Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0930-0023
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of State Implementation Plans: Idaho; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2012-11-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 217 (Thursday, November 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66929-66935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27216]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0930, FRL9750-1]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 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 Clean Air Act (CAA or 
the Act) sections 169A and 169B and federal regional haze regulations. 
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 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
and certain requirements of the regional haze rule, including the 
requirements for best available retrofit technology (BART). On May 22, 
2012, EPA proposed to approve the remaining portion of the Regional 
Haze SIP submittal, including those portions that address CAA 
provisions that require states to set Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 
for their Class I areas, and to develop a Long Term Strategy (LTS) to 
achieve these goals. In this Federal Register notice, EPA finalizes its 
approval of the remaining Regional Haze SIP elements as proposed in the 
May 22, 2012 notice.

DATES: This action is effective on December 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0930. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed 
in the index, some information

[[Page 66930]]

may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, 
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

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 EPA. Information is organized as 
follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Scope of Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in 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 I Federal areas \1\ (Class I areas). 64 
FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 (IDEQ) 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, June 
22, 2011. Specifically, the previous action approved the BART 
provisions (40 CFR 51.308(e)), the calculation of baseline and natural 
conditions (40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)), and the statewide emission inventory 
of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area.\2\ 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) with respect to the 
visibility prong for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Upon EPA's final action, The Amalgamated Sugar Company 
(TASCO) filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals challenging EPA's approval of Idaho's BART determination for 
TASCO. See Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA, No. 11-72445 (9th Cir.). The 
case is pending before the Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 22, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the remaining provisions 
of Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submission, including the regional haze 
requirements for establishing RPGs and the LTS, see 77 FR 30248. The 
public comment period for this proposed rule ended on June 21, 2012.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received five comments on the May 22, 2012, proposed action to 
approve portions of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal. Responses to 
issues raised in these comment letters are discussed in this section.

A. Correction of Ownership for Clearwater Paper

    Comment: One comment requested a correction of ownership of one of 
Idaho's regulated facilities, the Clearwater Paper Corporation.
    Response: EPA agrees with this request and acknowledges that the 
pulp mill in Lewiston, Idaho, previously referred to as the Potlatch 
Pulp and Paper Mill is owned by the Clearwater Paper Corporation.

B. Approach to Identifying Stationary Source Controls To Meet the 
Reasonable Progress Requirements of the Regional Haze Rule

    Comment: Four commenters, the National Park Service (NPS), Safe Air 
for Everyone (SAFE), Save Our Summers NW (SOS NW), and the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes Air Quality Department, expressed concerns over Idaho's 
reasonable progress analysis for stationary sources.
    The NPS indicated that the Idaho plan did appropriately identify 
the major source categories to evaluate for controls under reasonable 
progress, but noted however, that Idaho did not properly consider what 
emission controls might be reasonable to implement for specific sources 
within those categories to ``assure reasonable progress towards meeting 
the national goal of preventing future and remedying any existing 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas.'' The NPS 
recommended that Idaho reconsider the decision that no controls are 
reasonable for sources under the reasonable progress requirements. The 
commenter noted further that Idaho did not consider controls for 
stationary sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2). The NPS pointed 
out that EPA determined that several of the Idaho stationary sources 
have visibility impacts between 0.3-1.3 deciviews (dv) and urged EPA 
and the State to evaluate specific control measures for these sources. 
The NPS expressed specific concerns regarding J.R. Simplot, a phosphate 
fertilizer manufacturing facility which is 86 km from Craters of the 
Moon National Monument and has 1,609 tons per year (tpy) of 
SO2 emissions.
    SAFE, whose comments were endorsed by SOS NW, asserts that it is 
not reasonable for Idaho to submit a SIP that provides no additional 
controls for reasonable progress given that none of Idaho's Class I 
areas are projected to meet the uniform rate of progress by 2064. This 
commenter further indicates that the State should adopt low-cost 
controls on stationary sources that could produce additional progress.
    The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality Department commented that 
Idaho needs to demonstrate that it is making reasonable progress within 
the State, especially with respect to non-BART sources in eastern 
Idaho. The comment adds that the SIP submittal was not detailed enough 
to report emissions of haze pollutants from BART and non-BART units for 
three plants: The J.R. Simplot Don Plant, Nu West/Agrium, and P4 
Production LLC (formerly Monsanto) and that EPA

[[Page 66931]]

should require a fast track revision to the SIP submittal which 
includes the necessary additional details in a four-factor analysis.
    For J.R. Simplot, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality 
Department further notes that the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP) identified 31 separate emission units within the plant and that 
the most significant sources of visibility impairing pollutants were 
non-BART emission units. This comment adds that the plant has operated 
with few process changes over the years and has been well characterized 
and permitted by IDEQ, and that the State should have carried out the 
four-factor reasonable progress analysis as required by the CAA. The 
commenter noted that the 2007 Toxic Release Inventory shows that the 
facility emitted 4 tons per day of SO2, and that in view of 
the potential significance of these emissions to visibility at Craters 
of the Moon National Monument, and Teton and Yellowstone National 
Parks, the SIP submittal should have included detailed emission sources 
at the J.R. Simplot plant, potential control technologies, and 
regulatory plans to limit these non-BART emissions.
    The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality Department was also 
critical of IDEQ's claim that an additional five years (i.e., two years 
for modeling and 3 years to install emission controls) was needed for a 
thorough four-factor analysis for the J.R. Simplot facility and other 
large stationary sources, particularly in light of the tardiness of the 
SIP submittal. The commenter points out that the delay in providing a 
four-factor analysis is erroneous underscored by the fact that the J.R. 
Simplot facility recently applied for a construction permit to make 
improvements at one of the sulfuric acid units at the plant and 
indicated that only one year was necessary for installing an improved 
scrubber. Given the projected five-year delay for the analysis plus 
installation of controls and that the SIP submittal was three years 
past the deadline, the commenter believes that the deferral is 
unreasonable and that EPA should require the State to complete the 
reasonable progress analyses on a realistic schedule and not approve 
the existing submittal. Finally the commenter offers that the State, by 
requesting an unreasonable timetable for compliance and projecting the 
five-year delay, is establishing the possibility that J.R. Simplot and 
other sources may not be ready for emission reductions even in time for 
the five year review period (i.e., the five-year progress report). The 
comment calls for EPA to review this issue and require IDEQ to revise 
the SIP accordingly.
    Response: EPA has conducted a screening analysis to verify that the 
Idaho plan contains appropriate reasonable progress provisions for 
stationary sources.
    EPA agrees with commenters that as part of its reasonable progress 
analysis, the State did not thoroughly assess controls for specific 
sources after having identified cost-effective options for certain 
source categories. The Idaho SIP submittal, however, concluded that 
additional controls on stationary sources of SO2 or oxides 
of nitrogen (NOX) would not be helpful in achieving the 
uniform rate of progress (URP). Because the Idaho SIP submittal did not 
contain sufficient analysis to support this conclusion, EPA conducted 
its own independent screening analysis.
    As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this action, 
as part of our review of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal, EPA 
independently evaluated whether additional control measures were 
reasonable for non-BART stationary sources located within Idaho's 
regulatory jurisdiction that would achieve further progress toward the 
national goal. See 77 FR 30255. In our evaluation, we used a screening 
methodology referred to as ``Q/d.'' We used the CALPUFF modeling 
results from a number of BART-eligible sources in combination with the 
ratio of each of these source's emissions (denoted by the variable Q) 
divided by the source's distance, in kilometers, from the nearest Class 
I area (denoted by the variable d). See the memorandum with subject 
``Q/d Analysis of BART Sources in Idaho, Oregon and Washington to 
Establish a Threshold for Estimating Visibility Impacts from non-BART 
Sources'' from Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, dated March 21, 2012, which 
can be found in the docket for this action. Based on the CALPUFF 
modeling results, we concluded that the BART-eligible sources having a 
Q/d ratio less than 20 would not make a significant contribution to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. Likewise, we then assumed 
that the non-BART sources in Idaho having a Q/d ratio less than 20 
would not significantly impair visibility in the Class I areas in 
Idaho. We calculated the Q/d ratio for all non-BART stationary sources 
emitting more than 40 tpy of SO2, NOX, or 
PM10. The 40 tpy threshold is consistent with the de minimis 
level of exemption for the BART determination. As discussed in the 
proposal, our analysis demonstrated that all 17 of the non-BART 
stationary sources above 40 tpy in Idaho have a baseline Q/d less than 
17. Thus, we agreed with Idaho's conclusion that no additional controls 
on non-BART stationary sources in Idaho are reasonable for this 
planning period, because any visibility improvement expected from 
additional controls would likely be minimal. We are not changing that 
conclusion in this final action.
    Regarding the NPS and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality 
Department comments about assessing SO2 controls for J.R. 
Simplot, we agree that the State did not consider SO2 
controls under reasonable progress with a four-factor analysis specific 
to this facility. The majority of the SO2 emissions from the 
facility are emitted from the 300 and 400 sulfuric 
acid plants, which are not BART-eligible sources. A total of over 1,600 
tons of SO2 was emitted from these two units in 2011. In 
terms of assessing these units under reasonable progress, we note that 
they are currently controlled and are regulated under the New Source 
Performance Standards for sulfuric acid plants at a rate of 4 pounds of 
SO2 per ton of sulfuric acid produced. (see 40 CFR 60.2). 
Further, in May 2012, J.R. Simplot and the State entered a Consent 
Order to reduce emissions at the 400 plant to less than 2 
pounds of SO2 per ton of sulfuric acid produced. (See J.R. 
Simplot Company--Don Siding Plant Consent Order--Case No. E-2012.0006 
2012AAI287.) The requirement to meet this emission limit became 
effective September 1, 2012. The Consent Order also requires a Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis to be completed for the 
400 plant by June 1, 2013. In its SIP submittal, the State did 
not account for the SO2 reductions resulting from the 
Consent Order when it established the RPGs for the Class I areas in 
Idaho. As part of its interim progress report for regional haze due in 
October 2015, the State may choose to provide details of the 
SO2 reductions resulting from this Consent Order and any 
corresponding improvements to visibility. In addition to the reasons 
explained in the proposal, because of the existing controls on the 
sulfuric acid units and the additional SO2 reductions and 
visibility improvement expected to result from the May 2012, Consent 
Order, we agree with Idaho's conclusion that no additional 
SO2 controls for the purposes of meeting the reasonable 
progress requirements of the regional haze rule are warranted at the 
J.R. Simplot facility during this planning period. EPA's Q/d analysis 
supports this conclusion, and EPA notes that taking into account the 
requirements of the Consent Order, the

[[Page 66932]]

Simplot facility has a Q/d of less than 20.
    With regard to the Nu West/Agrium facility, we disagree with the 
commenter that not enough detail about the BART and non-BART units is 
provided in the SIP submittal. IDEQ appropriately determined that the 
facility is BART-eligible. SO2 is the largest emitted 
pollutant (See Table 10-2 in the Idaho SIP submittal which lists 
SO2 emissions at 945 tpy). Modeled visibility impacts for 
this facility were minimal and the facility was exempt from further 
BART review (See 76 FR 36334). Emissions from the non-BART units are 
relatively small and the visibility impact is expected to be very minor 
as the Q/d ratio for the facility is less than 8. Also, contrary to the 
comment, the BART determination for Monsanto/P4 Production LLC was 
discussed thoroughly in Chapter 10 of the Idaho SIP submission and 
addressed in EPA's final action for BART, dated June 22, 2011 (See 76 
FR 36329). Controls installed for BART at P4 are expected to achieve 
approximately 9,000 tpy of sulfur oxide reductions at the kiln. Among 
the non-BART units at P4, the largest emitting sources of visibility 
impairing pollutants are two furnaces, and the State reasonably 
concluded that additional controls on these furnaces are not 
technically feasible due to the very high process temperatures.

C. Comments Related to Crop Residue Burning

    Comment: Three commenters, SAFE, SOS NW, and the Shoshone-Bannock 
Tribes Air Quality Department, expressed concerns over Idaho's 
reasonable progress analysis for assessing additional controls on crop 
residue burning.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The agricultural/crop residue burning of concern to the 
commenter is included in the SIP under the broader category of 
``Anthropogenic fire''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment submitted by SAFE, and endorsed by SOS NW, indicates 
that stronger controls on field burning are reasonable and cost-
effective and can achieve some additional progress. SOS NW emphasizes 
that crop residue burning should not be left out of consideration when 
it comes to the regional haze plan. The comment from SAFE claims that 
Idaho's rationale for doing nothing seems to be that wildfires are 
responsible for most of the visibility problem at Class I areas in the 
State. SAFE offers additional details on agricultural burning, noting 
that the SIP submittal estimates a 54% reduction in fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) emissions from anthropogenic fires by 2018, 
compared to 2002 data.\4\ However, the commenter points out that 
between 2002 to the present, there has been a 48% increase in 
agricultural acres burned in Idaho, particularly in the southern areas 
which are closer to the Class I areas of concern. The commenter also 
states that it makes good sense to ramp down the emissions from 
agricultural field burns in those areas to offer the best chance of 
meeting the Regional Haze goals. The commenter letter from the 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality Department indicates that the 
recent increase in acreage burned resulted in emissions that were not 
recognized in the regional haze SIP submission nor reviewed adequately 
for visibility impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Table 8-6 in the Idaho SIP submittal. The emissions 
inventory, which is used for modeling purposes and categorizes 
primary and secondarily formed particles separately, was obtained 
from the WRAP technical Support System at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFE also points out that current Idaho regulation limits burn 
approvals to days when air quality levels are below 75% of any NAAQS. 
SAFE further noted that the IDEQ recently considered lifting the 75% of 
NAAQS limit for ozone, and that SAFE is therefore concerned that this 
would increase the amount of agricultural burning. To ensure the 75% of 
NAAQS limit remains effective in Idaho and as one way to limit the 
growth of agricultural burning from contributing to the deterioration 
of visibility in Class I areas, SAFE requests that EPA establish the 
limit as a federally enforceable limit in the Regional Haze SIP. The 
comment states that the long term strategy must contain enforceable 
emission limits, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary 
to achieve the reasonable progress goals. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 
Air Quality Department adds that the strategy of permitting crop 
residue burns and other prescribed burns is to disperse the smoke by 
the prevailing winds, and although this reduces downwind 
concentrations, it increases haze on a regional scale and increases 
visibility impacts in downwind Class I areas, particularly in the fall 
when field burning is scheduled. The commenter asserts that the permit 
program for crop residue burning is allowing burning to increase with 
the new ``Crop Residue Burning'' section of IDEQ's rules, and is 
largely a registration program rather than a program with tools to 
monitor Class I impacts or safeguard Class I air sheds. The commenter 
indicates that the resulting haze from burning should be reviewed, 
modeled for impacts, and included in the long term strategy.
    SAFE also commented that Idaho contributes significantly to 
visibility impairment in Montana and Wyoming Class I areas and that 
Yellowstone National Park, Bridger Wilderness, and Glacier National 
Park are all significantly off the target of achieving natural 
conditions by 2064. Referencing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), the comment 
contends that Idaho cannot demonstrate that it has included all 
measures necessary to improve visibility in these areas unless it 
places limits on field burning. Finally, the comment notes that there 
should be acreage restrictions on burning, and that there would be no 
special equipment to purchase and no hindrance to growing crops by 
using alternative methods to burning.
    Response: Regarding the comment on the amount of acreage burned, we 
acknowledge that the reported data does indicate an increase in acreage 
burned as the commenters point out. However, the likelihood that there 
has been an increase in acreage burned is attenuated by the fact the 
registration program has greatly reduced the amount of fires that go 
unreported. There is considerable uncertainty in comparing the present 
acreage reported with acreage estimates from 2002. Over time, trends in 
the data will become more reliable with improved data quality. In 
addition, we note that Idaho is relying, in part, on the visibility 
improvement expected due to reduced emission from anthropogenic fires 
in its SIP. As part of IDEQ's obligation to submit a periodic progress 
report (see 40 CFR 51.308(g)), it will be incumbent upon the State to 
accurately assess any significant changes in emissions from 
anthropogenic fire, including agricultural burning and acreage burned. 
At that time, IDEQ can assess whether any additional measures are 
necessary for ensuring that the relevant reasonable progress goals will 
be met.
    In response to comments concerning the State's claim that wildfire 
is responsible for most of the visibility problem and that the State 
should do more to control field burning, we note that the emissions 
from natural fire (i.e. wildfires) are indeed significantly greater 
than from anthropogenic fire, as shown in the emission inventory of the 
SIP submittal. Visibility impairment from fire of any type is primarily 
due to emissions of organic carbon and elemental carbon, and to a 
lesser extent, direct fine particulate emissions. As shown in Tables 8-
4 through 8-6 in the SIP submittal, emissions from natural fires of all 
three of these pollutant constituents are from three to ten times

[[Page 66933]]

greater than anthropogenic fires. For example, the State is projecting 
about 48,000 tons of organic carbon emissions in 2018 from natural 
fires compared to 4,100 tons from anthropogenic fires. With regard to 
visibility impairment from fires, the graphs in Chapter 9 of the SIP 
submittal show that the overwhelming amount of visibility impairment 
due to fire on the 20% worst days at Idaho's Class I areas is from 
natural fire. As shown in Figure 9-9, nearly 70% of the organic carbon 
on the 20% worst days at Craters of the Moon comes from natural fire 
while less than 7% comes from anthropogenic fire. Anthropogenic burning 
makes up such a small portion of the total statewide emissions 
inventory that the predicted visibility improvement attributable to 
reductions in agricultural burning emissions is very minor. A reduction 
in agricultural burning emissions would be expected to have only a 
minimal overall influence on the glide slopes (i.e., rates of progress) 
for the State's Class I areas when compared to the dominating influence 
of natural fire and other sources. The dominant influence of natural 
fire on visibility can be compounded by the significant year to year 
variability of natural fire emissions which can easily offset any 
visibility improvement from reductions in anthropogenic fire. 
Additional constraints on anthropogenic burning, such as acreage 
restrictions or alternative burning techniques would therefore not 
necessarily lead to more progress than that expected from the greater 
than 50% reductions in PM2.5, elemental carbon, and organic 
carbon emissions that the State is projecting. Consequently, we 
disagree that the state must do more to control field burning to ensure 
reasonable progress during this first planning period.
    With regard to the comment concerning Idaho's contributions to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in Montana and Wyoming and the 
need to further control crop residue burning, we note that Idaho 
appropriately satisfied the interstate consultation requirements of 
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and collaborated 
extensively with Montana, Wyoming, and the EPA via numerous Western 
Regional Air Program (WRAP) forums. See Chapter 2 of the Idaho SIP 
submittal. Both Idaho and neighboring states agreed that the 
implementation of BART and other existing measures in state regional 
haze plans were sufficient, and that future consultation would address 
any new strategies or measures needed. Source apportionment modeling 
does show that Idaho contributes significant emissions of primary 
organic aerosol to the Class I areas in Montana and Wyoming. However, 
the majority of these emissions are due to natural fire and not 
anthropogenic fire. As shown in Figure 9-84 of the SIP submittal, 
anthropogenic burning in Idaho has the greatest impact in the Cabinet 
Mountain Wilderness Area in Montana, but even though Idaho contributes 
about 38% of the total primary organic aerosol at Cabinet Mountain 
Wilderness Area, of that, just 9% is from anthropogenic burning. (Most 
of the remaining primary organic aerosol emissions are from natural 
fire). Further, the 9% attributable to anthropogenic burning is 
projected to decrease to less than 5% in 2018. Also it is important to 
note that neither Montana nor Wyoming requested that Idaho reduce 
emissions when setting their reasonable progress goals. Contrary to 
what the commenter states, we believe Idaho is achieving its share of 
visibility progress at Class I areas in Montana and Wyoming.
    Finally, the requirement prohibiting field burning when air quality 
is above 75% of any NAAQS is already a federally enforceable SIP 
measure. See 73 FR 44915 (August 1, 2008) (Final action approving 
Idaho's Revised Crop residue Disposal rules which included the 75% of 
NAAQS limit).Thus, adding the 75% limit to the Regional Haze SIP would 
provide no additional authority to regulate burning. Additionally, as 
described briefly in the Regional Haze SIP submittal Section 12.65 
regarding the Long Term Strategy, crop residue burning is regulated 
with a permit-by-rule process which EPA has previously approved in the 
SIP. Id.

D. Consultation

    Comment: The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Air Quality Department 
expressed concerns that the Idaho SIP submittal did not provide enough 
detail of Wyoming's comments and consultation nor resolve the comments 
submitted by the federal land managers (FLMs).
    Response: EPA disagrees with these comments regarding consultation. 
EPA's review of Idaho's SIP submittal indicates that Idaho conducted 
and documented the required consultation with States and FLMs. Appendix 
I of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submission includes Idaho's responses 
to the FLM comments.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the remaining portions of the Idaho Regional Haze 
SIP submission of October 25, 2010, as meeting the requirements set 
forth in section 169A and 169B of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308 for 
preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility impairment 
in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a wide geographical area. Specifically 
included is EPA's approval of the reasonable progress provisions and 
the long term strategies.

IV. 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.\5\ 
Therefore, EPA is not extending this SIP approval 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 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 prevention of significant 
deterioration (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). 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 66934]]

state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 
Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 this action does not involve technical standards; 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 SIP is not approved to apply in Indian Country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 7, 2013. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2))

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 24, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. Section 52.670 is amended in paragraph (e) by adding an entry to the 
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable          State
      Name of SIP  provision           geographic or      submittal     EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze SIP Revision.......  State-wide..........     10/25/10  11/8/12 [Insert page  The remaining
                                                                       number where the      portion of the
                                                                       document begins].     regional haze SIP
                                                                                             elements as
                                                                                             proposed in the May
                                                                                             22, 2012 notice. 77
                                                                                             FR 30248.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.672 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(2) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.672  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) EPA approves the remaining portions of the Regional Haze SIP 
revision submitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality on 
October 25, 2010, as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
section 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

[FR Doc. 2012-27216 Filed 11-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P