        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 150303208-6099-01]
        RIN 0648-BE70
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 35), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). The proposed rule, if implemented, would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP as well as revise regulations regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that only snapper-grouper species requiring Federal management are included in the Snapper-Grouper FMP, improve the consistency of management of snapper-grouper species in waters off south Florida across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries, and to align regulations for golden tilefish longline endorsements with the Council's original intent for establishing the longline endorsement program.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 35 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 35 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: nikhil.mehta@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
         The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP, and includes black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, schoolmaster, and golden tilefish. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This rule would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP, and revise the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations to be consistent with the Council's original intent for establishing the longline endorsement program.
        Remove Four Species From the FMP
        Black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster are currently in the FMP, but have extremely low commercial landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off the coast of South Florida. Currently, NMFS does not manage these species in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); however, the species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters. As described in Amendment 35, there are currently different regulations for recreational bag limits, size limits, and catch levels for these species between the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Florida. Inconsistent regulations make enforcement difficult and can be confusing to the public. This rule would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP and NMFS's management in Federal waters of the South Atlantic to ensure that only species requiring federal management are included in the FMP. The state of Florida has indicated that if these species are removed from the FMP, it intends to extend state regulation of these species into Federal waters off Florida for Florida-state registered fishing vessels, under § 306(a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to provide consistent regulations for these species across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries.
        Black snapper is part of the deep-water complex within the FMP. The deep-water complex currently includes black snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. If black snapper is removed from the FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) for the deep-water complex would be reduced from 170,279 lb (77,237 kg), round weight, to 169,896 lb (77,063 kg), round weight, a difference of 382 lb (173 kg), round weight.
        Dog snapper and mahogany snapper are part of the other snappers complex within the FMP. The other snappers complex currently includes cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper. Removal of dog snapper and mahogany snapper from the FMP would reduce the other snappers complex ACL from 1,517,716 lb (688,424 kg), round weight, to 1,513,883 lb (686,688 kg), round weight, a difference of 3,833 lb (1,739 kg), round weight.
        Dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper are not typically targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen; therefore, bycatch associated with harvest of these species is extremely low. Schoolmaster is currently designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species in the FMP. The Council did not choose to retain dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper in the FMP as EC species because the objective of the amendment is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across jurisdictional boundaries in Gulf and South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. Because NMFS does not manage these species in Gulf Federal waters, retaining them as EC species would continue inconsistent regulations across jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, if these species are designated as EC species, the state of Florida would not be able to extend their management authority for these species into Federal waters, because states may not generally manage species in Federal waters if those species are included in Federal fishery management plans.
        A formal stock assessment has not been performed for black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, or schoolmaster; however, there is no indication that these stocks are depleted. Therefore, removing these species from the FMP is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects.
        Clarify Regulations for Golden Tilefish Endorsement Holders
        The final rule to implement Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013) established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. A longline endorsement is required to fish for golden tilefish with longline gear. Amendment 18B also established a golden tilefish hook-and-line quota and modified the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. The golden tilefish longline endorsement, sector quotas, and trip limits, were implemented because the golden tilefish commercial ACL was being harvested rapidly by fishermen using longline gear, so that fishermen who had historically used hook-and-line gear to target golden tilefish were not able to participate in the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery. The Council established the longline endorsement program and gear specific commercial quotas to help ensure that fishermen fishing with each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota. The Council did not intend for longline endorsement holders to fish on the hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders to fish on the longline quota.

        The Council and NMFS are aware that since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders are transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel and then fishing for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota. Other endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but are waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement, so that they are able to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the original intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. The Council decided to clarify their intent for golden tilefish longline endorsement holders in Amendment 35. Currently, as described at § 622.191(a)(2)(ii), the regulations state that “Vessels with a golden tilefish longline endorsement are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” This rule would propose that “Vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements anytime during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-;kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” Thus, a fisherman who owns a vessel with a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement would not be eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, hook-and-line trip limit during that fishing year.
        Additional Change to Codified Text
        In the part 622 regulations, NMFS would revise “allowable biological catch” to read “acceptable biological catch” wherever it occurs. In the part 600 regulations, “ABC” is defined as “acceptable biological catch;” however, in the part 622 regulations, “ABC” is defined as “acceptable biological catch” in three places and “allowable biological catch” in four places. NMFS has determined that “acceptable biological catch” is the more precise definition for “ABC”. Therefore, to be consistent with the part 600 regulations and to use the more precise terminology, NMFS proposes to change the definition of “ABC” to “acceptable biological catch,” and accordingly revise “allowable biological catch,” wherever it occurs in the part 622 regulations.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 35, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        A Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Analysis was prepared as an Appendix to Amendment 35 and is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). For this proposed rule, NMFS adopts this analysis as its initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) required by section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        This proposed rule would be expected to directly affect all commercial vessels that harvest black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster and/or golden tilefish under the FMP. The removal of the four snapper-grouper species discussed in this proposed rule would not directly apply to or affect charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses would be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and would therefore be indirect in nature. Currently, charter and headboat captains and crew can retain black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster and golden tilefish under the recreational bag limit; however, they cannot sell these fish. As such, charter and headboat captains and crew would only be affected as recreational anglers. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who would be directly affected by this proposed rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed.
        As of November 3, 2014, there were 564 vessels with valid or renewable South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Unlimited Permits, 120 vessels with valid or renewable 225-lb (102-kg) Trip Limit Permits and 22 vessels with valid or renewable longline endorsements for golden tilefish. Although all commercial snapper-grouper permit holders have the opportunity to fish for black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and/or schoolmaster, on average, there were only four federally permitted vessels identified from 2009 through 2013 that commercially landed one or more of these species each year. The average annual vessel-level revenue for all species harvested by these four vessels over this period was approximately $101,000 (2013 dollars), of which $32 was from black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and/or schoolmaster. During the same time period, on average, 22 vessels per year commercially harvested golden tilefish using longline gear and their annual average vessel-level revenue for all species was approximately $95,000 (2013 dollars), of which $55,000 was from golden tilefish. Thirty-seven vessels, on average (2009 through 2013), commercially harvested golden tilefish exclusively with non-longline gear and they earned an average of approximately $46,000 (2013 dollars) per vessel for all species harvested, of which $2,000 was from golden tilefish.
        No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the vessels directly regulated by this rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria.
        Of the 684 vessels eligible to fish for the species managed under the FMP, only 63 of them are expected to be affected by this proposed rule (approximately 9 percent). Because all of these commercial fishing businesses are believed to be small entities, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
        This proposed rule would remove black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP. The state of Florida intends to then extend its management of these species into Federal waters. Average revenues per vessel from 2009 through 2013 for these four snapper-grouper species accounted for less than 1 percent of average total revenues received by the vessels that commercially harvested these species. Almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) of these species occurs in state and Federal waters off the coast of Florida. The normal harvest of these species would not be expected to change under management by the state of Florida, thus no reduction in associated ex-vessel revenue or profit would be expected from this proposed rule.

        This proposed rule would also modify the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations. Vessels that have Federal commercial snapper-grouper permits with golden tilefish longline endorsements, specifically those that harvest golden tilefish using both longline and hook-and-line gear, would be expected to be negatively affected by this proposed action because they would no longer be able to harvest golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota. This would result in reduced revenues if they are unable to substitute the harvest of other species. A total of four vessels were identified in 2014 that had a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement during some part of the year and also harvested golden tilefish under the hook-and-line 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit quota. On average, these four vessels earned an estimated $8,142 (2013 dollars) per vessel from golden tilefish landings using hook-and-line gear in 2014. This accounts for approximately 9.2 percent of their average total revenue per vessel (2009 through 2013; 2014 data were incomplete). Therefore, this proposed rule, if implemented, assuming no substitution of other species and constant prices, would be expected to result in an estimated recurring annual loss of $8,142 (2013 dollars) per vessel for the four vessels that harvested golden tilefish using both longline and hook-and-line gear. Vessels that do not have longline endorsements, on the other hand, would be expected to indirectly benefit from this proposed rule, because they would no longer have to compete with longline endorsement holders for the hook-and-line quota. On average, the 37 non-longline endorsement holders would be expected to experience an annual per-vessel increase in revenue of approximately $880 (2013 dollars) or less than 2 percent of their annual average vessel-level revenue.
        The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Only actions that would have direct economic effects on small entities merit inclusion.
        Five alternatives were considered to remove species from the FMP. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain all current species in the FMP and would not be expected to have any economic effects. Under the no action alternative, species that do not require Federal management would remain in the FMP and potential cost savings and/or efficiency gains of management would go unrealized. All of the other alternatives were selected as preferred and would result in the removal of black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and schoolmaster from Federal management.
        Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for modifying the golden tilefish endorsement regulations. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not be expected to have any economic effects. The current golden tilefish endorsement regulations are, however, contrary to the intent of the Council and unintentionally limit golden tilefish harvest opportunities and economic benefits for hook-and-line fishermen. The second alternative would revise the golden tilefish endorsement regulations so that any vessel with a valid or renewable longline endorsement would not be permitted to harvest golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota. Under the second alternative, longline endorsement holders that operate more than one vessel (with a Federal snapper-grouper vessel permit) would be able to transfer their golden tilefish longline endorsement to a different vessel and then continue to fish for golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota in a single year. Only one vessel exhibited this behavior in 2014. Under the second alternative, the negative economic effects on the longline endorsement holders would be lower than under this proposed rule, as would the positive effects experienced by the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the original Council intent of establishing the longline endorsement.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Acceptable biological catch, Annual catch limit, Commercial trip limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Quotas, Snapper-grouper, South atlantic, Species table.

          Dated: February 26, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In part 622, revise “allowable biological catch” to read “acceptable biological catch” wherever it occurs.
        3. In § 622.185, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.185
          Size limits.

          (a) * * *
          (3) Blackfin, cubera, gray, queen, silk, and yellowtail snappers—12 inches (30.5 cm), TL.

        4. In § 622.191, the second sentence in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.191
          Commercial trip limits.

          (a) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (ii) * * * Vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements any time during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.

        5. In § 622.193, paragraphs (h) and (p) are revised to read as follows:

          § 622.193
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (h) Deep-water complex (including yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper)—(1) Commercial sector—(i) If commercial landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 131,268 lb (59,542 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of deep-water complex species is prohibited and harvest or possession of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

          (ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 169,896 lb (77,064 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
          (2) Recreational sector. (i) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 38,628 lb (17,521 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year, unless the RA determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits are zero.
          (ii) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 169,896 lb (77,064 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: The bag and possession limits for the deep-water complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.

          (p) Other snappers complex (including cubera snapper, gray snapper, and lane snapper)—(1) Commercial sector—(i) If commercial landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the complex commercial ACL of 344,575 lb (156,297 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to close the commercial sector for this complex for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of cubera snapper, gray snapper, and lane snapper is prohibited, and harvest or possession of any of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.
          (ii) If commercial landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 1,513,883 lb (686,686 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the other snappers complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
          (2) Recreational sector—(i) If recreational landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 1,169,308 lb (530,391 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year regardless if any stock in the other snappers complex is overfished, unless NMFS determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits for any species in the other snappers complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.
          (ii) If recreational landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season and the recreational ACL by the amount of the recreational ACL overage, if at least one of the species in the other snappers complex is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 1,513,883 lb (686,686 kg), round weight, is exceeded during the same fishing year. NMFS will use the best scientific information available to determine if reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL is necessary. When the recreational sector is closed as a result of NMFS reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and the ACL, the bag and possession limits for any species in the other snappers complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.

        6. In Appendix A to part 622, Table 4 is revised to read as follows:

          Appendix A to Part 622—Species Tables

          Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622—South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper
          Balistidae—Triggerfishes
          Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus

          Carangidae—Jacks
          Bar jack, Caranx ruber

          Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili

          Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata

          Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana

          Banded rudderfish, Seriola zonata

          Ephippidae—Spadefishes
          Spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber

          Haemulidae—Grunts
          Margate, Haemulon album

          Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum

          Sailor's choice, Haemulon parrai

          White grunt, Haemulon plumieri

          Labridae—Wrasses
          Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus

          Lutjanidae—Snappers
          Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus

          Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis

          Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella

          Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus

          Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus

          Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus

          Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris

          Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus

          Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus

          Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens

          Malacanthidae—Tilefishes
          Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps

          Golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

          Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri

          Percichthyidae—Temperate basses
          Wreckfish, Polyprion americanus

          Serranidae—Groupers
          Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis

          Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus

          Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi

          Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus

          Coney, Epinephelus fulvus

          Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus

          Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara

          Red grouper, Epinephelus morio

          Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus

          Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

          Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus

          Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus

          Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci

          Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis

          Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis

          Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax

          Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa

          Serranidae—Sea Basses
          Black sea bass, Centropristis striata

          Sparidae—Porgies
          Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado

          Saucereye porgy, Calamus calamus

          Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus

          Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus

          Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus

          Scup, Stenotomus chrysops

          The following species are designated as ecosystem component species:

          Cottonwick, Haemulon melanurum

          Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus

          Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica

          Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus

          Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen

      [FR Doc. 2016-04808 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0856, FRL-9967-54-Region 10]
        Air Plan Approval; ID; 2012 PM2.5 Standard Infrastructure Requirements

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for the annual particulate matter (PM2.5) standard on December 14, 2012. Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including but not limited to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. On December 23, 2015, the State of Idaho submitted a certification to the EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0856, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Matthew Jentgen, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-0340, email address: jentgen.matthew@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
          III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
          IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittal
          V. Proposed Action
          VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

        I. Background

        On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the NAAQS for PM2.5, tightening the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3, and retaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 µg/m3 (71 FR 61144). Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the level of the health based (primary) annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 µg/m3. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).1

            1 In EPA's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS revision, EPA left unchanged the existing welfare (secondary) standards for PM2.5 to address particulate matter (PM) related effects such as visibility impairment, ecological effects, damage to materials and climate impacts. This includes a secondary annual standard of 15 µg/m3 and a 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

        The CAA requires that states submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards, the so-called “infrastructure” requirements. To help states, the EPA issued guidance on September 13, 2013, addressing infrastructure SIP elements for certain NAAQS.2
           As noted in the guidance, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, states may certify that fact via a letter to the EPA.

            2 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September 13, 2013.

        On December 23, 2015, the State of Idaho submitted certifications to the EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
        CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed below:
        • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
        • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
        • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
        • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.3

            3 In this notice, we are proposing to act on Idaho's submission relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). We will address Idaho's submission relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate action.

        • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
        • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
        • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
        • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
        • 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements of part D.
        • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
        • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
        • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
        • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
        The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
        III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

        The EPA is taking action on the December 23, 2015 infrastructure submission from Idaho for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We previously approved a similar submission as meeting infrastructure requirements for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide standards (August 11, 2014, 79 FR 46707). In the preamble of our action, we published a discussion of the EPA's approach to review of these submissions. Please see our April 17, 2014 proposed rule for the detailed discussion (79 FR 21669, at page 21670).
        IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittal
        110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal cites an overview of the Idaho air quality laws and regulations, including portions of the Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act (EPHA) and the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution located at IDAPA 58.01.01. Relevant laws cited include Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ authority to supervise and administer a system to safeguard air quality, Idaho Code Section 39-115 which provides Idaho DEQ with specific authority for the issuance of air quality permits, and Idaho Code Section 39-116 which provides Idaho DEQ authority to establish compliance schedules for air quality regulatory standards. Relevant regulations include IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 (incorporation by reference of federal regulations), IDAPA 58.01.01.200-228 (permit to construct rules), IDAPA 58.01.01.400-410 (operating permit rules), IDAPA 58.01.01.600-624 (control of open burning), IDAPA 58.01.01.625 (visible emissions requirements and testing), IDAPA 58.01.01.725 (rules for sulfur content of fuels), and IDAPA 58.01.01.460-461 (banking of emissions).

          EPA analysis: Idaho's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically for attaining this particulate matter NAAQS. The State has one area designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (West Silver Valley); however, the EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D, title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Regulations and other control measures for purposes of attainment planning under part D, title I of the CAA are due on a different schedule than infrastructure SIPs.

        The Idaho SIP incorporates by reference a number of federal regulations, including the federal NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50, revised as of July 1, 2015. The EPA most recently approved the incorporation by reference of these regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.107 “Incorporations by Reference” on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083). Idaho has incorporated by reference the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS into Idaho regulations.
        Idaho generally regulates emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors through its SIP-approved NSR permitting programs, in addition to operating permit regulations, sulfur content of fuels regulations, and rules for the control of open burning, fugitive dust, activities that generate visible emissions, and emissions banking. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's major and minor NSR permitting programs on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's NSR rules incorporate by reference the federal nonattainment NSR regulations and federal PSD regulations at IDAPA 58.01.204 and IDAPA 58.01.01.205 respectively. In addition to NSR permitting regulations, Idaho's Tier II operating permit regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.400-410 require that to obtain an operating permit, the applicant must demonstrate the source will not cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard. IDAPA 58.01.01.401.03 provides that Idaho DEQ will require a Tier II source operating permit if Idaho DEQ determines emission rate reductions are necessary to attain or maintain any ambient air quality standard or applicable PSD increment.

        In addition to the permitting rules described above, Idaho has adopted rules to limit and control emissions resulting from open burning (IDAPA 58.01.01.600-624) and activities that generate visible emissions (IDAPA 58.01.01.625). Idaho has also promulgated rules addressing the sulfur content of fuels (IDAPA 58.01.01.725) and banking of emissions (IDAPA 58.01.01.460-461). Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        In this action, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Idaho provisions with respect to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and the EPA is addressing such state regulations in a separate action. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction: Final Rule.” (June 12, 2015, 80 FR 33840) (SSM SIP Call). The EPA determined that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 statewide and local jurisdictions) were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and thus issued a SIP call for each of those 36 states. Idaho's SIP was not named in the SSM SIP call.
        In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Idaho rules with respect to director's discretion or variance provisions. Some states may have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and the EPA is addressing such regulations in a separate action via the SSM SIP Call (June 12, 2015, 80 FR 33840). We encourage any state having a director's discretion or variance provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
        110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA upon request.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal references IDAPA 58.01.01.107 and IDAPA 58.01.01.576.05 in response to this requirement. These rules incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 50 National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 53 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix B Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Quality Assurance Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The Idaho submittal certifies that under these rules Idaho meets the infrastructure requirement to implement ambient air monitoring surveillance systems in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
        The Idaho submittal references the 2015 Idaho Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, approved by the EPA on October 28, 2015. The Idaho submittal also references the Web site where the Idaho DEQ provides the network plan, air quality monitoring summaries, a map of the monitoring network and real-time air monitoring data.

          EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Idaho on January 15, 1980 (40 CFR 52.670) and approved by the EPA on July 28, 1982. This air quality monitoring plan has been subsequently updated and most recently approved by the EPA on December 13, 2016.4

           The plan includes, among other things, the locations for the particulate matter monitoring network. Idaho makes the plan available for public review on the Idaho DEQ Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. The Web site also includes an interactive map of Idaho's air monitoring network. Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

            4 Idaho Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan Approval Letter, dated December 13, 2016.

        110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states have a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to Idaho Code Section 39-108 which provides Idaho DEQ with both administrative and civil enforcement authority with respect to the Idaho EPHA, or any rule, permit or order promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. Criminal enforcement is authorized at Idaho Code Section 39-109. Emergency order authority, similar to that under section 303 of the CAA, is located at Idaho Code Section 39-112. The Idaho submittal also refers to laws and regulations related to air quality permits at IDAPA 58.01.01.200-228 (permit to construct rules).

        The Idaho submittal also cites the annual incorporation by reference (IBR) rulemaking which updates Idaho's SIP to include federal changes to the NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho's submittal certifies that the annual IBR updates along with IDAPA sections 200-288 (permitting requirements for new and modified sources) and 575-587 (air quality standards and area classification) meets the CAA infrastructure requirement to implement the PSD program.

          EPA analysis: With regard to the requirement to have a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find that the Idaho provisions described above provide Idaho DEQ with authority to enforce the Idaho EPHA, air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. Idaho DEQ staffs and maintains an administrative enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. Idaho DEQ may issue emergency orders to reduce or discontinue emission of air contaminants where air emissions cause or contribute to imminent and substantial endangerment. Enforcement cases may be referred to the State Attorney General's Office for civil or criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Idaho has one designated nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (West Silver Valley). However, as noted above, this action does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR).

        We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program implements the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the federal PSD program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2015. As a result, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard to PSD for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        We note that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the EPA's rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),” (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321) (2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule). The court ordered the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule addressed by the court's decision promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule in order to comply with the court's decision.

        To address the court's remand, the EPA promulgated a final rule for the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” on August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58011). This rule sets requirements for major stationary sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which are due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as ten years following designations for some elements. Accordingly, our proposed approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), with respect to the PSD requirements, does not conflict with the court's opinion.

        In addition, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC); Final Rule,” (October 10, 2010, 75 FR 64864) (2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule). In its decision, the court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD program, were a state PSD program that contains such a provision to use that provision to issue new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.

        This decision also, at the EPA's request, vacated and remanded to the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5, because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect. The court's decision does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
        The EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from PSD regulations on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73698). On August 12, 2016, we approved revisions to the Idaho SIP as being consistent with the court decision and revised EPA regulations (81 FR 53290).

        The EPA has also promulgated revisions to federal PSD requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in response to a court remand and vacatur. Specifically, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA,
          5

           issued a decision that said the EPA may not treat GHGs as air pollutants for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs contain limits on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

            5 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).

        In response to the UARG decision, and the subsequent Amended Judgment issued by the D.C. Circuit (Amended Judgment),6

           the EPA revised the federal PSD rules to allow for the rescission of PSD permits that are no longer required under these decisions, (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183), and to remove the regulatory provisions that were specifically vacated by the Amended Judgment, (August 19, 2015, 80 FR 50199) (removing 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), 52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13). In addition, the EPA proposed to revise provisions in the PSD permitting regulations applicable to GHGs to fully conform with UARG and the Amended Judgment, but those revisions have not been finalized (Oct. 3, 2016, 81 FR 68110).

            6 Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092, and 10-1167 (April 15, 2015).

        The EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision and the EPA's changes to federal PSD rules in response to the decision. At this juncture, the EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

        At present, the EPA has determined the Idaho SIP is sufficient to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously-approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Idaho PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that the EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect our proposed approval of the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program. In this action we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program.

        With regard to the minor NSR requirement of this element, the EPA has determined that Idaho's minor NSR permitting program regulates direct PM2.5 and NOX and SO2 as precursors. On August 12, 2016, we approved revisions to the Idaho SIP as meeting the federal requirements of minor NSR permitting programs at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164 (81 FR 53290).

        Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(D):  Interstate Transport
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, or from interfering with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
        This action also does not address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we will address in a future action. In this proposal, we are proposing to act on Idaho's submission relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

          State submittal: For purposes of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submittal referenced Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program and Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010. Idaho also cites IDAPA 58.01.01.209 that provides notice and comment procedures for various permit actions with regard to the public and to appropriate federal, state, international, and local agencies. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) is discussed below.

          EPA analysis: The EPA believes that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-element may be met by the State's confirmation in the submittal that new major sources and major modifications in the State are subject to a SIP-approved PSD program. We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program implements the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and incorporates the federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2015. As discussed above in section 110(a)(2)(C), we believe that our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with regard to PSD for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        The EPA believes that, with regard to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, the requirement may be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing regional haze. The EPA's reasoning is that the development of the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states, and that through this process states would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an interstate basis.
        The Idaho submittal references the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010, which addresses visibility impacts across states within the region. On June 9, 2011, we approved a SIP revision which provides Idaho DEQ authority to address regional haze and to implement best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements (76 FR 33651).  Subsequently on June 22, 2011, we approved portions of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, including the requirements for BART (76 FR 36329). Finally, on November 8, 2012, we approved the remainder of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, including those portions that address CAA provisions that require states to set Reasonable Progress Goals for their Class I areas, and to develop a Long Term Strategy to achieve these goals (77 FR 66929).

        The EPA is proposing to find that as a result of the prior approval of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, the Idaho SIP contains adequate provisions to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        Furthermore, IDAPA 58.01.01.209 provides an opportunity for appropriate federal, state, international, and local agencies to participate and identify any concerns in the permitting process.

          Interstate and international transport provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.

          EPA analysis: We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program implements the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and incorporates the federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2015. As noted above, IDAPA 58.01.01.209 (procedures for issuing permits) includes required procedures for issuing permits for new sources, including procedures for public processes, and notice to appropriate federal, state and local agencies, consistent with the requirements of the federal PSD program. Idaho issues notice of its draft permits and neighboring states consistently receive copies of those drafts. Idaho also has no pending obligations under CAA section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to Idaho Code Section 39-106, which gives the Idaho DEQ Director authority to hire personnel to carry out duties of the department. In addition, the submittal references Idaho Code 39-107, which establishes the State's Board of Environmental Quality, Idaho Code Title 59 Chapter 7 (Ethics in Government Act), and Executive Order 2013-06 which addresses composition requirements of the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality. Finally, the Idaho submittal references Idaho Code Section 39-129, which authorizes Idaho DEQ to enter into binding agreements with local governments that are enforceable as orders.

          EPA analysis: We are proposing to find that the above-referenced provisions provide Idaho DEQ with adequate authority to carry out SIP obligations with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). With regard to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously approved a revision to the Idaho SIP for purposes of meeting CAA section 128 and CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63394). We note that Idaho renewed the Executive Order addressing certain board requirements for an additional four years on December 14, 2016 (Executive Order No. 2016-07).7

           Finally, we are proposing to find that Idaho has provided necessary assurances that, where Idaho has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, Idaho has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP with regard to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

            7 Letter to EPA from John Tippits, Director of Department of Environmental Quality “SIP Elements for State Boards Under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1)-(2). January 3, 2017.

        110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal states that the statutes and rules governing air quality permits provide DEQ with the ability to monitor stationary source emissions for compliance purposes and make data available to the public. The submittal references the following provisions: IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which includes source testing methods and procedures for source testing and reporting to the Idaho DEQ; IDAPA 58.01.01.121, which outlines Idaho DEQ authority to require monitoring, recordkeeping and periodic reporting related to source compliance; IDAPA 58.01.01.122, which provides Idaho DEQ authority to issue information orders and orders to conduct source emissions monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements; IDAPA 58.01.01.211, which contains conditions for permits to construct; IDAPA 58.01.01.209, which contains procedures for issuing permits to construct, including public processes; IDAPA 58.01.01.404, which contains procedures for issuing Tier II operating permits, including public processes; IDAPA 58.01.01.405, which contains conditions for Tier II operating permits, including sampling ports, instrumentation to monitor and record, and performance testing; and Idaho Code 9-342A and IDAPA 58.01.21 which address public records. The Idaho submittal also states that Idaho reports emissions data for the six criteria pollutants to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory, which is updated every three years.

          EPA analysis: The provisions cited in the Idaho submittal establishes compliance requirements for sources subject to major and minor source permitting to monitor emissions, keep and report records, and collect ambient air monitoring data. The provisions cited also provide Idaho DEQ authority to issue orders to collect additional information as needed for Idaho DEQ to ascertain compliance. In addition, IDAPA 58.01.01.211 (conditions for permits to construct) and 58.01.01.405 (conditions for Tier II operating permits) provide Idaho DEQ authority to establish permit conditions requiring instrumentation to monitor and record emissions data, and instrumentation for ambient monitoring to determine the effect emissions from the stationary source or facility may have, or are having, on the air quality in any area affected by the stationary source or facility. This information is made available to the public through public processes outlined at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 (procedures for issuing permits) for permits to construct and 58.01.01.404 (procedures for issuing permits) for Tier II operating permits.

        Additionally, the State is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.

        Idaho's SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The statutes and rules provide Idaho DEQ with the ability to monitor stationary source emissions for compliance purposes and make data publicly available. Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal cites Idaho Code 39-112 which provides emergency order authority comparable to that in CAA section 303. In addition, the submittal cites the Idaho Air Pollution Emergency Rules (IDAPA 58.01.01.550-562).

          EPA analysis: CAA section 303 provides authority to the EPA Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions which present an “imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.” We find that Idaho Code Section 112 provides the Idaho DEQ Director with comparable authority.

        The Idaho air pollution emergency rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.550-562 were previously approved by the EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Idaho's air pollution emergency rules include PM2.5, establish stages of episode criteria, provide for public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist, and specify emission control actions to be taken at each episode stage, consistent with the EPA emergency episode SIP requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 subpart H (prevention of air pollution emergency episodes, sections 51.150 through 51.153) for particulate matter. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to Idaho Code Sections 39-105(2) and (3)(d) which provide Idaho DEQ with broad authority to revise rules, in accordance with Idaho administrative procedures for rulemaking, to meet national ambient air quality standards as incorporated by reference in IDAPA 58.01.01.107. The Idaho submittal also refers to IDAPA 58.01.01.575 through 587 which establish and define acceptable ambient concentrations consistent with established criteria.

          EPA analysis: We find that Idaho has adequate authority to regularly update the SIP to take into account revisions of the NAAQS and other related regulatory changes. In practice, Idaho regularly updates the SIP for purposes of NAAQS revisions and other related regulatory changes. We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho SIP on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho has incorporated by reference the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS into the Idaho SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D
        There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).
        110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to laws and regulations relating to public participation processes for SIP revisions and permitting programs. The submittal refers to IDAPA 58.01.01.209, 364, and 404 which provide for public processes related to new source construction permits and operating permits. The submittal also refers to Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(c) which promotes outreach with local governments and Idaho Code Section 39-129 which provides authority for Idaho DEQ to enter into agreements with local governments. In addition, the Idaho submittal references the Idaho transportation conformity rules and regional haze rules which provide for consultation processes. With regard to public notification, the Idaho submittal states that Idaho DEQ submits information to EPA's AIRNOW program and provides daily air quality index scores for many locations throughout Idaho. Finally, with regard to PSD, the submittal references the Idaho rules for major source permitting at IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 223, including PSD requirements for sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas.

          EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP includes specific provisions for consulting with local governments and Federal Land Managers as specified in CAA section 121, including the Idaho rules for major source PSD permitting. The EPA most recently approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and 58.01.01.404, which provide opportunity and procedures for public comment and notice to appropriate federal, state and local agencies, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). We most recently approved Idaho's rules that define transportation conformity consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18873), and Idaho's regional haze rules on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33651). In practice, Idaho DEQ routinely coordinates with local governments, states, Federal Land Managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues including permitting action, transportation conformity, and regional haze. Therefore, we are proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. The EPA calculates an air quality index for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA: Ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The EPA AIRNOW program provides this air quality index daily to the public, including health effects and actions members of the public can take to reduce air pollution. Idaho actively participates and submits information to the AIRNOW program, in addition to the EPA's Enviroflash Air Quality Alert program. Idaho DEQ also provides the daily air quality index to the public on the DEQ Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm, as well as measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Therefore, we are proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program implements the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2015. We believe that our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(J) is not affected by recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Please see our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

        With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal states that air quality modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as appropriate for Idaho to demonstrate attainment with required air quality standards. Idaho cites IDAPA 58.01.01.202.02 and IDAPA 58.01.01.402.03 which address permit to construct and Tier II operating permit application procedures and modeling requirements for estimating ambient concentrations, respectively. Modeling is also addressed in Idaho's source permitting process as discussed at section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Estimates of ambient concentrations are based on requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models) which is incorporated by reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.

          EPA analysis: We most recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107 (incorporations by reference) on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083). This rule incorporates by reference the following EPA regulations: Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51; National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 50; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58 revised as of July 1, 2015. Idaho has incorporated by reference the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS into Idaho regulations. Idaho models estimates of ambient concentrations based on 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models). To cite an example of a SIP supported by substantial modeling, the EPA approved the PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise Idaho Area on October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59435). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by the EPA's approval of the state's title V operating permit program.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to IDAPA 58.01.01.387-397, which set the requirements for the annual registration of Tier I (title V) sources and the annual assessment and payment of fees to support the Tier I permitting program. The EPA approved Idaho's title V permitting program on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574). The submittal also references IDAPA 58.01.01.407-409 which set the requirements for Tier II operating permit processing fees and usage.

          EPA analysis: We approved Idaho's title V program on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective date of November 5, 2001. While Idaho's operating permit program is not formally approved into the State's SIP, it is a legal mechanism the State can use to ensure that Idaho DEQ has sufficient resources to support the air program, consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before the EPA can grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Idaho's title V program included a demonstration the State will collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Idaho regulations require permitting fees for major sources subject to new source review, as specified at IDAPA 58.01.01.224-227. Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Idaho has satisfied the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities
        CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

          State submittal: The Idaho submittal references IDAPA 58.01.01.209, 364 and 404 which provide for the public processes related to developing and issuing air quality permits. In addition, the submittal references the transportation conformity consultation and public processes at IDAPA 58.01.01.563-574. Finally, the submittal references the consultation and participation process outlined in 40 CFR 51.102, incorporated by reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.

          EPA analysis: The EPA most recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107 (incorporations by reference), which incorporates by reference EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51—Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083). In addition, we most recently approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and 58.01.01.404, which provide opportunity and procedures for public comment and notice to appropriate federal, state and local agencies, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). Finally, we approved the State rules that define transportation conformity consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        V. Proposed Action

        The EPA is proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the state's 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 the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because the action does not involve technical standards; and
        • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, 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 Idaho, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: August 28, 2017.
          Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2017-19346 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
        Mine Safety and Health Administration
        30 CFR Part 75
        RIN 1219-AB78
        Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Coal Mines

          AGENCY:
          Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; scheduling of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing the date and location of public hearings on the Agency's proposed rule addressing Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Coal Mines, published on September 2, 2015.

          DATES:
          The public hearing dates and locations are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on December 1, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments, requests to speak, and informational materials for the rulemaking record may be sent to MSHA by any of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov.
          • Fax: 202-693-9441.
          • Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: MSHA, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at McConnell.Sheila.A@dol.gov (Email), 202-693-9440 (Voice), or 202-693-9441 (Fax).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Instructions: All submissions must include MSHA and RIN 1219-AB78 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0019. Do not include personal information that you do not want publicly disclosed; MSHA will post all comments without change to http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, including any personal information provided. For additional instructions for participation in public hearings on this rulemaking, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. To read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Review the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401.

          Email Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification when MSHA publishes rules, program information, instructions, or policy, in the Federal Register, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
        The hearings will be held in Denver, CO; Birmingham, AL; Beaver, WV; and Indianapolis, IN. Please see the information contained in the table below for locations, dates, and times.

            Date and time
            Location
            Contact No.

            October 6, 2015; 9:00 a.m
            Embassy Suites Denver, Downtown/Convention Center, 1420 Stout Street, Denver, CO 80202
            303-592-1000

            October 8, 2015; 9:00 a.m
            Sheraton, Birmingham/Jefferson Convention Complex, 2100 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd N., Birmingham AL 35203
            205-324-5000

            October 19, 2015; 8:00 a.m
            National Mine Health and Safety Academy, 1301 Airport Road, Beaver, West Virginia 25813
            304-256-3227

            October 29, 2015; 9:00 a.m
            Indianapolis Marriott Downtown, 350 W. Maryland Street, Indianapolis, IN 46225
            317-822-3500

        Each hearing will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. Each hearing will end after the last speaker has spoken. Persons do not have to make a written request to speak; however, persons and organizations wishing to speak are encouraged to notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes. MSHA requests that parties making presentations at the hearings submit them no later than five days prior to the hearing. Presentations and accompanying documentation will be included in the rulemaking record.

        The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply. The hearing panel may ask questions of speakers and speakers may ask questions of the hearing panel. Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcripts will be available to the public. The transcripts may also be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.msha.gov/tscripts.htm. MSHA will accept comments and other appropriate information for the record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral statements. Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on December 1, 2015.

          Joseph A. Main,
          Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

      [FR Doc. 2015-24574 Filed 9-25-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4510-43-P