
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21669-21679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08609]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0708, FRL-9909-47-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

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 nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) on January 22, 2010, and sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) on June 2, 2010. 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0708, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov
     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin 
Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0708. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, 
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. 
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    The EPA first set standards for NO2 in 1971, setting 
both a primary standard (to protect health) and a secondary standard 
(to protect the public welfare) at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb), 
averaged annually. The EPA reviewed the standards in 1985 and 1996, 
deciding to retain the standards at the conclusion of each review. In 
2005, the EPA began another review, resulting in the January 22, 2010, 
rulemaking to establish an additional primary NO2 standard 
at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour (75 FR 6474).
    Primary standards for SO2 were first set in 1971, at 
0.14 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 24-hour period, not to be 
exceeded more than once per year, and 0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic 
mean. The EPA subsequently reviewed the primary standards and 
determined to retain them in 1996 at the conclusion of the review. More 
recently, on June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary 
SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the 
annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 
35520).
    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, including the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the 
guidance, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the CAA section 
110(a)(2)

[[Page 21670]]

requirements, states may certify that fact via a letter to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 September 16, 2013, the State of Idaho submitted certifications 
to the EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for 
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provided notice and an 
opportunity for public comment on the submittals from July 12, 2013, 
through August 13, 2013. A notice of public hearing was published in 
the Idaho Statesman on July 12, 2013. The Idaho DEQ held a public 
hearing on August 13, 2013 in Boise, Idaho. No comments or testimony 
were received. The EPA has evaluated the Idaho submittals and 
determined that the requirements for reasonable notice and public 
hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA have been met.

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.
     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 acting upon the SIP submission from Idaho that addresses 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out 
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must 
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA's 
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach 
such plan'' submission must address.
    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for 
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the 
term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from 
submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under 
the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' 
submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part 
D of title I of the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by 
the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA 
section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program 
submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\2\ The EPA therefore 
believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 
unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 
particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains 
ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an 
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the 
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 
requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given 
new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 
110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\3\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP

[[Page 21671]]

requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions 
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, 
section 172(b) requires the EPA to establish a schedule for submission 
of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates 
the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) 
allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such 
designations to be promulgated.\4\ This ambiguity illustrates that 
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 
strict literal sense, the EPA must determine which provisions of 
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 
70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship 
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 
110(a)(2)(I)).
    \4\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) 
is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set 
specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether the EPA must act upon such SIP submission 
in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit 
``a plan'' to meet these requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to 
allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\5\ Similarly, the EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, 
the EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various 
elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action approving the 
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State 
separately to meet the requirements of the EPA's 2008 
PM2.5 NSR rule), and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air 
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and 
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action on 
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \6\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed action 
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 
FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), the 
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same 
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure 
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an 
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the 
EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan 
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission 
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not 
have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the 
NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant 
pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in 
the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it 
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in 
section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\8\ The 
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\9\ The EPA developed this document to provide 
states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or 
revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, the EPA describes the duty of 
states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural 
SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS. The EPA also made recommendations about many specific 
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of 
infrastructure SIP submissions.\10\ The

[[Page 21672]]

guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are 
germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the 
EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need 
not address others. Accordingly, the EPA reviews each infrastructure 
SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions 
of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the 
EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for 
infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states 
and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 
regardless of whether or not the EPA provides guidance or 
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such 
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
    \9\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \10\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance 
shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. 
Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which 
had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In 
light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, the EPA 
elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither 
binding nor required by statute, whether the EPA elects to provide 
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA 
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the 
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's 
SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains the EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of section 128 are necessarily included in the EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD 
program requirements contained in part C and the EPA's PSD regulations. 
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for 
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, 
including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program 
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the 
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an 
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of 
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of 
provisions the EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an 
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of 
a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a 
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether 
the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and 
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, the 
EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and 
every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., 
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of 
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that 
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's 
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with 
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). 
Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission 
without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such 
potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if 
it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to note 
that the EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include 
a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate that 
provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is 
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 
SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states 
and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) 
of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, the EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations 
with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies

[[Page 21673]]

in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take 
appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity 
of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to 
issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the EPA determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, the EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude the EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals

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 submittals: The Idaho submittals cite 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, and Idaho Code Section 39-115 which provides Idaho DEQ with 
specific authority for the issuance of air quality permits. 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: 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, 2012. The EPA most recently approved the 
incorporation by reference of these regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.107 
``Incorporations by Reference'' on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho 
has incorporated by reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010 
SO2 NAAQS into Idaho regulations.
    Idaho generally regulates emissions of NO2 and 
SO2 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 March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho's NSR rules 
incorporate by reference the Federal non-attainment 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 
SO2 NAAQS.
    We note that, in this action, we are not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing Idaho provisions with regard 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 \15\ 
and the EPA has recently proposed action to address such state 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For further description of the EPA's SSM Policy, see, e.g., 
a memorandum dated September 20, 1999, titled ``State Implementation 
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A. Herman, Assistant 
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert 
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Also, the 
EPA issued a proposed action on February 12, 2013, titled ``State 
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking: Findings 
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 
Applying to excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and 
Malfunction.'' This rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking 
filed by the Sierra Club that concerns SSM provisions in 39 states' 
SIPs (February 22, 2013, 78 FR 12460).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing Idaho rules with regard to director's discretion or variance 
provisions. The EPA believes that a number of states may have such 
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance 
(November 24, 1987, 52 FR 45109), and the EPA plans to take action in 
the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, 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.

[[Page 21674]]

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 submittals: The Idaho submittals reference 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 submittals certify 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 submittals reference the 2012 Idaho Annual Ambient Air 
Monitoring Network Plan, approved by the EPA on October 25, 2012. The 
Idaho submittals also reference 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 March 10, 2014.\16\ The plan 
includes, among other things, the locations for NO2 and 
SO2 monitoring. 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 2010 NO2 
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Idaho Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan Approval Letter, 
dated March 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Section 
39-108 which provides Idaho DEQ with authority to enforce both 
administratively and civilly the Idaho Environmental Protection and 
Health Act (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 submittals 
also refer to laws and regulations related to air quality permits at 
IDAPA 58.01.01.200--228 (permit to construct rules).
    The Idaho submittals also cite the annual incorporation by 
reference (IBR) rulemaking which updates Idaho's SIP to include Federal 
changes to the NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho's submittals certify 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 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 2010 NO2 
NAAQS. 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 March 
3, 2014, updating the Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal 
requirements for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment 
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). Previously on July 17, 2012, we 
approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement 
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (77 
FR 41916). Idaho's PSD program implements the 2010 NO2 and 
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the Federal PSD 
program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. As a result, 
we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regards to PSD for the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 fine particulate matter NAAQS, including 
the ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321, 
May 16, 2008) (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. 
Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J), with

[[Page 21675]]

respect to the PSD requirements, does not conflict with the court's 
opinion. The EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) 
infrastructure submittals 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.
    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, inter alia, vacated the provisions adding the 
PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the 
Federal regulations at 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). as 
part of the Federal ``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'' (2010 PSD PM2.5 
Implementation Rule) (75 FR 64864). 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, where a state PSD 
program contains such a provision and allows issuance of 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.
    At the EPA's request, the decision also 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 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. We also note that 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 recently amended its regulations to remove the vacated 
PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD regulations 
(December 9, 2013, 78 FR 73698). The EPA will initiate a separate 
rulemaking regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the 
court's remand. In our previous action on March 3, 2014, we disapproved 
Idaho's incorporation by reference of the vacated PM2.5 SILs 
and SMC provisions into the Idaho SIP (79 FR 11711). This action takes 
no additional action with respect to those SIP provisions that were 
previously disapproved. 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 
NO2 and SO2 emissions from minor sources. 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 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 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)).
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals did not address CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, at this time, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions from the State of Idaho for the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS are not required SIP 
submissions. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Unless the 
EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the 
Supreme Court, which granted review of the case on June 24, 2013, and 
heard oral argument on December 10, 2013, states are not required to 
submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their 
obligations under that section. The portions of the SIP submissions 
relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, are 
required.
    For purposes of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submittals referenced 
Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program and Idaho's Regional Haze SIP 
submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010. 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 March 3, 
2014, updating the Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal 
requirements for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment 
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, 
we approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to 
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas 
emissions (77 FR 41916). Idaho's PSD program implements the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the 
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July 
1, 2012. 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 regards to PSD for the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 Idaho 
submittals reference 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 the 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

[[Page 21676]]

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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    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 the Idaho PSD 
program on March 3, 2014, updating the Idaho PSD program for fine 
particulate matter NAAQS implementation in attainment and 
unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, the 
EPA approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to 
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas 
emissions (77 FR 41916). The Idaho PSD program implements the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the 
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July 
1, 2012. 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 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals refer 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 submittals 
reference 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 submittals reference 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 
SO2 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). 
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 regards to the 2010 NO2 and 
2010 SO2 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 sections 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2 
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

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 submittals: The Idaho submittals reference the following 
provisions: IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which includes source testing methods 
and procedures; 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, record keeping, reporting and other requirements; 
IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which outlines test methods and procedures for 
source testing and reporting to the Idaho DEQ; 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; and 
Idaho Code 9-342A and IDAPA 58.01.21 which address public records. The 
Idaho submittals also state 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 submittals 
establish 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

[[Page 21677]]

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.
    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 
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals cite Idaho Code 39-112 which 
provides emergency order authority comparable to that in CAA section 
303. In addition, the submittals cite 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 NO2 and 
SO2, 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 NO2 
and SO2. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho 
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals refer 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 submittals 
also refer 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 March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho has incorporated by reference 
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to laws and 
regulations relating to public participation processes for SIP 
revisions and permitting programs. The submittals refer to IDAPA 
58.01.01.209 and 404 which provide for public processes related to new 
source construction permitting and Tier II operating permits. The 
submittals also refer 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 submittals reference the Idaho 
transportation conformity rules and regional haze rules which provide 
for consultation processes. With regard to public notification, the 
Idaho submittals state that Idaho DEQ submits information to EPA's 
AIRNOW program and provides daily air quality index scores for many 
locations throughout Idaho. Finally, with regards to PSD, the 
submittals reference 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

[[Page 21678]]

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 2010 NO2 and 
2010 SO2 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 2010 NO2 and 
2010 SO2 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 the State's PSD program on March 3, 2014, updating the 
Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal requirements for fine 
particulate matter implementation in attainment and unclassifiable 
areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, we approved a 
revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement the PSD 
permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (77 FR 
41916). The State's PSD program implements the 2010 NO2 and 
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the Federal PSD 
program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 
SO2 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals state 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 March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). 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, 2012. Idaho has incorporated by reference 
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise 
Idaho Area on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61106). Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 
SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.387 
through 397, which sets 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 
submittals also reference IDAPA 58.01.01.407 through 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

[[Page 21679]]

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 through 227. 
Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Idaho has satisfied the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 NO2 
and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals reference 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 
submittals reference the transportation conformity consultation and 
public processes at IDAPA 58.01.01.563 through 574. Finally, the 
submittals reference 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 March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). 
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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
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: March 27, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-08609 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


