[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3069-3070]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-082]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rate

January 10, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, Twenty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 15, to
become effective January 1, 2006.
    GTN states that this sheet is being filed to update GTN's reporting
of negotiated rate transactions that it has entered into.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the
provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR
154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-485 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9423-9427]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03573]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0581; FRL-9923-37-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
June 28, 2010, the State of Idaho submitted a SIP revision to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these interstate
transport requirements with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to find that Idaho has
adequately addressed certain CAA interstate transport requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0581, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom,
1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin
Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--150. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0581. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS
    C. Guidance
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising
the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from
65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\
(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
each state to submit to the EPA, within three years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides
for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS.
The EPA refers to these specific submittals as ``infrastructure'' SIPs
because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements
for new or revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
these infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009. CAA section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan
submission'' must meet.
    The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit
a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air
quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies
four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants
transported across state lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing
the first two elements of this section, specified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state. We previously approved the Idaho SIP
for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS on July 14, 2014 (79 FR 40662).

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

    The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
in the state from emitting air pollutants that will ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS

    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\2\ The EPA
promulgated the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule)
to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the
United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8,
2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to replace the
earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially
remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule. See EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Court also
ordered the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. However,
on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the
D.C. Circuit's ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in the Transport
Rule for the issues that were in front of the Supreme Court for
review.\4\ On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay on the
Transport Rule.\5\ While our evaluation is consistent with the
Transport Rule approach, the State of Idaho was not covered by either
CAIR or the Transport Rule, and the EPA made no determinations in
either rule regarding whether emissions from sources in Idaho
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, nor did it
attempt to quantify Idaho's obligation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, please
see our July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
    \4\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584
(2014).
    \5\ USCA Case #11-1302, Document #1518738, Filed 10/23/2014.
    \6\ Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
addressed the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\7\ With respect to the
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that would contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state, the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance essentially
reiterated the recommendations for western states made by the EPA in
previous guidance addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.\8\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance advised states outside of the CAIR region to include in their
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs adequate technical analyses to
support their conclusions regarding interstate pollution transport,
e.g., information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in potentially
impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not attaining the NAAQS
in other states, and air quality modeling.\9\ With respect to the
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that would interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that
SIP submissions must address this independent requirement of the
statute and provide technical information appropriate to support the
state's conclusions, such as information concerning emissions in the
state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling. See footnotes 5
and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \8\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission 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,''
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
    \9\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR
that would address issues raised by the Court in the North Carolina
case and that would provide guidance to states in addressing the
requirements related to interstate transport in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It
also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach
to evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to Idaho that the EPA explained in the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. The EPA believes that
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Idaho for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may be evaluated using a ``weight
of the evidence'' approach that takes into account available relevant
information. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the
amount of emissions in the state relevant to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the meteorological conditions in the area, the
distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that
are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be
probative to consider whether sources in the state may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions
may rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are
available, but if not available, other available information can be
sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport
in a specific situation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
For further explanation of this approach, see the technical support
document (TSD) in the docket for this action.

II. State Submittal

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.

These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent
advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period
of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    On June 28, 2010, Idaho submitted a SIP to address the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport
submittal).\10\ The Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport submittal included
documentation of a public comment period from May 11, 2010 through June
10, 2010, and opportunity for public hearing. We find that the process
followed by Idaho in adopting the SIP submittal complies with the
procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the
EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport submittal addressed the
interstate transport requirements of the 1997 PM2.5, 1997
ozone, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this action,
we are only taking action with respect to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
EPA has addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006
PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in a separate action (July 14,
2014, 79 FR 40662). In addition, we previously approved the Idaho
SIP for 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5
and 1997 ozone NAAQS on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72705). Finally, we
will address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
the Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport submittal referred to the
applicable rules in the Idaho SIP, meteorological and other
characteristics of areas with nonattainment problems for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in surrounding states, source apportionment
data that provides information on how Idaho sources influence
PM2.5 levels at monitors in National Parks and wilderness
areas surrounding Idaho. The Idaho submittal concluded that, based on
the weight of the evidence, the Idaho SIP adequately addresses the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Idaho submittal made clear
that such submittal did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
nonattainment problems in the Cache Valley, a mountain valley that
straddles the Utah-Idaho border. A portion of the Cache Valley has been
designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(Logan UT-ID nonattainment area (NAA)).\11\ Idaho stated that the State
is working directly with Utah and EPA Regions 8 and 10 under a two-
state, one airshed approach to address the nonattainment problems in
the Logan UT-ID NAA. A detailed discussion of the Idaho 2010 Interstate
Transport submittal can be found in the technical support document
(TSD) in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The EPA designated areas nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009, including the Logan UT-
ID nonattainment area, commonly referred to as the Cache Valley
nonattainment area (74 FR 58688).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements are satisfied, the EPA must determine whether a state's
emissions will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in other states. If this factual finding is in the
negative, then CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any
changes to a state's SIP. Consistent with the EPA's approach in the
1998 NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 Transport
Rule, the EPA is evaluating these impacts with respect to specific
monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance
problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' See footnote 2.
    With respect to this proposed action, the EPA notes that no single
piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead,
the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state. Our proposed action takes into account the Idaho 2010 Interstate
Transport submittal, a supplemental evaluation of monitors in other
states that are appropriate ``nonattainment receptors'' or
``maintenance receptors,'' a review of monitoring data considered
representative of background, and revisions made to the Idaho SIP since
the 2010 Interstate Transport submittal. In particular, we have
reviewed technical information developed since the Idaho 2010
Interstate Transport submittal, specifically the Idaho SIP revision
submitted in December of 2012 for purposes of addressing 24-hour
PM2.5 problems in the Logan UT-ID NAA. The EPA finalized a
limited approval of portions of this December 2012 SIP submittal on
March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16201).
    Based on the analysis in our TSD in the docket for this action, we
believe that it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from sources
in Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state, with the following exception. We are unable to determine
whether or not emissions from Idaho significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah,
within the Cache Valley. In the event that emissions from sources on
the Idaho side of the Cache Valley do significantly contribute to
nonattainment on the Utah side of the Cache Valley, we have evaluated
the current Idaho SIP, and control measures in the SIP addressing
emissions within the Cache Valley. We believe it is reasonable to
conclude that, taking cost into account as the EPA has done in past
interstate transport rulemakings, and which has been recently upheld as
a valid approach by the Supreme Court (See footnote 4), Idaho has
adequately addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
We are not, in this action, proposing to make any findings with respect
to the attainment planning requirements of CAA title I, part D for the
Logan UT-ID NAA. These requirements will be addressed in a separate
action. Below is a summary of our evaluation. For the complete
evaluation, please see the TSD in the docket for this action.

A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    The EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three
overlapping three-year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013) to determine which areas were violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty
maintaining the standard. If a monitoring site measured a violation of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent three-
year period (2011-2013), then this monitor location was evaluated for
purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other hand, a monitoring
site showed attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
during the most recent three-year period (2011-2013) but a violation in
at least one of the previous two three-year periods (2009-2011 or 2010-
2012), then this monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the
interference with maintenance element of the statute.
    The State of Idaho was not covered by the modeling analyses
available for the CAIR and the Transport Rule. The approach described
above is similar to the approach utilized by the EPA in promulgating
the CAIR and the Transport Rule. By this method, the EPA has identified
those areas with monitors to be considered ``nonattainment receptors''
or ``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from
sources in another state could significantly

contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that
particular area.

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    The EPA reviewed the Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport submittal and
additional technical information to evaluate the potential for
emissions from sources in Idaho to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified
monitoring sites in the western United States.\12\ The EPA first
identified as ``nonattainment receptors'' all monitoring sites in the
western states that had recorded PM2.5 design values above
the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\)
during the years 2011-2013.\13\ Please see the TSD in the docket for a
more detailed description of the EPA's methodology for selection of
nonattainment receptors. All of the nonattainment receptors we
identified in western states are in California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
and Utah.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA has also considered potential PM2.5
transport from Idaho to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance
receptors located in the eastern, midwestern, and southern states
covered by the Transport Rule and believes it is reasonable to
conclude that, given the significant distance from Idaho to the
nearest such receptor (in Illinois) and the relatively insignificant
amount of emissions from Idaho that could potentially be transported
such a distance, emissions from Idaho sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same
factors also support a finding that emissions from Idaho sources
neither contribute significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any
location further east. See TSD at Section II.C.
    \13\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR at the time and thus could be considered in this analysis.
    \14\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Idaho emissions on nonattainment
receptors within Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis in our TSD, we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that emissions from sources in Idaho do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state, with the possible exception of Utah, within the
Cache Valley. We also evaluated nonattainment receptors in eastern
states, as detailed in the TSD, and we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that emissions from sources in Idaho do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in any eastern state.
    On March 25, 2014, the EPA finalized a limited approval of specific
residential wood burning ordinances and road sanding agreements
addressing emissions of PM2.5 on the Idaho side of the Cache
Valley (79 FR 16201). We note that because of a recent court remand of
related implementing regulations,\15\ and the need to evaluate the
controls for the Idaho side of the Cache Valley in conjunction with the
controls submitted for the Utah side of the Cache Valley, we did not
fully approve the submittal as meeting all statutory nonattainment
planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (March 25,
2014; 79 FR 16201).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the
EPA's rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including
the ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),''
(73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule). The Court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate
these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.''
Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes
additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. On
June 2, 2014, the EPA repromulgated these rules pursuant to Subpart
4 (79 FR 31566).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, based on the analysis in our TSD, we are proposing to
determine that Idaho's SIP adequately addresses the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
including with respect to Utah, within the Cache Valley.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    The EPA reviewed the Idaho 2010 Interstate Transport SIP and
additional technical information to evaluate the potential for Idaho
emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the western
United States. The EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors''
all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2009-2011 and/or
2010-2012 periods but below this standard during the 2011-2013 period.
Please see our TSD for more information regarding the EPA's methodology
for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the maintenance
receptors we identified in western states are located in California,
Montana, and Utah.
    As detailed in the TSD, we believe it is reasonable to conclude
that emissions from sources in Idaho do not interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in these states. We also
evaluated maintenance receptors in eastern states, as detailed in the
TSD, and we believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from
sources in Idaho do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any eastern state.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to find that Idaho has adequately addressed
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not, in this
action, proposing to make any findings with respect to the attainment
planning requirements of CAA title I, part D for the Logan UT-ID NAA.
These requirements will be addressed in a separate action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 it does not involve technical standards; and

     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 5, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-03573 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45669-45670]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2015-0634; OMB Control Number 1625-0014]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision of a currently approved collection: 1625-0014, Request for
Designation and Exemption of Oceanographic Research Vessels. Our ICR
describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before
submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as
described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 29,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0634] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act
Manager, US Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE., STOP 7710,
Washington DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval
of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0634], and
must be received by September 29, 2015. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2015-0634], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.

    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2015-0634'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2015-0634'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Request for Designation and Exemption of Oceanographic
Research Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0014.
    Summary: This collection requires submission of specific
information about a vessel in order for the vessel to be designated as
an Oceanographic Research Vessel (ORV).
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 2113 authorizes the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to exempt Oceanographic Research
Vessels (ORV), by regulation, from provisions of Subtitle II, of Title
46, Shipping, of the United States Code, concerning maritime safety and
seaman's welfare laws. This information is necessary to ensure a vessel
qualifies for the designation of ORV under 46 CFR part 3 and 46 CFR
part 14, subpart D.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners or operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden has decreased from 51
hours to 25 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 24, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-18855 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P