[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1579-1591]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1072, FRL-9250-2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Idaho on October 25, 2010, as
meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to approve a portion of the
revision as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program,
including the requirements for best available retrofit technology
(BART).

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before February 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2010-1072 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107.
Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2010-1072. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact
the individual listed below to view a hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number (206)
553-0782<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIP
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Consultation with States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
III. EPA's Analysis of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Baseline and Natural Conditions
    C. Idaho Emissions Inventories
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Idaho Class I Areas
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    F. TASCO BART Analysis
    G. Monsanto/P4 BART Analysis
    H. Improvement in Visibility from BART at TASCO, Nampa and
Monsanto/P4
IV. EPA's Analysis of Whether Regional Haze SIP Submittal Meets
Interstate Transport Requirements
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Scope of Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness
areas. See

CAA section 169(A). Congress amended the visibility provisions in the
CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of regional haze. See CAA
section 169(B). EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to implement
sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to
develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward
improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class I
areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005)
and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve certain provisions of
Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submission addressing the requirements for
best available retrofit technology (BART), the calculation of baseline
and natural visibility conditions, and the statewide inventory of
visibility-impairing pollutants. EPA is also proposing to approve the
provisions of Idaho's SIP submittal addressing BART as meeting Idaho's
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act for visibility.
EPA is not taking action today on those provisions of the Regional Haze
SIP submittal related to reasonable progress goals and the long term
strategy.

A. Definition of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by emission of air pollution produced by numerous sources and
activities, located across a broad regional area. The sources include
but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile
sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic sources.
Visibility impairment is primarily caused by fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) or secondary aerosol formed in the atmosphere from precursor
gasses (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases,
ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Atmospheric fine particulate
reduces clarity, color, and visual range of visual scenes. Visibility
reducing fine particulate is primarily composed of sulfate, nitrate,
organic carbon compounds, elemental carbon, and soil dust, and impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Fine particulate can also
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and
wilderness areas. Average visual range in many Class I areas in the
Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air
pollution.\3\ Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by
season depending on variation in meteorology and emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713) (the RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this rulemaking. The requirement to submit a regional
haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze impairment can
originate from across state lines, EPA has encouraged the States and
Tribes to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective.
Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were created nationally to
address regional haze and related issues. One of the main objectives of
the RPOs is to develop and analyze data and conduct pollutant transport
modeling to assist the States or Tribes in developing their regional
haze plans.
    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of the five RPOs
nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, and
local air agencies dealing with air quality in the West. WRAP member
States include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe,
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to
submit a plan to address certain requirements for a new or revised
NAAQS within three years after promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter time as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA lists the elements that such new plan submissions must address, as
applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the
interstate transport of certain emissions.
    On April 25, 2005, EPA published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit
SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.''
70 FR 21147. This included a finding that Idaho and other states had
failed to submit SIPs to address interstate transport of emissions
affecting visibility and started a 2-year clock for the promulgation of
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA, unless the state made a
submission to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA
approves such submission. Id.
    On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance on this topic entitled
``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet
Current Outstanding Obligations Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2006
Guidance). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to
states for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 PM2.5
standards.
    As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each state to
have a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect other states
in ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains
four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate
transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; or
(4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.
    With respect to establishing that emissions from sources in the
state would not interfere with measures in other states to protect
visibility, the 2006 Guidance recommended that states make a submission
indicating that it was premature, at that time, to determine whether
there would be any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for
another state designed to ``protect visibility'' until the submission
and approval of regional haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were required to
be submitted by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later point
in time, however, EPA believes it is now necessary to evaluate such
110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from a state to ensure that the existing
SIP, or the SIP as modified by the submission, contains adequate
provisions to prevent interference with the visibility programs of
other states, such as for consistency with the assumptions for controls
relied upon by other states in establishing reasonable progress goals
to address regional haze.
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, we anticipate that regional haze SIPs will contain
measures that will achieve these emissions reductions, and that these
measures will meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the West, all
states in the WRAP region contributed information to a Technical
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze,
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP States
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the Western Class I areas. The modeling
done by the WRAP relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the States in the WRAP,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the State's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the draft and final regional haze SIPs
that have now been prepared by States in the West accordingly are
based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby States that
were agreed on through the WRAP process.
    Idaho submitted a Regional Haze SIP on October 25, 2010, to address
the requirements of the RHR and the good neighbor provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed the submittal and concluded
at this time to propose to take action on only certain elements of
Idaho's Regional Haze SIP. EPA is required at this time, to propose to
take action either to approve Idaho's SIP submittal, or otherwise to
take action to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
regarding visibility.\5\ EPA is proposing to find that certain elements
of Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submittal meet these requirements. In
particular, as explained in section IV of this action, EPA is proposing
to find that the BART measures in Idaho's Regional Haze SIP submittal,
which EPA is proposing to approve in this action, will also mean that
the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
regarding visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 4:09-CV-02453-CW
(N.D. Calif.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

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

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

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

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

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

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and
at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goals and
on the development and implementation of strategies to address
visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation
between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection
program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year
progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the
potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
States are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources
that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has indicated that states should use their best judgment in
determining

whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
    The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the states to help them
in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I
area. Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption
threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible
source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption
threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold
value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class
I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Generally, an exemption threshold set by
the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source.
In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires
that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of
compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to
result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine
the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze
SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to
what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the
SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source. States have the flexibility to choose the type of control
measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.

III. EPA's Analysis of Idaho Regional Haze SIP

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are five mandatory Class I areas, or portions of such areas,
within Idaho. Craters of the Moon National Monument, Sawtooth
Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area lie completely
within Idaho State borders. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area is a shared
Class I area with Oregon, and Yellowstone National Park is a shared
Class I area with Wyoming. See 40 CFR 81.410. Oregon and Wyoming
respectively will address reasonable progress goals, monitoring, and
other core requirements for these Class I areas. Idaho consulted with
Oregon and Wyoming to determine Idaho's contribution to regional haze
in those Class I areas and to determine appropriate measures for
Idaho's long-term strategy. See chapter 13, section 13.2 of the Idaho
Regional Haze SIP submittal. See also the WRAP Technical Support
Document \8\ (WRAP TSD) supporting this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA evaluated the technical work products of the WRAP used
by Idaho in support of this Regional Haze SIP submittal. The results
of that evaluation are included in the document ``WRAP Technical
Support Document'' or WRAP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions

    Idaho, using data from the IMPROVE monitoring network and analyzed
by WRAP, established baseline and natural visibility conditions as well
as the uniform rate of progress (URP) to achieve natural visibility
conditions in 2064 for all Idaho Class I areas within its borders.
While Idaho is responsible for establishing baseline and natural
conditions for three Class I areas, the SIP also included these values
for Hells Canyon Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park, as
determined by WRAP and established by Oregon and Wyoming.
    Baseline visibility was calculated from monitoring data collected
by IMPROVE monitors for the most-impaired (20% worst) days and the
least-impaired (20% best) days. Idaho used the WRAP derived natural
visibility conditions. In general, WRAP based their estimates on EPA
guidance, Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Program (EPA-45/B-03-0005 September 2003) but
incorporated refinements which EPA believes provides results more
appropriate for western states than the general EPA default approach.
See section 2.E of the WRAP TSD.
    Craters of the Moon National Monument: An IMPROVE monitor is
located in Craters of the Moon National Monument. Based on baseline
2000 to 2004 data, the average 20% worst days visibility is 14 dv and
the average 20% best days visibility is 4.3 dv. Natural visibility for
the average 20% worst days is 7.53 dv.
    Hells Canyon Wilderness Area: Hells Canyon Wilderness Area has an
IMPROVE monitor located within the Wilderness Area at Oxbow Dam. Based
on baseline 2000 to 2004 data, Oregon determined the average 20% worst
days visibility is 18.55 dv and the average 20% best days visibility is
5.52 dv. Natural visibility for the average 20% worst days is 8.32 dv.
    Sawtooth Wilderness Area: Sawtooth Wilderness Area has an IMPROVE
monitor located within the Wilderness Area. Based on baseline 2000 to
2004 data, the average 20% worst days visibility is 13.78 dv and the
average 20% best days visibility is 3.99 dv. Natural visibility for the
average 20% worst days is 6.42 dv.
    Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area: Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Area visibility is represented by an IMPROVE monitor located 20 km east
of the Wilderness Area in Sula, Montana. This site also represents
visibility in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area. Based on baseline
2000 to 2004 data, the average 20% worst days visibility is 13.41 dv
and the average 20% best days visibility is 2.58 dv for both areas.
Natural visibility for the Selway-Bitteroot and the Anaconda-Pintler
Wilderness Areas average 20% worst days is 7.43 dv.
    Yellowstone National Park: Yellowstone National Park has an IMPROVE
monitor located within the park. Based on baseline 2000 to 2004 data
Wyoming determined the average 20% worst days visibility is 11.76 dv
and the average 20% best days visibility is 2.58 dv. Natural visibility
for the average 20% worst days is 6.24 dv.
    Based on our evaluation of the State's baseline and natural
conditions analysis, EPA is proposing to find that Idaho has
appropriately determined baseline visibility for the average 20% worst
and 20% best days and natural visibility conditions for the average 20%

worst days in each Class I area within the state. See the WRAP TSD
supporting this action (section 2.D and 2.E).

C. Idaho Emission Inventories

    There are three main categories of air pollution emission sources:
Point sources, area sources, and mobile sources. Point sources are
larger stationary sources that emit pollutants through a stack or duct.
Area sources are large numbers of small sources that are widely
distributed across an area, such as residential heating units or re-
entrained dust from unpaved roads or windblown dust form agricultural
fields. Mobile sources are sources such as motor vehicles, locomotives
and aircraft.
    The RHR requires a statewide emission inventory of pollutants that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). The
WRAP, with data supplied by the states, compiled emission inventories
for all major source categories in Idaho for the 2002 baseline year and
estimated emission inventories for 2018. Emission estimates for 2018
were generated from anticipated population growth, growth in industrial
activity, and emission reductions from implementation of control
measures, e.g., implementation of BART limitations, and motor vehicle
tailpipe emissions. Appendix D of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP discusses
how emission estimates were determined and contains the emission
inventory. Detailed estimates of the emissions, used in the modeling
conducted by the WRAP and Idaho, can be found at the WRAP Web site:
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx.
    There are a number of emission inventory source categories
identified in the Idaho SIP: point, area, on-road mobile, off-road
mobile, anthropogenic fire (prescribed forest fire, agricultural field
burning, and residential wood combustion), natural fire, road dust,
fugitive dust and windblown dust. The 2002 baseline and 2018 projected
emissions, as well as the net changes of emissions between these two
years, are presented in Tables 8-1 through 8-8 in the SIP submittal for
SO2, NOX, Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC), Organic
Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), fine particulate (PM2.5), coarse
particulate (PM coarse) and ammonia. The methods that WRAP used to
develop these emission inventories are described in more detail in the
WRAP TSD. As explained in the WRAP TSD, emissions were calculated using
best available data and approved EPA methods. See WRAP TSD section 12.
    SO2 emissions in Idaho come mostly from coal combustion
at industrial boilers and from other industrial activities.
SO2 emissions estimates for point sources came either from
source test data (where available) or calculations based on fuel type
and quantity burned. These industrial point sources contribute 45% of
total statewide SO2 emissions. The second largest
contributor to SO2 emissions in Idaho is fire: 31% from
natural fire and 2% from anthropogenic fire.
    Idaho projects a 45% statewide reduction in point source
SO2 emissions by 2018 due to implementation of BART emission
limitations. Idaho also projects total 2018 statewide SO2
emissions to be reduced by 33.9% below 2002 levels as a result of BART
and additional reductions from mobile sources and anthropogenic fire
emissions. According to the State's analysis, overall point source
emissions, the largest source category in 2002, are projected to be
reduced by 46.7%. Area source emissions (8% of statewide SO2
emissions) are projected to increase 7.9% between 2002 and 2018 due to
population growth. Idaho projects SO2 emissions associated
with natural fire, the second largest source category in 2002, to
remain unchanged and would become the largest source category in 2018.
    NOX emissions in Idaho come mostly from mobile sources,
both from on-road and off-road mobile sources, which contribute 46% of
total statewide NOX emissions. The second largest source
category of NOX emissions is area source emissions from
combustion to heat buildings. Area source emissions account for 19% of
statewide NOX emissions. Idaho projects that 2018 total
statewide emissions of NOX will be 20.6% lower than 2002
levels. Idaho also projects on-road and off-road mobile source
emissions to be reduced by 72.4% and 38.3% respectively by 2018, due to
new Federal motor vehicle emission standards and fleet turnover. Idaho
projects area source NOX emissions to increase by 38.8% to
become the largest source category in 2018 due to population growth and
new industrial sources. Idaho projects natural fire emissions to remain
unchanged and become the second largest NOX source category
in 2018.
    Volatile organic compounds (VOC) in Idaho come mostly from area
sources such as industrial solvent use, paints, pharmaceuticals, and
refrigerants, which contribute 46% of total VOC emissions. The second
largest source category in VOC emissions is non-anthropogenic fire
which contributes 25% of total VOC emissions, while the second largest
source category of anthropogenic VOC is mobile sources. Idaho projects
2018 statewide VOC emissions to increase by 19.2% over 2002 levels even
though on-road mobile, off-road mobile and anthropogenic VOC emissions
are projected to decrease 61.7%, 32.2% and 52.3% respectively. This
increase in VOC emissions is due to a projected 64.2% increase in area
source VOC emissions primarily due to population growth and increased
business activity.
    Organic carbon in Idaho comes from natural fire, anthropogenic fire
and mobile sources. Natural fire is the largest source category, which
contributes 82% of organic carbon emissions. The second largest source
category is anthropogenic fire which contributes 15% of the total
organic carbon emissions. Idaho projects 2018 statewide organic carbon
emissions to decrease 7.6% from 2002 emission levels due to reductions
in on-road mobile, off-road mobile, and anthropogenic fire of 10.8%,
43.1% and 51.6% respectively.
    Elemental carbon is associated with incomplete combustion. The
largest source category is natural fire, which contributes 72% of total
elemental carbon emissions. The second largest source category is off-
road mobile sources (diesel) which contributes 14% of total elemental
carbon emissions. Idaho projects 2018 statewide elemental carbon
emissions to decrease by 50.7% from 2002 emission levels. These
projected reductions are the result of anticipated emission reductions
in on-road mobile and off-road mobile emissions of 73.8% and 64.3%
respectively.
    Fine particulate, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less
than 2.5 micrometers, is emitted from a variety of area sources. Point
sources account for only 2% of statewide fine particulate. Wind blown
dust is the largest source category contributing 26% of total fine
particulate. Wood stoves and small manufacturing and industrial sources
contribute 24% of total fine particulate. Natural fire, anthropogenic
fire, road dust and other fugitive dust sources also emit approximately
equal amounts of fine particulate. Idaho projects that 2018 fine
particulate emissions will increase by 12.1% over 2002 emission levels
due to population and industrial growth. Emissions increases are
projected from point, area, road dust, fugitive dust at 26.8%, 33.6%,
32.0%, and 30.1% respectively. Fine particulate emissions associated
with anthropogenic fire are expected to decrease by 53.6%.

    Coarse particulate is particulate with an aerodynamic diameter
between 2.5 and 10 micrometers. It is composed of larger particles in
wind blown dust, natural fire and other particulate from industrial
grinding sources. The largest source category is wind blown dust which
contributes 40% of total coarse particulate emissions. The second
largest source is natural fire which contributes 22% of coarse
particulate emissions. Idaho projects that 2018 emissions of coarse
particulate to increase by 11.9% over 2002 emission levels. Idaho
projects course particulate emissions from most categories to increase,
with the exception of anthropogenic fire which will decrease by 51.7%.
    Ammonia does not directly impair visibility but can be a precursor
to the formation of particulate in the atmosphere through chemical
reaction with SO2 and NOX to form a ``secondary
aerosol.'' Area sources are the primary source category contributing to
ammonia emissions and account for 85% of total ammonia emissions. The
second largest source category is natural fire which contributes 10% of
ammonia emissions. Idaho projects ammonia emissions in 2018 to increase
by 1.3% over 2002 emission levels with increasing emissions in all
categories with the exception of anthropogenic fire which Idaho
projects to decrease by 53.4%.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Idaho Class I Areas

    Each pollutant species has its own visibility impairing property; 1
[mu]g/m\3\ of sulfate, for example, is more effective in scattering
light than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ of organic carbon and therefore impairs
visibility more than organic carbon. Following the approach recommended
by the WRAP and as explain more fully below, Idaho used a two step
process to identify the contribution of each source or source category
to existing visibility impairment. First, ambient pollutant
concentration by species (sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, fine
particulate, etc.) was determined from the IMPROVE sampler in each
Class I area. These concentrations were then converted into deciview
values to distribute existing impairment among the measured pollutant
species. This calculation used the ``improved IMPROVE equation'' (See
section 2.C of the WRAP TSD) to calculate extinction from each
pollutant specie concentration. Extinction, in inverse megameters, was
then converted to deciview using the equation defining deciview.
Second, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) and
PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) models were used to determine
which sources and source categories contributed to the ambient
concentration of each pollutant species. Thus, impairment was
distributed by source and source category.
    After considering the available models, the WRAP and Western States
selected two source apportionment analysis tools. The first source
apportionment tool was the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) in conjunction with PM Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT). This model uses emission source characterization,
meteorology and atmospheric chemistry for aerosol formation to predict
pollutant concentrations in the Class I area. The predicted results are
compared to measured concentrations to assess accuracy of model output.
CAMx PSAT modeling was used to determine source contribution to ambient
sulfate and nitrate concentrations. The WRAP used state-of-the-science
source apportionment tools within a widely used photochemical model.
EPA has reviewed the PSAT analysis and considers the modeling,
methodology, and analysis acceptable. See section 6.A of the WRAP TSD.
    The second tool was the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) model,
used primarily as a screening tool to decide which geographic source
regions have the potential to contribute to haze at specific Class I
areas. WEP does not account for atmospheric chemistry (secondary
aerosol formation) or removal processes, and thus is used for
estimating inert particulate concentrations. The model uses back
trajectory wind flow calculations and resident time of an air parcel to
determine source and source category and location for ambient organic
carbon, elemental carbon, PM2.5, and coarse PM
concentrations. These modeling tools were the state-of-the-science and
EPA has determined that these tools were appropriately used by WRAP for
regional haze planning. Description of these tools and our evaluation
of them are described in more detail in section 6 of the WRAP TSD.
    Figure 7-1 in the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal presents the
light extinction for the base year at each Class I area by visibility
impairing pollutant species for the average of the 20% worst days. The
visibility impairing pollutant species identified are: Fine particulate
(i.e. sea salt, fine soil, elemental carbon, organic carbon, ammonium
sulfate and ammonium nitrate) and coarse material. In addition the SIP
submission identifies in Figures 7.2 through Figure 7.52, light
extinction by pollutant species for the average of the 20% worst and
average of the 20% best days for each of the Class I areas.
    Figure 7-1 of the SIP indicates that on the 20% worst days organic
carbon is the primary pollutant impairing visibility in the Sawtooth
and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Areas. In Craters of the Moon National
Monument the primary pollutant impairing visibility on the 20% worst
days is ammonium nitrate.
    Idaho also analyzed the monthly variation of light extinction and
pollutant specie concentrations for the 20% worst days. See Idaho SIP
Figures 7-6 and 7-7, Figures 7-24 through 7-27, Figures 7-35 through 7-
38. Each Class I area shows a distinct monthly and seasonal variation
in impairment. For example, the 20% worst days in Craters of the Moon
National Monument occur during the winter months of December through
February. The 20% worst days in the Sawtooth and Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness Areas occur from April through November. This variation in
impairment is due to monthly and seasonal variation in meteorology and
emission rates.
    To determine potential impacts of emission sources in Idaho on
Class I areas in other states, Idaho considered the WRAP analysis of
interstate impacts. Ambient air sulfate and nitrate concentrations for
the 20% worst and best days for baseline (2002-2004) and 2018 at each
western Class I area is distributed among all states in the WRAP using
PSAT modeling. The SIP submittal provides an analysis of the Class I
areas in nearby states. See chapter 9.3 of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP
submission. These Class I areas are:
Shared Class I Areas With Oregon and Wyoming
     Hells Canyon Wilderness Area
     Yellowstone National Park
Class I Areas Outside Idaho
     Glacier National Park in Montana: Idaho is ranked 3rd
behind Montana and Washington in contribution of visibility impairing
pollutants on the 20% worst days
     Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area in Montana: Idaho is
ranked 3rd behind Oregon and Washington in contribution to visibility
impairing pollutants on the 20% worst days
     Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in Montana: Idaho is ranked
3rd behind Montana and Washington in contribution to visibility
impairing pollutants on the 20% worst days
     Gates of the Mountain Wilderness in Montana: Idaho is
``ranked 3rd'' behind Montana and Washington in

contribution to visibility impairing pollutants on the 20% worst days
     North Absaroka Wilderness in Wyoming: Idaho is ranked 2nd
behind Wyoming in contribution to visibility impairing pollutants on
the 20% worst days
     Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming: Idaho is ranked 2nd behind
Wyoming in contribution to visibility impairing pollutants on the 20%
worst days
     Eagle Cap Wilderness Area Oregon: Idaho is ranked 3rd
behind Oregon and Washington in contribution to visibility impairing
pollutant on the 20% worst days
     Jarbidge Wilderness Area in Nevada: Idaho is ranked 1st in
contribution of sulfate and nitrate to the Jarbidge Wilderness area.
    EPA is proposing to find that Idaho has appropriately identified
the primary pollutants impacting its Class I areas. EPA is also
proposing to find that the SIP contains an appropriate analysis of the
impacts of emissions from Idaho on nearby Class I areas.

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. Table 10-1 in the SIP
submission presents the list of all BART-eligible sources located in
Idaho. These sources are: The Amalgamated Sugar Company (TASCO) in Twin
Falls, TASCO in Nampa, TASCO in Paul, NU West/Agrium in Soda Springs,
the J.R. Simplot Don Plant in Pocatello, the Monsanto/P4 Production LLC
facility at Soda Springs, and the Potlatch Pulp & Paper mill in
Lewiston Idaho.
    The second phase of the BART determination process is to identify
those BART-eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility at any Class I area and
are, therefore, subject to BART. As explained above, EPA has issued
guidelines that provide states with guidance for addressing the BART
requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 appendix Y; see also 70 FR 39,104 (July 6,
2005). The BART Guidelines describe how states may consider exempting
some BART-eligible sources from further BART review based on dispersion
modeling showing that the sources contribute below a certain threshold
amount. Idaho conducted dispersion modeling for the BART-eligible
sources to determine the visibility impacts of these sources on Class I
areas with the exception of the Monsanto/P4 Production LLC facility
which was categorized as subject to BART without analysis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Monsanto agreed to forego exemption modeling and to move
directly to a BART determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines require States to set a contribution threshold
to assess whether the impact of a single source is sufficient to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area. Generally,
States may not establish a contribution threshold that exceeds 0.5 dv
impact. 70 FR at 39,161. Idaho established a contribution threshold of
0.5 dv through negotiated rulemaking with industry, FLMs, and the
public. In its SIP submittal, Idaho notes that the 0.5 dv threshold is
also consistent with the threshold used by all other states in the
WRAP. Any source with an impact of greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I
area, including Class I areas in other states, would be subject to a
BART analysis and BART emission limitations.
    The explanation given by Idaho for adopting a 0.5 dv threshold for
determining whether a BART source may be reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area is
not adequate to justify the selection of such a threshold. Although a
number of stakeholders may have agreed that a 0.5 dv threshold is
appropriate, and other states in the Region may have adopted such a
threshold, such agreement does not provide sufficient basis concluding
that such a threshold was appropriate in the case of Idaho. Based on
EPA's review of the BART-eligible sources in Idaho, however, EPA is
proposing to find that a 0.5 dv threshold is appropriate, given the
specific facts in Idaho.
    In the BART Guidelines, EPA recommended that States ``consider the
number of BART sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. In general, a larger
number of BART sources causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a
lower contribution threshold.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 2005. In
developing its regional haze SIP, Idaho modeled the impacts of six of
the seven BART-eligible sources on Class I areas within a 300 km
radius. (See Table 10-3 through Table 10-8 of the SIP submittal). As
noted above, the State and Monsanto/P4 Production mutually agreed that
Monsanto/P4 was subject to BART. Of these BART-eligible sources, only
TASCO, Nampa exceeded the 0.5 dv threshold, based on consideration of
the 22nd highest impact during 2003-2005.\10\ For the remaining five
BART-eligible sources, the modeling showed maximum impacts below 0.4
dv. These sources are generally widely distributed across the State,
and only TASCO Twin Falls and TASCO Paul showed modeled impacts
affecting the same Class I area. Given the relatively limited impact on
visibility from these sources, Idaho could have reasonably concluded
that a 0.5 dv threshold was appropriate for capturing those BART-
eligible sources with significant impacts on visibility in Class I
areas. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to approve the 0.5 dv
threshold adopted by Idaho in its Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 22nd highest impact during 2003-2004 corresponds to the
98th percentile of modeling results, an approach to applicability
that EPA concluded was appropriate in the BART Guidelines. 70 FR at
39,123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine those sources subject to BART, Idaho used the CALPUFF
model. The dispersion modeling was conducted in accord with the BART
Modeling Protocol7. This Protocol was jointly developed by the states
of Idaho, Washington, Oregon and EPA and has undergone public review.
The Protocol was used by all three states in determining which BART-
eligible sources are subject to BART. See appendix F of the SIP
submission for details of the modeling protocol, its application and
results. As noted above, Idaho determined through modeling that one, of
the six modeled BART-eligible sources in Idaho, was subject to BART:
The TASCO facility in Nampa. In addition, the Monsanto/P4 Production
LLC facility in Soda Springs was determined to be subject to BART based
on agreement by the source and the State.

F. TASCO BART Analysis

    TASCO Nampa is a sugar beet processing facility that operates a 350
million BTU per hour, coal-fired boiler known as the Riley boiler. The
Riley boiler emits sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and particulate
matter. It is anticipated to operate into the foreseeable future, thus
expected life of the source is not a factor in the BART determination.
    The first step in a BART analysis is the identification of all
available retrofit control options. Available retrofit control options
are those air pollution control technologies with a practical potential
for application to the emission unit. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y
provides guidance on identifying available options that includes review
of EPA's Clean Air Technology Center RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse,
state and local Best Available Control Technology Guidelines, and a
number of other documents. See 40 CFR part 51

appendix Y(IV)(D)(1). Generally EPA does not expect states to consider
control technologies that have not already been demonstrated in
practice to be technically feasible.
    Idaho identified the pollutants of concern for the BART
determination at the Riley boiler to be sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen and particulate matter. BART controls for each pollutant will
be discussed below. Following an evaluation of available controls,
described below, Idaho determined that the following emission limits
represent BART for the Riley Boiler:

SO2--104 lb/hr
NOX--31 lb/hr
PM--12.4 lb/hr

The Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal includes the federally
enforceable Tier II operating permit for TASCO, Nampa, (permit No. T2-
2009.0109) that contains these emission limits. See letter and
attachments dated September 7, 2010, from Mike Simon, Stationary Source
Manager, Idaho Air Quality Division, to Kent Quinney, Plant Manager,
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC-Nampa Factory. The BART emission
limits in the Tier II operating permit are slightly higher than those
limits in the SIP submittal to allow for slight variation in test
method results.
    The emission limits for NOX and SO2 can be
achieved respectively through use of low NOX burners with
overfire air and spray dry gas desulfurization. BART will result in a
65% reduction in SO2 emissions and 80% reduction in
NOX emissions. Idaho found that the bag house currently in
place at the facility will result in compliance with the PM BART
limitation.
1. TASCO SO2 BART Evaluation
    The TASCO Riley boiler currently burns low-sulfur coal limited to
1% sulfur by weight. The alternative control options considered for
SO2 include: low-sulfur coal limited to 0.6% sulfur by
weight that would provide an additional 15% control efficiency, wet
flue gas desulfurization (Wet FGD) with a 95% control efficiency, spray
dryer flue gas desulfurization (Spray Dry FGD) with an 80% control
efficiency, dry lime flue gas desulfurization (Dry Lime FGD) with a 55%
control efficiency, dry Trona flue gas desulfurization (Dry Trona FGD)
with a 65% control efficiency. Idaho found that all these technologies
are technically feasible, but, as explained below, that wet FGD and
spray dry FGD were the best options for further evaluation.
    With a removal efficiency of 95% or greater, wet FGD systems offer
one of the highest SO2 removal efficiencies of the available
control technologies. However, the installation of wet FGD at TASCO
Nampa would require significant modification of the facility that would
increase the cost of this option. As explained in the SIP submittal,
wet FGD results in a saturated exhaust stream. The resulting
condensation that would form in the stack would likely have a very low
pH that would require installation of a stack liner to protect the
integrity of the stack. Idaho concluded that installation of a stack
liner would cost $2,000,000. Cost effectiveness of wet FGD was
accordingly estimated at $3353/ton, with an incremental cost of $6940/
ton as compared to the next most efficient control technology, spray
dry FGD.
    Spray dry FGD typically has an estimated control efficiency of 80-
90% depending on exit flue gas temperature as it approaches the
adiabatic saturation temperature. Idaho used 80% control efficiency in
this evaluation. Cost effectiveness of spray dry FGD is $2163/ton and
the incremental cost over the next most efficient control technology,
dry Trona FGD is $360/ton.
    Idaho also evaluated the energy and non-air related environmental
impacts of the SO2 control options. Waste-water treatment
from wet FGD is a major concern to Idaho and would need to be treated
onsite. The SIP submittal explains that it would be difficult and
expensive to expand the TASCO on-site treatment facility due to limited
available land and the City of Nampa water treatment system might not
be able to handle the increased water volume. See State of Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, Regional Haze Plan, 10/8/10,
appendix F,
    Table 32 of appendix F of the SIP submittal provides the estimated
visibility impact of the five control options. Wet FGD would reduce the
number of days with greater than 0.5 dv impact over a three year period
from 127 days to 43 days. Spray dry FGD would reduce the number of days
with greater than 0.5 dv from 127 days to 51 days. Considering the
incremental cost of wet FGD over spray dry FGD of $6940/ton, the waste
water treatment limitations, and achieving a reduction of only 8 more
days with impact greater than 0.5 dv over a three year period, Idaho
concluded that wet FGD is not warranted.
    Idaho has determined that spray dry FGD is the appropriate control
technology for SO2 and established 104 lb/hr as BART based
on cost effectiveness and improvement in visibility. EPA agrees with
Idaho's BART determination for SO2.
2. NOX BART Evaluation
    Idaho identified potential control options for oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) for the Riley boiler as: low NOX burners
(LNB) with a 50% control efficiency, low NOX burners with
overfire air (LNB/OFA) with a 65% control efficiency, ultra low
NOX burners (ULNB) which was determined to be infeasible,
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with a 90% control efficiency, and
selective non-catalytic (SNCR) determined to be infeasible. Idaho
evaluated the technical feasibility of each control option. Idaho found
that ULNB is not technologically feasible as the fire box at the Riley
boiler is not large enough to accommodate the flame management system
necessary for this type of control. Idaho also concluded that SNCR is
also not technologically feasible as the boiler exhaust path does not
have enough residence time for reliable control. Idaho accordingly
identified three technically feasible control options: LNB, LNB/OFA,
and SCR.
    Idaho determined the cost effectiveness and incremental cost
effectiveness for the three technically feasible control options. See
Table 35 of appendix F of the SIP submittal. Idaho concluded that LNB/
OFA provides a reasonable cost effectiveness of $1270/ton and
incremental cost effectiveness of $2430/ton over low-NOX
burners. SCR would provide a 90% reduction in NOX emissions
at a cost effectiveness of $3768 and incremental cost of $10,245/ton
over LNB/OFA. LNB/OFA would reduce the number of days with impacts
greater than 0.5 dv over a three year period from 127 days to 56 days.
SCR would reduce the number of days with impact greater than 0.5 dv
over a three year period from 127 days to 40 days. Considering the
incremental cost of SCR over LNB/OFA of $10,245/ton and achieving an
incremental reduction of 16 days with impact greater than 0.5 dv over a
three year period, Idaho concluded SCR is not warranted and that LNB/
OFA represents BART. In addition, as described below in section F(d),
TASCO argued that it could not afford to install an SCR. In view of
this and Idaho's conclusion that the incremental cost of $10,245/ton
for reducing the number of days with an impact greater than 0.5 dv by
16 over a three year period EPA is proposing to approve Idaho's
determination of BART for NOX TASCO.
3. PM BART Evaluation
    The TASCO Nampa Riley boiler has a baghouse to control particulate
matter. In its PM BART evaluation Idaho considered other alternative
control

technologies including: An enhanced baghouse with a control efficiency
of 99%, wet electrostatic precipitator with a control efficiency of
99%, and dry electrostatic precipitator with a control efficiency of
99%. Idaho compared these technologies to the control efficiency of the
current baghouse. The existing baghouse with a control efficiency of
99% emits 0.036 lbs/MMbtu (350 MMbtu/hour boiler with a limit of 0.036
lbs/MMbtu the emissions are 12.6 lbs/hour).
    Idaho determined that the existing baghouse is the best BART
control technology since it will not incur additional cost and has
control efficiency comparable to the identified alternate control
technologies. The existing baghouse has the added environmental
benefits of not requiring additional water or electricity. The benefit
of adding an additional baghouse is so small the benefits are
outweighed by the costs. In conclusion, the best BART alternative for
particulate is the existing baghouse.
    Idaho determined that the current baghouse and an emission
limitation of 12.4 lbs/hr is BART. EPA agrees with this determination.
4. TASCO Affordability
    TASCO appealed to Idaho that the company could not afford the
identified BART (Spray Dry FGD and LNB/OFA) and remain viable. At
Idaho's request, EPA conducted an evaluation and analysis of TASCO's
financial status and health. Based on this evaluation, EPA determined
TASCO could afford implementation of the identified BART. EPA also
concluded that TASCO could not reasonably afford the more costly
control options of Wet FGD for SO2 control and SCR for
NOX control. See Idaho Regional Haze Plan 10/8/10, appendix
F, page F-317: Executive Summary excerpt from: An Affordability
Analysis of The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC's Affordability Claim
with respect to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the
Riley Boiler at the Nampa, Idaho facility, February 12, 2010.
    Based on EPA's review and evaluation we propose to approve the BART
determination for TASCO.

G. Monsanto/P4 BART Analysis

    Monsanto/P4 Production is a thermal process elemental phosphorus
production facility. Idaho identified two BART units at the facility:
The 5 Rotary Kiln and the 9 Furnace Exhaust and
carbon monoxide Flare. Phosphate ore is processed in a high temperature
electric arc furnace in a reducing atmosphere produced by the
introduction of coke. Carbon monoxide gas from the arc furnace is used
as fuel for the 5 Rotary Kiln. Excess carbon monoxide is
flared to the atmosphere.
    Idaho concluded, as discussed below, that the following emissions
limit is BART for 5 Rotary Kiln:

SO2--143 lb/hr

    Idaho determined, as discussed below, that there are no technically
feasible NOX control options for the 9 Furnace
Exhaust and CO Flare.
1. 5 Rotary Kiln, SO2 Evaluation
    Idaho conducted a thorough SO2 BART evaluation for the
5 Rotary Kiln. The 5 Rotary Kiln heats phosphate ore
to remove volatile impurities and harden ore nodules for further
handling and introduction into the electric arc furnace. Carbon
monoxide from the furnace off gases is the primary fuel with coal and
natural gas as backup. Existing federally enforceable process and air
pollution controls for the kiln are included in the facility's current
Tier I (title V) operating permit No. T1-2009.0121, issued July 24,
2009. These requirements consist of:
     A limit on the sulfur content of the coal to no more than
1% by weight.
     A dust knockout chamber, spray tower, four parallel Hydro-
Sonic(copyright) scrubbers, and four parallel cyclonic
separators. The tandem nozzle fixed-throat free-jet scrubbers are
required for control of PM/PM10 and polonium-210 emissions (a
radionuclide) found in the phosphate ore.
    The initial SO2 control device is a settling chamber
where large particles are removed. The exhaust flow is then routed to a
concrete tower where it passes through water sprays to remove soluble
gases and particulate matter. The exhaust flow is then routed to four
parallel Hydro-Sonic(copyright) scrubbers for removal of
submicron particles and entrained particle-laden water. The exhaust
gases exit the scrubbers and pass through cyclonic separators and fans
prior to exiting to the atmosphere through four stacks.
    A lime concentrated dual alkali (LCDA) scrubber to control
SO2 emissions from the kiln was installed by Monsanto/P4 in
2005. The LCDA scrubbing process uses the existing Hydro-
Sonic(copyright) scrubbers to absorb SO2 with a
solution of sodium salts comprised of sodium sulfite and bisulfite, the
active absorbent species. Some sodium sulfate will also be produced.
The spent solution of sodium sulfite/bisulfite/sulfate is continuously
withdrawn to a dual-reactor system, where it is treated with hydrated
lime. The lime regenerates the scrubbing solution and precipitates
calcium sulfite/sulfate solids. The solids are removed from the system
through thickening and filtration, and the regenerated solution is
returned to the scrubber as feed material.
    Additional SO2 controls would be add-on (or retrofit)
control to the existing control technology. Idaho analyzed the
technically feasible retrofit control technologies for SO2
emissions from the 5 Rotary Kiln. These alternative controls
included: Wet FGD with lime and amine scrubbing.
    Idaho evaluated the control efficiencies of these feasible
technologies and found that both are capable of 97% control. As
determined by Idaho, the costs of these controls are $466/ton for wet
FGD and $881/ton for amine scrubbing. See appendix F, Table 5.1.1 (page
338) of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP. The energy impacts were evaluated
and both options require more energy, but not disproportionate amounts.
Neither of the available options constitute significant adverse non-air
environmental effects. The 5 Rotary Kiln is expected to remain
in operation for the life of the P4 facility.
    Idaho selected wet-FGD with lime as the most suitable control
technology based on the fact that control efficiency is comparable to
amine scrubbing, has a lower cost, and is a proven mature technology.
Idaho determined that 143 lb/hr is BART for the 5 Rotary Kiln.
EPA agrees with this determination.
2. 5 Rotary Kiln NOX BART Evaluation
    Idaho searched EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse (RBLC) for
potential NOX control options. The available options
include: Combustion control, LNB, and SNCR.
    Idaho determined that NOX combustion controls are
technically infeasible due to the temperatures required for sintering
the phosphate ore and the change in temperature resulting from
combustion control. Thermal NOX is formed at approximately
1300 [deg]C (2372 [deg]F) and above. The minimum temperature at which
sintering of the phosphate ore occurs is 1400 [deg]C to 1459 [deg]C
(2552 [deg]F to 2658 [deg]F). Therefore, it is not feasible to lower
the temperature in the kiln to minimize or prevent the formation of
thermal NOX and still sinter the ore.
    Likewise, LNB was eliminated because the temperature required for a
low NOX burner is too low to sinter the phosphate ore and
form the required nodules. Sintering of the ore takes place at 1400
[deg]C to 1459 [deg]C, and low NOX burners must be
controlled to operate at temperatures well below 1300 [deg]C (2372

[deg]F), the temperature at which thermal NOX is formed.
    SNCR was eliminated because the kiln off gas temperature at the
exit of the kiln and prior to the existing Hydro-
Sonic(copyright) particulate control is too low for
operation of SNCR.
    EPA agrees that there are no technically feasible NOX
control options for the 5 Rotary Kiln. The current emission
limitation is 3750.7 ton/yr.
3. 5 Rotary Kiln Particulate Matter BART Evaluation
    As described above, the 5 Rotary Kiln emissions are
currently controlled with Hydro-Sonic(copyright) high energy
venture scrubbers to control particulate matter. The Tier I operating
permit includes a federally enforceable limit of 89.4 tons of PM/year.
    Idaho conducted a brief evaluation of alternative PM control
technologies but concluded, and EPA agrees, that there are no other
technically feasible alternative control technologies with greater
control efficiency than the existing Hydro-Sonic(copyright)
high energy venturi scrubbers. Thus, the existing PM emission limit of
98.4 t/yr constitutes BART for this source.
4. BART for the 9 Furnace CO Flare Evaluation
    Ore nodules from the 5 Rotary Kiln are combined with coke
and quartzite and heated in the 9 electric arc furnace. The
resulting thermal process releases elemental phosphorus (as a gas),
carbon monoxide and entrained particulate matter. The furnace off gas
is cooled to liquefy and collect the elemental phosphorus and the
remaining gases are ducted to the 5 Rotary Kiln as fuel.
Excess furnace off gas is treated in a thermal oxidizer and flared to
the atmosphere. The source of concern is the furnace flare, since most
of the furnace gases fuel the 5 Rotary kiln and are controlled
by technology applied to that source.
    A review of the RBLC Clearinghouse revealed there are no available
control technologies for particulate matter, SO2, or
NOX for the 9 Furnace CO Flare. The RBLC
Clearinghouse flare control options are exclusively for organic fuels
and are not applicable for carbon monoxide fueled flares.
    EPA agrees with Idaho's conclusion because there are no known
retrofit control technologies that are technically feasible for the
Monsanto/P4 9 Furnace Exhaust and CO Flare. EPA is proposing
to approve the BART determination for Monsanto/P4.
    The Monsanto/P4 BART emission limits are contained in federally
enforceable Tier I and Tier II operating permits. The BART requirements
are contained in the Tier II operating permit, T2-2009.0109, issued
November 17, 2009.

H. Improvement in Visibility From BART at TASCO, Nampa and Monsanto/P4

    Table 10-14 of the SIP submittal presents the visibility
improvement at several Class I areas in Idaho and surrounding states
from implementation of BART at TASCO Nampa and Monsanto/P4. The metric
used to measure improvement is the number of days (or reduction in
number of days) with a deciview impact larger than 0.5 dv from each
BART facility over a three year period.
    The greatest improvement from BART controls at Monsanto/P4 is seen
in the Teton Wilderness Area in Wyoming. Idaho estimated a reduction in
the number of days with visibility impairment greater than 0.5 dv from
Monsanto/P4 of 50 days over a three year period. Table 10-15 of the SIP
submittal presents the visibility improvement at several other Class I
areas in Idaho and surrounding states from implementation of BART at
the Monsanto/P4 facility in Soda Springs.
    The greatest improvement from BART controls at TASCO Nampa is seen
in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area in Oregon, with a reduction in days
with greater than 0.5 dv of 127 days over a three year period.
    Idaho included in the SIP submittal, federally enforceable Tier I
and Tier II operating permits for TASCO Nampa and Monsanto/P4 which
contain the necessary emission limitations representing BART and
schedules for compliance.

IV. EPA's Analysis of Whether Regional Haze SIP Submittal Meets
Interstate Transport Requirements

    In its October 25, 2010, transmittal letter, Idaho also indicated
that it intends the Regional Haze SIP submittal also to be a SIP
submission for purposes of the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. In the submission, Idaho stated that: ``Idaho's Regional Haze
SIP also satisfies the Clean Air Act Interstate Transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Chapters 2 and 13 and the associated
appendix for chapter 2 describe Idaho's consultation with other states
through the WRAP. Chapter 9 identifies Idaho's contribution and future
visibility improvements at mandatory Class I Federal Areas impacted by
Idaho's emissions.'' In its SIP transmittal letter, the state referred
to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but from the context it is clear that the
state intended this reference to be to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and
more particularly to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP revisions to
``contain'' adequate provisions * * * prohibiting * * * any source or
other types of emission activity within the State from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts which will * * * interfere with measures required
to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other
State * * * to protect visibility.'' EPA is proposing to find that the
SIP submitted by Idaho to address regional haze contains adequate
provisions to meet the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
    As an initial matter, EPA notes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
does not explicitly specify how EPA should ascertain whether a state's
SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from sources in
that state from interfering with measures required in another state to
protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and EPA
must interpret that provision.
    Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the
visibility prong of the transport requirements for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submission of the regional haze SIP, due in
December 2007. EPA's reasoning was 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. In
fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP
states consulted with each other through the WRAP's work groups. As a
result of this process, the common understanding was that each state
would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by
other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR.
This interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the regional
haze rule that a state participating in a regional planning process
must include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    We believe that with approval of the portions of the Idaho RH SIP
that we are proposing to take action on today, Idaho's SIP will also
contain adequate provisions to prevent interstate transport that would
interfere with the measures required in other states to

protect visibility. Chapter 13 of the Idaho SIP submittal explains the
consultation process followed by Idaho and its neighboring states to
meet the requirements in the regional haze rule to address the
interstate transport of visibility impairing pollutants and the outcome
of that process. Section 13.2.3 indicates that Idaho and neighboring
states agreed that ``no major contributions were identified that
supported developing new interstate strategies, mitigation measures, or
emissions reductions obligations,'' and that each state could achieve
its share of emission reductions through the implementation of BART and
other existing measures in state regional haze plans. The state agreed
that future consultation would address any new strategies or measures
needed. The measures addressing BART in the Idaho SIP submittal
accordingly would appear to be adequate to prevent emissions from
source in Idaho from interfering with the measures required to be in
the regional haze SIPs of its neighbors.
    This conclusion is consistent with the analysis conducted by the
WRAP, an analysis that provides an appropriate means for further
evaluating whether emissions from sources in a state are interfering
with the visibility programs of other states, as contemplated in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As described below, EPA's evaluation shows
that the BART measures of the Regional Haze SIP submittal, that we are
proposing to approve today, are generally consistent with the emissions
reductions assumptions of the WRAP modeling from Idaho sources.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Idaho's SIP as ensuring that
emissions from Idaho do not interfere with the reasonable progress
goals of other states.
    In developing their visibility projections using photochemical grid
modeling, the WRAP states assumed a certain level of emissions from
sources within Idaho. The visibility projection modeling was in turn
used by the states to establish their own reasonable progress goals. We
have reviewed the WRAP photochemical modeling emissions projections
used in the demonstration of reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions and compared them to the emissions limits that
will result from the imposition of BART on sources in Idaho. We have
concluded that with the emissions reductions achieved by these
measures, the emissions from Idaho sources in the projected inventory
for 2018 (which included both reductions and increases) will be below
that assumed in the WRAP analysis. In addition, EPA notes that these
projections also included estimated emissions from a new coal fired
power plant to be located in Jerome, Idaho. The Governor of Idaho
subsequently issued a ban on the construction of new coal fired power
plants that is still in effect. Thus, EPA anticipates that the actual
emissions in 2018 may be significantly less than the emissions used in
modeling 2018 conditions because the Jerome, Idaho facility will likely
not be constructed during the time period covered by the Regional Haze
SIP.
    As a result of the foregoing determination, EPA is proposing to
find that the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submission contains the emission
reductions needed to achieve Idaho's share of emission reductions
agreed upon through the regional planning process. As reflected in its
Regional Haze SIP submittal, Idaho committed to achieve these emission
reductions to address impacts on visibility on Class I areas in
surrounding states. The portions of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP that we
are proposing to approve ensure that emissions from Idaho will not
interfere with the reasonable progress goals for neighboring state's
Class I areas. EPA is accordingly proposing to find that these emission
reductions also meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of
the Act with respect to the visibility prong for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve portions of the Idaho Regional Haze
plan, submitted on October 25, 2010, as meeting the requirements set
forth in section 169A of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding
BART. EPA is also proposing to approve the Idaho submittal as meeting
the requirements of 51.308(d)(2) and (4)(v) regarding the calculation
of baseline and natural conditions for Craters of the Moon National
Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness Area, and Selway-bitterroot Wilderness,
and the statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any mandatory Class I Federal Area. In addition, EPA is proposing to
find that the BART measures in the Idaho Regional Haze plan meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(D)(ii)(II) of the CAA with respect to
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. Scope of Action

    Idaho has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce IDAPA
chapter 58 within ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.\11\
Therefore, EPA proposes that this SIP approval not extend to ``Indian
Country'' in Idaho. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include
enforceable emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate
authority under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6)
(nonattainment SIPs shall include enforceable emission limits). This is
consistent with EPA's previous approval of Idaho's prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program, in which EPA specifically
disapproved the program for sources within Indian Reservations in Idaho
because the State had not shown it had authority to regulate such
sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent with EPA's
approval of Idaho's title V air operating permits program. See 61 FR
64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval does not extend to
Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 (October 4, 2001) (full approval
does not extend to Indian Country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Indian country'' is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1)
All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe
even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a
reservation. In Idaho, Indian country includes, but is not limited
to, the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley Reservation, the
Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
and the Nez Perce Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce
Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 22, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011-249 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1551]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-305, OMB Control No. 3235-0346]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 34b-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.34b-1)
governs sales material that accompanies or follows the delivery of a
statutory prospectus (``sales literature''). Rule 34b-1 deems to be
materially misleading any investment company (``fund'') sales
literature required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') by Section 24(b) of the Investment Company
Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-24(b)) that includes performance data, unless the
sales literature also includes the appropriate uniformly computed data
and the legend disclosure required in investment company advertisements
by rule 482 under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.482).
Requiring the inclusion of such standardized performance data in sales
literature is designed to prevent misleading performance claims by
funds and to enable investors to make meaningful comparisons among
funds.
    The Commission estimates that on average approximately 351
respondents file 7,362 \1\ responses that include the information
required by rule 34b-1 each year. The burden resulting from the
collection of information requirements of rule 34b-1 is estimated to be
6 hours per response. The total hourly burden for rule 34b-1 is
approximately 46,278 hours per year in the aggregate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The estimated number of responses to rule 34b-1 is composed
of 7,362 responses filed with FINRA and 351 responses filed with the
Commission in 2019.
    \2\ 7,713 responses x 6 hours per response = 46,278 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information under rule 34b-1 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 34b-1 is not kept confidential. The
Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proposed performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 5, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00145 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28284-28285]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12984]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15Ga-2 and Form ABS-15G, SEC File No. 270-620, OMB Control
No. 3235-0675

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 15Ga-2 and Form ABS-15G (17 CFR 249.1400) is used for reports
of information required under Rule 15Ga-1 and Rule 15Ga-2 (17 CFR
240.15Ga-1) (17 CFR 240.15Ga-2) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act''). Exchange Act Rule 15Ga-1 requires asset-backed securitizers to
provide disclosure regarding fulfilled an unfulfilled repurchase
requests with respect to asset-backed securities. The purpose of the
information collected on Form ABS-15G is to implement the disclosure
requirements of Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act to provide information regarding the use of
representations and warranties in the asset-backed securities markets.
Rule 15Ga-1 had a one-time reporting requirement that expired on
February 14, 2012. We estimate that approximately 1,343 securitizers
will file Form ABS-15G annually at estimated (19.307 hours) burden
hours per response. In addition, we estimate that 75% of the 19.307
hours per response (14.48 hours) is carried internally by the
securitizers for a total annual reporting burden of 19,447 hours (14.48
hours per response x 1,343 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii)
Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 3, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12984 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P