies in 

the RACT II rule within this timeframe. 

In addition, final partial disapproval 

would trigger mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 

52.31 unless the State submits, and EPA 

approves, SIP revisions that correct the 

identified deficiencies in the RACT II 

rule within 18 months of the effective 

date of the final partial disapproval 

action. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

our proposed partial disapproval as 

explained herein. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely proposes to 

disapprove state requirements as not 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rulemaking proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a state 

requirement and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rulemaking does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rulemaking also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it proposes to 

disapprove a state rule. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

lacks the discretionary authority to 

address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. 

Accordingly, this action proposing 

partial disapproval of Pennsylvania’s 

RACT regulations for the 1997 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS, merely disapproves 

certain state requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 of the 

CAA and will not in-and-of itself create 

any new requirements. Accordingly, it 

does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
51318 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 8, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19818 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2020–0305; FRL–8878–01– 

R10] 

Air Plan Approval; ID; West Silver 

Valley Redesignation to Attainment for 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

redesignate the West Silver Valley, 

Idaho nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 2012 annual fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is also 

proposing to approve a maintenance 

plan for the area demonstrating 

continued compliance with the NAAQS 

through 2031, which the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(IDEQ) submitted along with the 

redesignation request on June 2, 2020, 

for inclusion into the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2031 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets included in Idaho’s 

maintenance plan for PM2.5, nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). EPA is proposing 

this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2020–0305, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not 

electronically submit any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Vaupel, (206) 553–6121, 

vauepl.claudia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

intended to refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Requirements for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Idaho’s Submittal 

A. Attainment Determination 

B. Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

1. CAA Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

2. Part D of Title I Requirements 

C. Improvement in Air Quality Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. Contingency Plan 

E. Requirements for Transportation 

Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets (MVEBs) 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On December 14, 2012, EPA 

promulgated a revised primary annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased 

protection of public health from fine 

particle pollution. 78 FR 3086 (January 

15, 2013). In that action, EPA 

strengthened the primary annual PM2.5

standard from 15.0 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) to 12.0 mg/m3, 

which is attained when the 3-year 

average of the annual arithmetic means 

does not exceed 12.0 mg/m3. On 

December 18, 2014, EPA promulgated 

initial designations for the 2012 primary 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011–2013 air 

quality monitoring data for the majority 

of the United States. 80 FR 2206 

(January 15, 2015). In that action, EPA 

designated the West Silver Valley in 

Shoshone County, Idaho as a moderate 

nonattainment area for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.313. 

On April 6, 2018, EPA published a 

‘‘finding of failure to submit’’ required 

SIP elements for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for several nonattainment areas 

nationwide, including the West Silver 

Valley in Idaho. See 83 FR 14759. In 

particular, Idaho failed to submit the 

following specific moderate area SIP 

elements for the West Silver Valley: An 

attainment demonstration; control 

strategies, including reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control 

technologies (RACT); a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan; quantitative 

milestones; and contingency measures. 

This finding triggered the sanctions 

clock under section 179 of the CAA, as 

well as an obligation under section 

110(c) of the CAA for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan no later than 2 years from the 

effective date of the finding, if Idaho has 

not submitted, and EPA has not 

approved, the required SIP submission. 

On December 21, 2018, EPA 

determined that the West Silver Valley 

attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on 2015–2017 ambient air quality 

monitoring data and made a ‘‘clean data 

determination.’’ 83 FR 65535. A clean 

data determination suspends certain 

planning requirements for the area, 

including the requirement to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, including RACT, an 

RFP plan, and contingency measures for 

failure to attain or meet RFP. These 

requirements are suspended as long as 

the area continues to meet the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. When the area is 

redesignated to attainment, the 

requirements are permanently 

discharged. 

II. Requirements for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7407(d)(3)(E), allows for redesignation 

provided that: (1) EPA determines that 

the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k) of the CAA; 

(3) EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS