Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0930-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Idaho; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2012-05-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30248-30259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12411]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0930, FRL-9675-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Idaho; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve portions of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Idaho on October 25, 
2010, as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 
and federal regional haze program requirements. In a previous action on 
June 22, 2011, EPA approved portions of the October 25, 2010, SIP 
submittal as meeting the requirements for interstate transport for 
visibility of the CAA and certain requirements of the regional haze 
program including the requirements for best available retrofit 
technology (BART). This Federal Register notice addresses the 
requirements of the Act and EPA's rules that require states to prevent 
any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air 
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area 
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program'').This action 
proposes to approve the remaining regional haze SIP elements for which 
EPA previously took no action in the June 22, 2011, notice.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before June 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2010-0930 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
     Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 
900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics, AWT-107. 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-
2010-0930. 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, 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 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of 
Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 
98101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual 
listed below to view a hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number (206) 
553-0782, body.steve@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized 
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    E. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    F. Long Term Strategy
    G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment
    H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
III. EPA's Analysis of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Baseline and Natural Conditions
    C. Idaho Emissions Inventories
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Idaho Class I Areas
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Idaho's Reasonable Progress Analysis
    2. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration of Reasonable 
Progress
    3. EPA's Determination Whether the SIP Submittal Meets 40 CFR 
51.308(d)
    G. Long Term Strategy
    H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Requirements
    I. Consultation with States and Federal Land Managers
    J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Scope of Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness 
areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility provisions 
in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of regional haze. 
See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to implement 
sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to 
develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward 
improving visibility in mandatory Class

[[Page 30249]]

I Federal areas \1\ (Class I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see 
also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On behalf of the State of Idaho, the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality submitted its Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plan (Regional Haze SIP submission or SIP submittal) to EPA on October 
25, 2010. In a previous action EPA approved certain provisions in 
Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submission. 76 FR 36329. This previous action 
approved the provisions addressing Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) (40 CFR 51.308(e), calculation of baseline and natural 
conditions (40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)) and state wide emission inventory of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area. In that same 
action, EPA also approved portions of the October 25, 2010 SIP 
submittal as meeting the requirements for interstate transport for 
visibility of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the provisions of 
Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submission that address the remaining 
regional haze requirements for establishing Reasonable Progress Goals 
(RPGs) and the Long Term Strategy (LTS).

A. Definition of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused 
by emission of air pollution produced by numerous sources and 
activities, located across a broad regional area. The sources include 
but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile 
sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic sources. These 
sources and activities may emit fine particles (PM2.5) 
(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil 
dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia 
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Atmospheric 
fine particulate reduces clarity, color, and visual range of visual 
scenes. Visibility reducing fine particulate is primarily composed of 
sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 
dust, and impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Fine 
particulate can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans, and contributes to environmental effects such as acid 
deposition and eutrophication. See 64 FR at 35715.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas in the 
Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air 
pollution.\2\ Id. Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by 
season depending on variation in meteorology and emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a 
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from 
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the 
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713) (the regional haze rule or RHR). The RHR revised the 
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation, 
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a 
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The 
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are 
summarized in section III of this rulemaking. The requirement to submit 
a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia 
and the Virgin Islands.\3\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze impairment can 
originate from across state lines, even across international 
boundaries, EPA has encouraged the States and Tribes to address 
visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional 
planning organizations \4\ (RPOs) were created nationally to address 
regional haze and related issues. One of the main objectives of the 
RPOs is to develop and analyze data and conduct pollutant transport 
modeling to assist the States or Tribes in developing their regional 
haze plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/regional.html for 
description of the regional planning organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),\5\ one of the five 
RPOs

[[Page 30250]]

nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, and 
local air agencies dealing with air quality in the West. WRAP member 
States include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of 
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The WRAP Web site can be found at http://www.wrapair.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the West, all 
states in the WRAP region contributed information to a Technical 
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze, 
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to 
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP States 
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the 
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their 
reasonable progress goals for the Western Class I areas. The modeling 
done by the WRAP relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the 
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were 
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the States in the WRAP, 
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part 
of the State's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The 
reasonable progress goals in the draft and final regional haze SIPs 
that have now been prepared by States in the West accordingly are 
based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby States that 
were agreed on through the WRAP process.

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes 
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of 
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview), 
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark 
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure 
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (which 
are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility 
goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause 
regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, 
i.e., manmade sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20% 
least impaired (``best'') and 20% most impaired (``worst'') visibility 
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then 
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has 
provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, 
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's 
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and 
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-
03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 
2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20% 
least impaired days and 20% most impaired days for each calendar year 
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states 
are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment 
for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the 
five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility 
conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of 
improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future 
comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will 
indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline time period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers 
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and 
at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This 
consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their 
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goals and 
on the development and implementation of strategies to address 
visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SIP a 
description of

[[Page 30251]]

how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977, to procure, install, and 
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (``BART'') as 
determined by the state. States are directed to conduct BART 
determinations for such sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The regional 
haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and 
compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a State has 
made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in 
operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years 
after the date EPA approves the regional haze SIP. See CAA section 
169A(g)(4)); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA previously approved Idaho's BART determination for the sources 
subject to BART in its jurisdiction. See 76 FR 36329.\8\ Please refer 
to that action for details of the BART requirements and EPA's rationale 
for approval of the BART provisions in the Idaho Regional Haze SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Upon EPA's final action, The Amalgamated Sugar Company 
(TASCO) filed a petition for review in the 9th Circuit Court of 
Appeals challenging EPA's approval of Idaho's BART determination for 
TASCO. See Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA, Ninth Circuit Petition No. 11-
72445. The case is pending before the 9th Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs) (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the 
``worst'' days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year 
implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or 
rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that 
provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., 
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, July 
1, 2007, Memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, 
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1) (``EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance''). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' (URP) or the 
``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform 
progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 
represents a rate of progress which states are to use for analytical 
comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting 
RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') 
must also consult with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other 
nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility 
impairment at the state's Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

F. Long Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

[[Page 30252]]

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met. Each state also is required to submit 
a report to EPA every five years that evaluates progress toward 
achieving the RPG for each Class I area within the state and outside 
the state if affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 
51.308(g). The first progress report is due five years from submittal 
of the initial regional haze SIP revision. At the same time a 5-year 
progress report is submitted, a state must determine the adequacy of 
its existing SIP to achieve the established goals for visibility 
improvement. See 40 CFR 51.308(h).

III. EPA's Analysis of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are five mandatory Class I areas, or portions of such areas, 
within Idaho. Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sawtooth 
Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area lie completely 
within Idaho State borders. Idaho is responsible for developing 
reasonable progress goals for these Class I areas. Hells Canyon 
Wilderness Area is a shared Class I area with Oregon, and Yellowstone 
National Park is a shared Class I area with Wyoming. See 40 CFR 81.410. 
Through agreement with Idaho, Oregon and Wyoming respectively will 
address reasonable progress goals, monitoring, and other core 
requirements for these Class I areas. Idaho consulted with Oregon and 
Wyoming to determine Idaho's contribution to regional haze in those 
Class I areas and to determine appropriate measures for Idaho's long-
term strategy. See the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal, chapter 13, 
section 13.2; see, also the WRAP Technical Support Document, February 
28, 2011 \9\ (WRAP TSD) supporting this action and 76 FR 36329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA evaluated the technical work products of the WRAP used 
by Idaho in support if this Regional Haze SIP submittal. The results 
of that evaluation are included in the document ``WRAP Technical 
Support Document'' or WRAP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Idaho SIP submittal addresses the three Class I areas that are 
completely within the State border and, as appropriate, the Class I 
areas with shared jurisdiction with Oregon and Wyoming and Class I 
areas in neighboring states and the visibility impacts of Idaho sources 
on Class I areas in neighboring states.

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions

    EPA previously evaluated and approved Idaho's identification of 
baseline and natural conditions for Craters of the Moon National 
Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 
Area, and the statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are from 
Idaho that impact nearby Class I areas. See 76 FR 1579, Jan. 11, 2011 
and 76 FR 36329, June 22, 2011 (proposed and final rule respectively). 
However, that discussion is relevant when evaluating the States' 
Reasonable Progress Goals which we are proposing to approve today. 
Thus, the discussion below summarizes EPA's previous explanation of the 
baseline and natural conditions in these Class I areas.
    Idaho established baseline and natural visibility conditions as 
well as the uniform rate of progress (URP) to achieve natural 
visibility conditions in 2064 for all three of the Class I areas within 
its borders. While Idaho is responsible for establishing baseline and 
natural conditions for these three areas, the SIP submittal also 
included these conditions for Hells Canyon Wilderness Area and 
Yellowstone National Park, as determined by WRAP and established by 
Oregon and Wyoming.
    Baseline visibility was calculated from monitoring data collected 
by IMPROVE monitors for the most-impaired (20% worst) days and the 
least-impaired (20% best) days. Idaho

[[Page 30253]]

used the WRAP derived natural visibility conditions. In general, WRAP 
based their natural condition estimates on EPA guidance, Guidance for 
Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze 
Program (EPA-45/B-03-0005 September 2003) but incorporated refinements 
which EPA believes provides results more appropriate for western states 
than the general EPA default approach. See WRAP TSD section 2.E.
    Craters of the Moon National Monument: An IMPROVE monitor is 
located in Craters of the Moon National Monument. Based on baseline 
2000 to 2004 data, the average 20% worst days visibility is 14 dv and 
the average 20% best days visibility is 4.3 dv. Natural visibility for 
the average 20% worst days is 7.53 dv.
    Sawtooth Wilderness Area: Sawtooth Wilderness Area has an IMPROVE 
monitor located within the Wilderness Area. Based on baseline 2000 to 
2004 data, the average 20% worst days visibility is 13.78 dv and the 
average 20% best days visibility is 3.99 dv. Natural visibility for the 
average 20% worst days is 6.42 dv.
    Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area: Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 
Area visibility is represented by an IMPROVE monitor located 20 km east 
of the Wilderness Area in Sula, Montana. This site also represents 
visibility in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area in Montana. Based on 
baseline 2000 to 2004 data, the average 20% worst days visibility is 
13.41 dv and the average 20% best days visibility is 2.58 dv for both 
areas. Natural visibility for the Selway-Bitteroot and the Anaconda-
Pintler Wilderness Areas average 20% worst days is 7.43 dv.

C. Idaho Emission Inventories

    EPA previously evaluated and approved Idaho's emissions inventory 
of pollutants that impact the three Class I areas in Idaho, as well as 
the impacts of emissions from Idaho on nearby Class I areas in other 
states and the sources of visibility impairment in the Class I areas 
located in Idaho. See 76 FR 1579, and 76 FR 36329. As explained in more 
detail in the notices for that rulemaking, in general, smoke from wild 
and prescribed fire, as measured by organic and elemental carbon, 
dominates visibility impairment in Idaho Class I areas, with the 
exception of Craters of the Moon National Monument where ammonium 
nitrate dominates at 39%. Smoke is the second largest contributor to 
impairment at Craters of the Moon National Monument at 37%, followed by 
sulfate at 13%. Smoke represents 84% of impairment at the Sawtooth 
Wilderness Area, followed by sulfate at 7% and nitrate at 2%. Smoke 
represents 60% impairment at the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, 
followed by sulfate at 19% and nitrate at 7%. See Tables 7-2, 7-20, and 
7-31 in the SIP submittal. Chapter 9 of the SIP submission demonstrates 
that generally half of the sulfate and 25% of the nitrate contributing 
to impairment in Idaho Class I areas originates from outside the United 
States.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Idaho Class I Areas

    Idaho used a two-step process to identify the contribution of each 
source or source category to existing visibility impairment. First, 
ambient pollutant concentration by species (sulfate, nitrate, organic 
carbon, fine particulate, etc) was determined from the IMPROVE sampler 
representing each Class I area. These concentrations were then used to 
determine the extinction coefficient and distribute existing impairment 
among the measured pollutant species. Extinction was then converted to 
deciview values. Second, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 
Extensions (CAMx) and Particulate Matter Source Apportionment 
Technology (PSAT) models were used to determine which sources and 
source categories contributed to the ambient concentration of each 
pollutant species. Thus, impairment was distributed by source and 
source category.
    The WRAP and Western States selected CAMx in conjunction with PSAT 
first to determine source contribution to ambient sulfate and nitrate 
concentrations and then to decide which geographic source regions 
contribute to haze at specific Class I areas. Description of these 
tools and our evaluation of them are described in more detail in 
section 6 of the WRAP TSD.
    Figure 7-1 in the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal presents the 
light extinction for the base year at each Class I area by visibility 
impairing pollutant species for the average of the 20% worst days. In 
addition the SIP submission identifies in Figures 7.2 through Figure 
7.52, light extinction by pollutant species for the average of the 20% 
worst and average of the 20% best days for each of the Class I areas.
    To determine potential impacts of emission sources in Idaho on 
Class I areas in other states, Idaho used the WRAP analysis of 
interstate impacts. Ambient sulfate and nitrate concentrations for the 
20% worst and best days for baseline (2002-2004) and 2018 at each 
western Class I area is distributed among all states in the WRAP. The 
SIP submittal provides an analysis of the Class I areas in nearby 
states. See chapter 9.3 of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submission. The 
Class I areas are:
Shared Class I Areas With Oregon and Wyoming
     Hells Canyon Wilderness Area: Idaho contributes 9.6% of 
the sulfate, 35% of the nitrate, 63% of the organic and elemental 
carbon, 42% of the fine particulate and 44% of the coarse particulate 
in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area.
     Yellowstone National Park: Idaho contributes 8% of the 
sulfate, 24% of the nitrate, 15% of the organic carbon, 17% of the 
elemental carbon, 28% of the fine and coarse particulate in Yellowstone 
National Park.
    Class I Areas outside Idaho: See section 9.3 of the SIP submittal 
for a detailed presentation of the contribution of Idaho sources on 
Class I areas outside Idaho.
     Glacier National Park in Montana: Idaho is ranked 3rd 
behind Montana and Washington in contribution of visibility impairing 
pollutants on the 20% worst days.
     Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area in Montana: Idaho is 
ranked 3rd behind Oregon and Washington in contribution to visibility 
impairing pollutants on the 20% worst days.
     Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in Montana: Idaho is ranked 
3rd behind Montana and Washington in contribution to visibility 
impairing pollutants on the 20% worst days.
     Gates of the Mountain Wilderness in Montana: Idaho is 
``ranked 3rd'' behind Montana and Washington in contribution to 
visibility impairing pollutants on the 20% worst days.
     North Absaroka Wilderness in Wyoming: Idaho is ranked 2nd 
behind Wyoming in contribution to visibility impairing pollutants on 
the 20% worst days.
     Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming: Idaho is ranked 2nd behind 
Wyoming in contribution to visibility impairing pollutants on the 20% 
worst days.
     Eagle Cap Wilderness Area Oregon: Idaho is ranked 3rd 
behind Oregon and Washington in contribution to visibility impairing 
pollutant on the 20% worst days.
     Jarbidge Wilderness Area in Nevada: Idaho is ranked 1st in 
contribution of sulfate and nitrate to the Jarbidge Wilderness area.

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    EPA previously reviewed and approved Idaho's BART determinations 
for all sources subject to BART in Idaho.

[[Page 30254]]

See 76 FR 36329. As explained in the Federal Register notice the State 
made BART determinations for the following sources:

 Amalgamated Sugar: Paul Facility
 Amalgamated Sugar: Twin Falls
 Amalgamated Sugar: Nampa
 NuWest/Agrium
 J.R. Simplot Don Plant
 Monsanto/P4 Production
 Potlatch Pulp and Paper

    BART for all but two of the BART-eligible sources (Amalgamated 
Sugar Nampa and Monsanto/P4 Production) is existing control because 
they were determined to not cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area. At Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa, the Riley 
Boiler is the only emission unit at the facility that is subject to 
BART. BART for the Riley Boiler was determined to be Low NOX 
Burners with overfire air for NOX, wet flue gas 
desulfurization for SO2 and the existing baghouse for 
particulate matter.
    BART for Monsanto/P4 Production SO2 emissions is the 
hydro-sonic wet scrubbers to remove sub-micron particles and lime-
concentrated dual-alkai (LCDA) scrubbers on their calciner kiln which 
reduced emissions from 12,252 tons per year (tpy) in 2004 to a 
permitted potential to emit of 626 tpy.

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

1. Idaho's Reasonable Progress Analysis
    The RHR requires States to show ``reasonable progress'' toward 
natural visibility conditions over the time period of the SIP, with 
2018 as the first milestone year. The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) also 
requires that the State establish a goal, expressed in deciviews (dv), 
for each Class I area within the State that provides for reasonable 
progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions by 2064. As 
such the State must establish a Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG) for each 
Class I area that provides for visibility improvement for the most-
impaired (20% worst) days and ensures no degradation in visibility for 
the least-impaired (20% best) days in 2018.
    RPGs are estimates of the progress to be achieved by 2018 through 
implementation of the LTS which includes anticipated emission 
reductions from all State and Federal regulatory requirements 
implemented between the baseline and 2018, including but not limited to 
BART and any additional controls for non-BART sources or emission 
activities including any Federal requirements that reduce visibility 
impairing pollutants. As explained above, the rate needed to achieve 
natural conditions by 2064 is referred to as the uniform rate of 
progress or URP.
    If the State establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides 
for a slower rate of improvement than the rate that would be needed to 
attain natural conditions by 2064, the State must demonstrate based on 
the factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that the rate of progress for 
the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 
reasonable; and the progress goal adopted by the State is reasonable. 
The State must provide to the public for review as part of its 
implementation plan an assessment of the number of years it would take 
to attain natural conditions if visibility continues at the rate of 
progress selected by the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(B)(ii).
    The primary tool relied upon by Idaho for determining regional haze 
improvements by 2018 and for establishing the RPGs, was the CMAQ 
modeling conducted by WRAP. The CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 
visibility conditions in Idaho and all Western Class I areas, based on 
application of the regional haze strategies included in this plan.
    WRAP developed air quality modeling inputs including annual 
meteorology and emissions inventories for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions 
base case, (2) a planning case to represent the 2000-04 regional haze 
baseline period using average emissions for key emissions categories, 
and (3) a projected 2018 case to determine improvements achievable by 
2018. EPA approves the use of the CMAQ model to determine future 
visibility conditions in Idaho Class I areas. A more detailed 
description of the CMAQ modeling performed by WRAP can be found in the 
WRAP TSD.
    In setting the RPGs for its Class I areas, Idaho considered a 
number of factors including the statutory four factors: Cost of 
compliance, time necessary for compliance, the non-air environmental 
and energy impacts, and remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Based on these four 
factors, Idaho considered whether it was reasonable to control 
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairing emissions under its 
regulatory jurisdiction. Idaho focused its evaluation of sources for 
the purpose of achieving further reasonable progress on SO2 
and NOX because these pollutants have the greatest 
visibility impairing characteristics and because organic and elemental 
carbon primarily originates from wildfire. In consideration of the 
amount of SO2 and NOX emitted, Idaho identified 
the following source categories subject to the statutory four-factor 
analysis: (1) External combustion boilers; (2) elemental phosphorus 
production; (3) sulfuric acid processing plants; (4) pulp and paper 
processing; (5) cement manufacturing; (6) sugar beet processing; and 
(7) natural gas compressing stations. Idaho's four-factor analysis of 
the significant stationary source categories is summarized below.
    The External Combustion Boilers source category includes boilers 
used to generate steam or hot water in manufacturing, material 
processing, mining, refining, and/or electricity. SOx and 
NOX are the visibility impairing pollutants of concern for 
this category. Tables 11-2 and 11-3 in the Idaho SIP submittal show a 
total of 3,118 tpy of SO2 and 4,647 tpy of NOX in 
the emission inventory for this category. SIP submittal Table 11-7 
presents a number of control options for each visibility impairing 
pollutant for different fuels. See section 11.4.1 of the SIP submittal 
for additional detail regarding the State's analysis of this source 
category.
    Sulfuric Acid Contact Processing emits sulfur dioxide as the only 
visibility impairing pollutant of concern from this type of facility. 
Idaho SIP submittal Table 11-2 shows a total of 364 tpy of 
SO2 in the emission inventory for this category. SIP 
submittal Table 11-8 presents the cost for two control technologies: 
increased absorption efficiency to New Source Performance Standards and 
tail gas treatment. See SIP submittal section 11.4.3 for additional 
detail regarding the State's analysis of this source category.
    Cement manufacturing emits NOX which is the only 
visibility impairing pollutant of concern. Idaho has only one cement 
plant, Ash Grove Cement in Inkom, Idaho. Both SO2 and 
NOX emissions from the rotary kiln have emission limits 
established in its PSD permit. Sulfur dioxide is limited to 76 tpy from 
Kiln 1 and 21 tpy from kiln 2. See Table 4-2 of the 
Permit to Operate issued December 23, 2010, by the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality (IDEQ). Table 11-3 Idaho SIP shows a total of 461 
tpy of NOX in the emission inventory for this category. 
Table 11-9 of the SIP submittal presents the estimated costs for 
compliance for the control options. See SIP Submittal section 11.4.4 
for additional detail regarding the State's analysis of this source 
category.
    Interstate Transport of Natural Gas (natural gas fueled internal 
combustion engines for compressing stations on the interstate natural 
gas pipeline) emits NOX which is the only visibility 
impairing pollutant of concern from the

[[Page 30255]]

compressing stations. Table 11-3 in the Idaho SIP shows a total of 
2,590 tpy of NOX in the emission inventory for this 
category. Table 11-10 of the SIP submittal presents the costs of 
control options for both reciprocating engines and gas turbines. See 
SIP submittal section 11.4.6 for additional detail regarding the 
State's analysis of this source category.
    In spite of the relatively low cost effectiveness for controls in 
these source categories, Idaho concludes that additional control 
measures for these source categories are not reasonable at this time. 
Idaho recognized that according to the modeling, the Class I areas are 
not expected to achieve the URP for 2018. Nevertheless, Idaho also 
concludes that the goals established for each of Idaho's Class I areas 
for the first planning cycle of 2018 are reasonable. These conclusions 
are based upon the significant impact of wildfire on all of Idaho's 
Class I areas and the amount of sulfate and nitrate originating outside 
the United States. As discussed previously in this notice, wildfire 
significantly contributes to impairment in all three Class I areas. 
More specifically, anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic fire contributes 
between 37% and 84% to visibility impairment in the Class I areas in 
Idaho. Non-anthropogenic fire emissions are 85% and anthropogenic fire 
emissions are 15% of total fire emissions in Idaho. (Calculated from 
Table 8-4 of the SIP submission.) Idaho concluded that additional 
controls on individual sources, even if cost effective, will not alter 
the magnitude of the visibility impact attributable to wildfire. 
Additionally, Idaho further refined its analysis and considered a URP 
individually for sulfate and nitrate impairment. This analysis found 
that due to the anticipated reductions of SO2 and 
NOX emissions in both Idaho and neighboring states which 
will result from required controls on point sources, the remaining 
sulfate and nitrate emissions are near to or exceed URP for those 
pollutants. Idaho concluded that additional controls on SO2 
or NO2 sources are not helpful in achieving the URP.
    Idaho also qualitatively considered two new developments in 
emission source projections since the WRAP modeling was completed that 
result in lower emissions than the emission estimates used in the WRAP 
modeling. When the WRAP modeling was performed, it was assumed that a 
new coal-fired power plant would be built and operating in Jerome, 
Idaho by 2018 and the expected emissions from this proposed plant were 
incorporated into the model projections. Subsequently, the Idaho 
Governor issued a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. Thus the 
estimated emissions associated with the new facility will not occur. 
Also, requirements for new controls on marine vessels operating within 
200 miles of the West Coast were not included in the projected 
improvements in visibility. Both of these actions are likely to result 
in lower emissions than were used in the model and achieve better 
visibility in future years than the model predicts.
2. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration of Reasonable Progress
    After conducting the CMAQ modeling, Idaho established RPGs for each 
Class I area and, based on the RPG and linear progress to natural 
conditions, it determined the number of years needed to achieve natural 
conditions. The results follow:
    Craters of the Moon National Monument;

 Baseline 20% worst days: 14 dv
 2018 RPG 20% worst days: 13.06 dv
 2018 URP 20% worst days: 12.49 dv
 Baseline 20% best days: 04.31 dv
 2018 RPG 20% best days: 03.89 dv
 Years needed to achieve natural conditions: 112 yrs

    Sawtooth Wilderness Area;

 Baseline 20% worst days: 13.78 dv
 2018 RPG 20% worst days: 13.22 dv
 2018 URP 20% worst days: 12.06 dv
 Baseline 20% best days: 03.99 dv
 2018 RPG 20% best days: 03.78 dv
 Years needed to achieve natural conditions: 161 yrs

    Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area;

 Baseline 20% worst days: 13.41 dv
 2018 RPG 20% worst days: 12.94 dv
 2018 URP 20% worst days: 12.02 dv
 Baseline 20% best days: 02.58 dv
 2018 RPG 20% best days: 02.48 dv
 Years needed to achieve natural conditions: 221

    Idaho concludes, after considering the contribution of visibility 
impairment coming from natural sources rather than anthropogenic 
sources, the emissions reductions of SO2 and NOX 
that can be expected from anthropogenic sources, the four-factor 
analysis, and ``on-the-books'' controls and long term strategies, that 
no additional control is reasonable at this time and that Idaho's 
visibility goals are reasonable. The focus should be on sources that 
could be controlled. Thus, in its evaluation of potential sources or 
source categories for reasonable progress the state primarily 
considered point sources. Idaho determined that the key pollutants 
contributing to visibility impairment are SO2, 
NOX and organic and elemental carbon. Idaho also only 
considered controls for SO2 and NOX emissions 
which are typically associated with anthropogenic sources. Idaho 
determined that the major source of organic and elemental carbon was 
natural fire and after reviewing the WRAP modeling results, Idaho found 
that particulate matter (PM) emissions from point sources only 
contribute a minimal amount to the visibility impairment in the Class I 
areas in Idaho. Idaho concluded that little gain would be achieved from 
further reduction in sulfur dioxide, organic carbon and nitrogen oxides 
from point sources in Idaho at this time.
3. EPA's Determination Whether the SIP Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d)
    In a previous action, EPA approved Idaho's determination of 
baseline and natural visibility conditions in each Class I area in 
Idaho. See 78 FR 36329. The linear progress from baseline visibility to 
natural visibility in 2064 defines the URP. ``2018 URP'' is the rate of 
progress to be achieved by 2018 in order to stay on track to achieve 
natural conditions by 2064. EPA independently evaluated whether there 
are reasonable control measures available for sources located within 
Idaho's regulatory jurisdiction that would achieve further progress 
toward achieving the 2018 URP.
    We began this analysis using a screening methodology called ``Q/d'' 
to determine which stationary (point) sources would be candidates for 
controls under reasonable progress. The value Q/d is the ratio of the 
mathematical sum of actual SO2, NOX and PM 
emissions in tons per year, denoted as ``Q'' divided by the distance 
(in kilometers, denoted as ``d'') of the point source to the nearest 
Class I area. A high Q/d would indicate the likelihood of the source 
causing or contributing to impairment in that Class I area.
    To determine the Q/d value that would provide assurance that a 
source would, or would not cause or contribute to impairment in any 
Class I area, we considered the modeled visibility impacts from the 
CALPUFF modeling used to determine the BART eligible sources subject to 
BART in EPA Region 10 and the distance of the source to the nearest 
Class I area. There were 19 BART eligible sources used in this 
analysis. See memorandum to the files from Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, 
dated March 21, 2012. All sources with a Q/d ratio of less than 26.1 
had visibility impacts of less than 0.5 dv. The resultant average of 
the range is about 0.3 dv, which is a more conservative

[[Page 30256]]

reasonable progress threshold than the 0.5 dv that was used in 
determining which sources would be subject-to-BART under the federal 
BART regulations. Since the threshold is more conservative than the 
subject-to-BART threshold, we believe that a Q/d value of 20 is 
reasonable for determining which sources the State should consider for 
the reasonable progress analysis.
    The evaluation of potential RP sources involved all Idaho's 
stationary sources with actual SO2, NOX, or 
PM10 emissions greater than 40 tpy. We identified 24 sources 
(both BART eligible and non-BART eligible) as exceeding the 40 tpy 
threshold. Of the 24 sources, 17 are not BART eligible and all had Q/d 
ratios of less than 20. The source with the highest ratio had a Q/d 
value of 17.
    EPA does not believe these 17 non-BART sources would cause or 
contribute to impairment in any Class I area. Therefore, EPA does not 
believe that additional analysis of the 17 non-BART sources would 
result in an outcome different from Idaho's conclusion that additional 
control of these non-BART sources is not reasonable at this time. Thus, 
EPA agrees with Idaho's conclusion that additional controls of non-BART 
point sources for reasonable progress purposes are not reasonable at 
this time, because even though there are cost effective controls 
identified, visibility improvement is anticipated to be relatively 
small. This includes those point sources in the four categories that 
Idaho identified above for the four-factor analysis: (1) External 
combustion boilers; (2) sulfuric acid contact processing; (3) cement 
manufacturing; and (4) natural gas compressing stations.
    It should be noted that while elemental phosphorus production was 
identified by Idaho as a potential source category for the reasonable 
progress analysis, the only source is Monsanto/P4, a source subject to 
BART, for which a control technology evaluation was conducted and a 
BART determination made. Implementation of BART for Monsanto/P4 will 
result in an approximate 9,000 tpy reduction in SO2, roughly 
over half the total statewide point source SO2 emissions in 
2002. The BART evaluation for NOX determined there are no 
feasible NOX controls for this process.
    Idaho identified sugar beet processing as a potential source for 
further four-factor analysis. The boilers used in sugar beet processing 
are addressed in the evaluation of external boilers. Likewise, Idaho 
identified pulp and paper as a potential source for further four-factor 
analysis. The only pulp mill in Idaho is the Potlatch Pulp & Paper Mill 
located in Lewiston, Idaho. The Potlatch facility is a BART-eligible 
source and was addressed in our previous Federal Register action dated 
June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36329).
    EPA also considered control measures for anthropogenic fire; 
prescribed forest fire and agricultural fire. Idaho operates a robust 
enhanced smoke management program for prescribed forest fire and 
agricultural burning. The agricultural smoke management program was 
previously approved by EPA. See 73 FR 44915. There are no other source 
categories that appear to emit visibility impairing pollutants 
sufficient to warrant consideration for additional control.
    The Idaho SIP results in improvement in visibility on the 20% worst 
days and no degradation in visibility on the 20% best days, however the 
URP for 2018 is not expected to be achieved in any Class I area in 
Idaho. Nevertheless, as explained below, EPA proposes to approve the 
State's determination that it is not reasonable to achieve the UPR in 
2018 and that these RPGs for the Class I areas in Idaho presented in 
the SIP submittal are reasonable.
    a. Findings from the statutory four-factor analysis. As discussed 
above, based on the general level of review for the major source 
categories, Idaho determined it was not reasonable to control 
additional source categories at this time.
    b. Evidence that natural sources affect the ability to achieve the 
2018 URP goal. Idaho's analysis in the SIP for natural emission sources 
supports the finding that the contributions of natural sources, such as 
natural wildfire and windblown dust, and the pollutants associated with 
these sources (organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine particulate, and 
coarse particulate) are the primary reason for not achieving the 2018 
URP for Idaho Class I areas. For example, the state found that 82% of 
the organic carbon emissions and 72% of the elemental carbon emissions 
were from natural fire and that natural fire and windblown dust 
together contribute over 40% and 60% of PM2.5 and PM 
emissions. See Table 11-1 of the SIP submittal.
    c. Sources outside the modeling domain. Sources of SO2 
and NOX emissions outside the modeling domain contribute 
from 45 to 51% of the SO2 emissions, and from 25 to 37% of 
the NOX emissions that impact visibility in Class I areas in 
Idaho. See Table 12-2. These sources are not under the jurisdiction of 
Idaho nor surrounding States, and therefore will not be significantly 
controlled by 2018.
    d. Not reasonable to meet URP. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides 
that: If the state establishes a RPG that provides for a slower rate of 
improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain 
natural conditions by 2064, the state must demonstrate based on the 
four-factors that the rate of progress for the implementation plan to 
attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable and that the 
progress goal adopted by the state is reasonable. This demonstration is 
twofold. Idaho demonstrated that achieving the URP is not reasonable 
due to the overwhelming visibility impacts of wildfire and emissions 
from sources outside the modeling domain, both uncontrollable source 
categories. Idaho's analysis also uses an approach based on looking at 
each pollutant species, showing that URP is achieved or almost achieved 
for SO2 and NOX. This approach goes beyond what 
was contemplated by the RHR and but even without using the pollutant 
species approach, the State's RPGs are reasonable because of the source 
category analysis and the contribution from sources outside the 
modeling domain and from non-anthropogenic sources. Although Idaho is 
anticipated to achieve reasonable and significant reductions of 
NOX and SO2 during the first planning period, 
reaching the URP is not reasonable since the visibility benefits from 
potential SO2 and NOX controls on other source 
categories is minimal, and the majority of visibility impairment is due 
to uncontrollable emissions.
    As explained in the EPA's RPG Guidance, the 2018 URP estimate is 
not a presumptive target and the State's RPGs may be lesser, greater or 
equivalent to the glide path. The glide path to 2064 represents a rate 
of progress which states must use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. EPA believes the RPGs 
established by Idaho for the Class I areas in Idaho, although not 
achieving the URP, are reasonable because of the significant visibility 
improvement expected from BART controls for SO2 and 
NOX. Idaho determined that other measures needed to reach 
the URP are not reasonable at this time because of the overwhelming 
influence of natural fire to visibility impairment and the fact that 
additional control measures on sources of sulfate and nitrate are not 
estimated to contribute substantial visibility improvement by the end 
of the first planning period. Consequently, we propose to find that the 
State has demonstrated that its 2018 RPGs are

[[Page 30257]]

reasonable and consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and 
51.308(d)(1)(ii).

G. Long Term Strategy

    The Long Term Strategy required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) is a 
compilation of all existing and anticipated new air pollution control 
measures (both those identified in this plan as well as measures 
resulting from other air pollution requirements.) The LTS must include 
``enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for 
all Class I areas within or effected by emissions from the State. 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3). In developing a LTS, Idaho identified existing 
programs and rules, additional new controls that may be needed for 
other CAA requirements, and additional measures which may be required 
to achieve reasonable progress in Class I areas in Idaho.
    Idaho adequately addressed the RHR requirements in developing its 
LTS. The LTS provides sufficient documentation to ensure that Idaho 
will meet its emission reduction obligations for all Class I areas it 
affects in the first planning period. Idaho relied on monitoring, 
emission inventories and modeling information from the WRAP as the 
technical basis for its LTS. Coordination and consultation occurred 
with other states through the WRAP, in which all western states 
participated in developing the technical analysis upon which their SIPs 
are based. The state's analysis included identifying all anthropogenic 
sources of visibility impairment including major and minor stationary 
sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The anticipated net effect 
on visibility over the first planning period due to changes in point, 
area and mobile source emissions is an improvement in visibility in all 
Class I areas in Idaho.
    Idaho has a number of ongoing programs and regulations that 
directly protect visibility or provide for improved visibility by 
generally reducing emissions:
 Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review 
Regulations
    Two primary regulatory programs for addressing visibility 
impairment from industrial sources are the BART and Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/NSR) rules. The PSD/
NSR rules protect visibility in Class I areas from emissions from new 
industrial sources and major modifications to existing sources. Idaho's 
regulations (IDAPA58.01.01.200 through 228) and SIP require visibility 
impact assessment and mitigation associated with emissions from new and 
modified major stationary sources through protection of air quality 
related values (AQRVs). AQRVs are scenic and environmentally related 
resources that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality, 
including visibility, odor, noise, vegetation, and soils. These 
requirements were approved by EPA in 1983. Idaho's continued 
implementation of PSD/NSR requirements with FLM involvement for Class I 
area impact review will assist in maintaining the least impaired days 
from further degradation and assure that no Class I area experiences 
degradation in visibility resulting from expansion or growth of 
stationary sources in the state.
 Regional Haze BART Controls
    The RHR includes the requirements for states to implement BART for 
eligible sources within the State that may reasonably cause or 
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I 
area. 40 CFR 51.308(e). The installation of BART emission limits is an 
integral part of the state's LTS. Idaho regulations in IDAPA 58.01.01 
contain the requirements for BART under the regional haze rule 
including measures necessary to address RAVI. Idaho has completed 
analysis of the identified BART-eligible sources in Idaho and has 
determined BART emission limits for all BART-subject sources. Each 
source subject to BART is required to install and operate BART five 
years after the EPA approval of the implementation plan. Once controls 
are implemented, facilities subject to BART must ensure that control 
equipment is properly operated and maintained. EPA previously approved 
the BART portions of the Idaho Regional Haze plan. 76 FR 36329.
 Local, State and Federal Mobile Source Control Programs
    Estimated mobile source emissions show decreases in NOX, 
SO2, and VOCs in Idaho during the period 2002-2018. These 
declines in emissions are due to numerous rules already in place, most 
of which are federal regulations. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control 
Program (FMVCP) is the federal certification program that requires all 
new cars sold in 49 states to meet specific emission standards. As part 
of the FMVCP, all new cars must meet their applicable emission 
standards on a standard test cycle called the Federal Test Procedure 
(FTP). These standards vary according to vehicle age, with the newer 
vehicles required to be considerably cleaner than older models. The 
result of this decline over time in allowable emissions from newly 
manufactured vehicles has been a drop in overall emissions from the 
vehicle fleet, as older, dirtier vehicles are replaced with newer, 
cleaner vehicles.
    EPA's Tier 2 emission standards for passenger cars, light trucks 
and larger passenger vehicles are focused on reducing emissions most 
responsible for ozone and particulate matter. The control equipment 
introduced to meet these standards will result in reductions in 
visibility impairing pollutants. Various federal rules establishing 
emission standards and fuel requirements for diesel on-road and non-
road equipment are expected to significantly reduce emissions of 
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides from emission 
sources over the first planning period.
 Implementation of Programs to Meet PM10 NAAQS
    Northern Ada County (Boise) and Portneuf Valley (Pocatello) are 
PM10 maintenance areas. See 68 FR 61106 and 71 FR 39574. 
These areas previously exceeded the PM10 NAAQS primarily due 
to residential wood combustion and road dust. To control the 
PM10 emissions and bring the area into attainment, Idaho put 
in place strict controls that regulate wood burning and control road 
dust in these communities.
 Measures To Mitigate Impacts of Construction Activities
    In developing its LTS, Idaho considered the impact of construction 
activities on visibility in the Class I areas in Idaho. State 
regulations IDAPA 58.01.01.651 and 652 require that entities that cause 
or permit bulk materials to be handled, transported, or stored or who 
engage in industrial activities or construction projects shall take 
reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from being 
airborne. In determining `reasonable precautions' the rule specifically 
identifies activities and proximity to any Class I area. Types of 
precautions include: use of water or chemicals, application of dust 
suppressants, use of control equipment, covering truck loads, paving of 
roads, and prompt removal of material.
 Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
    Emission limits and compliance schedules for stationary sources are 
specified under Idaho and federal regulations in accordance with the 
Act. Additionally as discussed above, the BART provisions previously 
approved by EPA establish federally enforceable emission limitations 
and compliance schedule for BART sources. Idaho

[[Page 30258]]

anticipates that future SIP updates may identify additional emission 
controls that could be implemented in the future and commits to include 
limits and compliance schedules as appropriate in future Regional Haze 
plan updates.
 Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    Idaho's continued implementation of NSR and PSD requirements, with 
the FLMs Review of impacts to Class I areas, will assure that there is 
no degradation of visibility in Idaho Class I areas on the least 
impaired days from expansion or growth of stationary sources in the 
State. Idaho will track source retirement and replacement and include 
known retirement schedules in periodic revisions to its Regional Haze 
SIP.
 Smoke Management Techniques for Agricultural and Forestry 
Burning
    Smoke from wildland and prescribed fire is a major contributor to 
visibility impairment in Idaho's Class I Areas. Idaho's implementation 
of effective smoke management techniques through regulation and an 
enhanced smoke management plan will mitigate impacts of planned burning 
on visibility in the Class I areas. For example, Idaho regulates 
agricultural burning through its crop residue burning regulations. See 
IDAPA 58.01.01.617-623. In accordance with these regulations, Idaho 
requires permits and daily burn approval for crop residue burning. 
Idaho regulates prescribed fire through IDAPA 58.01.01.614 and works 
cooperatively with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group to address air 
quality impacts from wildland fire. The Montana/Idaho Airshed Group is 
composed of Federal, State, Tribal and private land managers dedicated 
to the preservation of air quality in Idaho and Montana. The Airshed 
Group manages prescribed fire throughout Idaho and Montana by daily 
authorization of individual burns.
 Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    The BART emission limits and control measures are enforceable as a 
matter of state law by virtue of IDAPA 58.01.01.655 through 668, and 
are federally enforceable when approved as part of its SIP. As 
previously mentioned, EPA approved Idaho's BART emission limits and 
controls on June 22, 2011. 76 FR 36329.
    Idaho projected the emissions inventory changes to the point, area 
and mobile sources by 2018. The changes are predicted based on the 
WRAP's most recent emissions inventory and include the BART and LST 
components known at the time of the inventory development. Amore 
detailed discussion of the reductions may be found in section 8 of the 
SIP Submittal.

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Idaho is the 
IMPROVE network. As discussed above, there are currently IMPROVE sites 
at Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness Area and 
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area. IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-
2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program, and is 
relied upon in the Idaho Regional Haze submittal. Idaho commits to rely 
on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring 
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze 
implementation periods. See section 4.4 of the SIP submittal. Data 
produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used for preparing 
the five-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of 
which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data.

I. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    Through the WRAP, member states and Tribes worked extensively with 
the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to 
develop technical analyses that support the regional haze SIPs for the 
WRAP states. The proposed Regional Haze plan for Idaho was provided to 
the FLM for comment between June 3, 2010 and August 5, 2010. See 
section 13.1 of the SIP submittal. Idaho also consulted with the States 
of Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming and Montana. Idaho also commits 
to continued consultation with the FLMs and the other states as part of 
the continued implementation of the plan and for future progress 
reports and revisions. This continuing consultation process will 
provide the opportunity for on-going opportunities to address a host of 
items including, for example, the implementation of emission control 
programs, changes to the monitoring strategy or monitoring locations, 
status of state actions to meet commitments for future assessments or 
rulemaking, and work on the five-year reviews and ten-year revisions. 
Additionally, Idaho consulted with the tribes during development of 
their plan through the WRAP activities and direct outreach to the 
tribes. Accordingly, Idaho adequately addressed the consultation 
requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation 
with FLMs and other states.

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires that the regional haze plans 
be revised and submitted to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years 
thereafter. 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires the state to submit a progress 
report to EPA every five years evaluating progress towards the 
reasonable progress goals for each Class I area in the State and each 
Class I area located outside the State which may be affected by 
emissions from within the State. Idaho has committed to evaluate and 
reassess its Regional Haze plan and to provide a Regional Haze SIP 
revision by July 31, 2018 for the next 10 year planning cycle. See 
section 13.5 of the SIP submission. Idaho has also committed to 
submitting the five-year review and report on the Regional Haze plan. 
See section 13.1 of the SIP submittal.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    On June 22, 2011, EPA approved portions of the Idaho Regional Haze 
Plan submitted October 25, 2011, including Idaho's emission inventory, 
determination of baseline and natural condition and the BART controls 
and emission limits. Today, for the reasons explained above, EPA is 
proposing to approve the remaining parts of the Idaho Regional Haze 
submittal as meeting the requirements set forth in section 169A and 
169B of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300-308 regarding regional haze.

V. Scope of Action

    Idaho has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce IDAPA 
chapter 58 within ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.\10\ 
Therefore, EPA proposes that this SIP approval not extend to ``Indian 
Country'' in Idaho. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include 
enforceable emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate

[[Page 30259]]

authority under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6) 
(nonattainment SIPs shall include enforceable emission limits). This is 
consistent with EPA's previous approval of Idaho's PSD program, in 
which EPA specifically disapproved the program for sources within 
Indian Reservations in Idaho because the State had not shown it had 
authority to regulate such sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also 
consistent with EPA's approval of Idaho's title V air operating permits 
program. See 61 FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval 
does not extend to Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 (October 4, 
2001) (full approval does not extend to Indian Country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Indian country'' is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1) 
All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through 
the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the 
borders of the United States, whether within the original or 
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 
without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian allotments, the 
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats 
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe 
even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a 
reservation. In Idaho, Indian country includes, but is not limited 
to, the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley Reservation, the 
Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, 
and the Nez Perce Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce 
Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. 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 Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 
tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 
requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless 
provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon, and 
Washington in letters dated January 14, 2011. EPA received one request 
for consultation, and we have followed-up with that Tribe.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 15, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-12411 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P