[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21669-21679]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08609]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find
that the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) on January 22, 2010, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) on June 2, 2010. Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements, including but not limited
to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<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
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The EPA first set standards for NO2 in 1971, setting
both a primary standard (to protect health) and a secondary standard
(to protect the public welfare) at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb),
averaged annually. The EPA reviewed the standards in 1985 and 1996,
deciding to retain the standards at the conclusion of each review. In
2005, the EPA began another review, resulting in the January 22, 2010,
rulemaking to establish an additional primary NO2 standard
at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour (75 FR 6474).
    Primary standards for SO2 were first set in 1971, at
0.14 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 24-hour period, not to be
exceeded more than once per year, and 0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic
mean. The EPA subsequently reviewed the primary standards and
determined to retain them in 1996 at the conclusion of the review. More
recently, on June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary
SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR
35520).
    The CAA requires that states submit SIPs meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation
of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require
states to address basic SIP elements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
standards, the so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. To help
states, the EPA issued guidance on September 13, 2013, addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for certain NAAQS, including the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the
guidance, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the CAA section
110(a)(2)

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

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

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

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states
must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP
infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions
inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection,
are listed below:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA
section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission
deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary
local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the
nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section
172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These
requirements are: (i) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in
part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action
does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or
CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by
a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of
the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals cite an overview of the
Idaho air quality laws and regulations, including portions of the Idaho
Environmental Protection and Health Act (EPHA) and the Rules for the
Control of Air Pollution located at IDAPA 58.01.01. Relevant laws cited
include Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ
authority to supervise and administer a system to safeguard air
quality, and Idaho Code Section 39-115 which provides Idaho DEQ with
specific authority for the issuance of air quality permits. Relevant
regulations include IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03 (incorporation by reference
of federal regulations), IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>--228 (permit to construct
rules), IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0--410 (operating permit rules), IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>0--624 (control of open burning), IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5
(visible emissions requirements and testing), IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 (rules
for sulfur content of fuels), and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0--461 (banking of
emissions).
    EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP incorporates by reference a number of
Federal regulations, including the Federal NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50,
revised as of July 1, 2012. The EPA most recently approved the
incorporation by reference of these regulations at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
``Incorporations by Reference'' on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho
has incorporated by reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS into Idaho regulations.
    Idaho generally regulates emissions of NO2 and
SO2 through its SIP-approved NSR permitting programs, in
addition to operating permit regulations, sulfur content of fuels
regulations, and rules for the control of open burning, fugitive dust,
activities that generate visible emissions, and emissions banking. The
EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's major and minor NSR
permitting programs on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho's NSR rules
incorporate by reference the Federal non-attainment NSR regulations and
Federal PSD regulations at IDAPA 58.01.204 and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
respectively. In addition to NSR permitting regulations, Idaho's Tier
II operating permit regulations at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0--410 require that
to obtain an operating permit, the applicant must demonstrate the
source will not cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any
ambient air quality standard. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>1.03 provides that Idaho
DEQ will require a Tier II source operating permit if Idaho DEQ
determines emission rate reductions are necessary to attain or maintain
any ambient air quality standard or applicable PSD increment.
    In addition to the permitting rules described above, Idaho has
adopted rules to limit and control emissions resulting from open
burning (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0--624) and activities that generate visible
emissions (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5). Idaho has also promulgated rules
addressing the sulfur content of fuels (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5) and banking
of emissions (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0--461). Based on the above analysis, we
are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
    We note that, in this action, we are not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing Idaho provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations
at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance \15\
and the EPA has recently proposed action to address such state
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals reference IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>6.05 in response to this requirement. These rules
incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 50 National Primary and Secondary
Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 52 Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 53 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference
and Equivalent Methods, and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix B Ambient Air
Quality Surveillance Quality Assurance Requirements for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration. The Idaho submittals certify that under
these rules Idaho meets the infrastructure requirement to implement
ambient air monitoring surveillance systems in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
    The Idaho submittals reference the 2012 Idaho Annual Ambient Air
Monitoring Network Plan, approved by the EPA on October 25, 2012. The
Idaho submittals also reference the Web site where the Idaho DEQ
provides the network plan, air quality monitoring summaries, a map of
the monitoring network and real-time air monitoring data.
    EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Idaho on
January 15, 1980 (40 CFR 52.670) and approved by the EPA on July 28,
1982. This air quality monitoring plan has been subsequently updated
and most recently approved by the EPA on March 10, 2014.\16\ The plan
includes, among other things, the locations for NO2 and
SO2 monitoring. Idaho makes the plan available for public
review on the Idaho DEQ Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. The Web site also includes
an interactive map of Idaho's air monitoring network. Based on the
foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states have a program providing
for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction
of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD
and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Section
39-108 which provides Idaho DEQ with authority to enforce both
administratively and civilly the Idaho Environmental Protection and
Health Act (EPHA), or any rule, permit or order promulgated pursuant to
the EPHA. Criminal enforcement is authorized at Idaho Code Section 39-
109. Emergency order authority, similar to that under section 303 of
the CAA, is located at Idaho Code Section 39-112. The Idaho submittals
also refer to laws and regulations related to air quality permits at
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>--228 (permit to construct rules).
    The Idaho submittals also cite the annual incorporation by
reference (IBR) rulemaking which updates Idaho's SIP to include Federal
changes to the NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho's submittals certify that
the annual IBR updates along with IDAPA sections 200--288 (permitting
requirements for new and modified sources) and 575--587 (air quality
standards and area classification) meets the CAA infrastructure
requirement to implement the PSD program.
    EPA analysis: With regard to the requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find
that the Idaho provisions described above provide Idaho DEQ with
authority to enforce the Idaho EPHA, air quality regulations, permits,
and orders promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. Idaho DEQ staffs and
maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. Idaho DEQ may issue emergency orders to reduce or
discontinue emission of air contaminants where air emissions cause or
contribute to imminent and substantial endangerment. Enforcement cases
may be referred to the State Attorney General's Office for civil or
criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) related to
enforcement for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary
sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. As noted above, this action does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR).
    We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on March
3, 2014, updating the Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal
requirements for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). Previously on July 17, 2012, we
approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (77
FR 41916). Idaho's PSD program implements the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the Federal PSD
program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. As a result,
we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regards to PSD for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    We note that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the EPA's
rules implementing the 1997 fine particulate matter NAAQS, including
the ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule). The
Court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to subpart
4 consistent with this opinion.''Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, title
I of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas. The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
addressed by the court's decision promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA
does not consider the portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's
opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any
PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule in order to comply with the Court's decision.
Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), with

respect to the PSD requirements, does not conflict with the court's
opinion. The EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
infrastructure submittals due three years after adoption or revision of
a NAAQS to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including
requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program. Instead,
these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or
attainment plan elements, which are due by the dates statutorily
prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as
ten years following designations for some elements.
    On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued
a judgment that, inter alia, vacated the provisions adding the
PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the
Federal regulations at 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). as
part of the Federal ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC); Final Rule'' (2010 PSD PM2.5
Implementation Rule) (75 FR 64864). In its decision, the court held
that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit
applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the
CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in
all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC
was not a required element of a state's PSD program, where a state PSD
program contains such a provision and allows issuance of new permits
without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such
application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the court's
opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
    At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded to the
EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this
vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA
regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5 because the wording
of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR
52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the
preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these
provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not
vacated and remains in effect. We also note that the court's decision
does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as
part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
    The EPA recently amended its regulations to remove the vacated
PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD regulations
(December 9, 2013, 78 FR 73698). The EPA will initiate a separate
rulemaking regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the
court's remand. In our previous action on March 3, 2014, we disapproved
Idaho's incorporation by reference of the vacated PM2.5 SILs
and SMC provisions into the Idaho SIP (79 FR 11711). This action takes
no additional action with respect to those SIP provisions that were
previously disapproved. In this action we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD
program.
    With regard to the minor NSR requirement of this element, the EPA
has determined that Idaho's minor NSR permitting program regulates
NO2 and SO2 emissions from minor sources. Based
on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, or from
interfering with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures
to address regional haze) in any state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals did not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, at this time, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions from the State of Idaho for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS are not required SIP
submissions. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Unless the
EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the
Supreme Court, which granted review of the case on June 24, 2013, and
heard oral argument on December 10, 2013, states are not required to
submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their
obligations under that section. The portions of the SIP submissions
relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, are
required.
    For purposes of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submittals referenced
Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program and Idaho's Regional Haze SIP
submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
is discussed below.
    EPA analysis: The EPA believes that the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-element may be met by the State's
confirmation in the submittal that new major sources and major
modifications in the State are subject to a SIP-approved PSD program.
We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on March 3,
2014, updating the Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal
requirements for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012,
we approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions (77 FR 41916). Idaho's PSD program implements the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July
1, 2012. As discussed above in section 110(a)(2)(C), we believe that
our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by
recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with regards to PSD for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    The EPA believes that, with regard to the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, the requirement may be
satisfied by an approved SIP addressing regional haze. The Idaho
submittals reference the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, submitted to the EPA
on October 25, 2010, which addresses visibility impacts across states
within the region. On June 9, 2011, we approved a SIP revision which
provides Idaho DEQ the authority to address regional haze and to
implement best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements (76 FR
33651). Subsequently on June 22, 2011, we approved portions of the
Idaho Regional Haze SIP, including the requirements for BART (76 FR
36329). Finally, on

November 8, 2012, we approved the remainder of the Idaho Regional Haze
SIP, including those portions that address CAA provisions that require
states to set Reasonable Progress Goals for their Class I areas, and to
develop a Long Term Strategy to achieve these goals (77 FR 66929).
    The EPA is proposing to find that as a result of the prior approval
of the Idaho regional haze SIP, the Idaho SIP contains adequate
provisions to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements with
respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Interstate and international transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources
to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
    EPA analysis: We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho PSD
program on March 3, 2014, updating the Idaho PSD program for fine
particulate matter NAAQS implementation in attainment and
unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, the
EPA approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions (77 FR 41916). The Idaho PSD program implements the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July
1, 2012. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> (procedures for issuing permits) includes
required procedures for issuing permits for new sources, including
procedures for public processes, and notice to appropriate Federal,
state and local agencies, consistent with the requirements of the
Federal PSD program. Idaho issues notice of its draft permits and
neighboring states consistently receive copies of those drafts. Idaho
also has no pending obligations under CAA section 115 or 126(b) of the
CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128 and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Section
39-106, which gives the Idaho DEQ Director authority to hire personnel
to carry out duties of the department. In addition, the submittals
reference Idaho Code 39-107, which establishes the State's Board of
Environmental Quality, Idaho Code Title 59 Chapter 7 (Ethics in
Government Act), and Executive Order 2013-06 which addresses
composition requirements of the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality.
Finally, the Idaho submittals reference Idaho Code Section 39-129,
which authorizes Idaho DEQ to enter into binding agreements with local
governments that are enforceable as orders.
    EPA analysis: We are proposing to find that the above-referenced
provisions provide Idaho DEQ with adequate authority to carry out SIP
obligations with respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). With
regard to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously approved a
revision to the Idaho SIP for purposes of meeting CAA section 128 and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63394).
Finally, we are proposing to find that Idaho has provided necessary
assurances that, where Idaho has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
SIP provision, Idaho has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of the SIP with regards to the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).
Therefore we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA,
which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public
inspection.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals reference the following
provisions: IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, which includes source testing methods
and procedures; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, which outlines Idaho DEQ authority
to require monitoring, recordkeeping and periodic reporting related to
source compliance; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, which provides Idaho DEQ
authority to issue information orders and orders to conduct source
emissions monitoring, record keeping, reporting and other requirements;
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, which outlines test methods and procedures for
source testing and reporting to the Idaho DEQ; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>,
which contains conditions for permits to construct; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>,
which contains procedures for issuing permits to construct, including
public processes; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>4, which contains procedures for
issuing Tier II operating permits, including public processes; and
Idaho Code 9-342A and IDAPA 58.01.21 which address public records. The
Idaho submittals also state that Idaho reports emissions data for the
six criteria pollutants to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory,
which is updated every three years.
    EPA analysis: The provisions cited in the Idaho submittals
establish compliance requirements for sources subject to major and
minor source permitting to monitor emissions, keep and report records,
and collect ambient air monitoring data. The provisions cited also
provide Idaho DEQ authority to issue orders to collect additional
information as needed for Idaho DEQ to ascertain compliance. In
addition, IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> (conditions for permits to construct) and
<IP_ADDRESS>5 (conditions for tier II operating permits) provide Idaho
DEQ authority to establish permit conditions requiring instrumentation
to monitor and record emissions data, and instrumentation for ambient
monitoring to determine the effect emissions from the stationary source
or facility may have, or are having, on the air quality in any area
affected by the stationary source or facility. This information is made
available to the public through public processes outlined at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> (procedures for issuing permits) for permits to construct
and

<IP_ADDRESS>4 (procedures for issuing permits) for Tier II operating
permits.
    Additionally, the State is required to submit emissions data to the
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. All states are
required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three
years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through
the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions
data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also
voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA
compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals cite Idaho Code 39-112 which
provides emergency order authority comparable to that in CAA section
303. In addition, the submittals cite the Idaho Air Pollution Emergency
Rules (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-562).
    EPA analysis: CAA section 303 provides authority to the EPA
Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contributing to
emissions which present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' We find that Idaho Code
Section 112 provides the Idaho DEQ Director with comparable authority.
    The Idaho air pollution emergency rules at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-562
were previously approved by the EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).
Idaho's air pollution emergency rules include NO2 and
SO2, establish stages of episode criteria, provide for
public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to
exist, and specify emission control actions to be taken at each episode
stage, consistent with the EPA emergency episode SIP requirements set
forth at 40 CFR part 51 subpart H (prevention of air pollution
emergency episodes, sections 51.150 through 51.153) for NO2
and SO2. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Sections
39-105(2) and (3)(d) which provide Idaho DEQ with broad authority to
revise rules, in accordance with Idaho administrative procedures for
rulemaking, to meet national ambient air quality standards as
incorporated by reference in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>. The Idaho submittals
also refer to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 through 587 which establish and define
acceptable ambient concentrations consistent with established criteria.
    EPA analysis: We find that Idaho has adequate authority to
regularly update the SIP to take into account revisions of the NAAQS
and other related regulatory changes. In practice, Idaho regularly
updates the SIP for purposes of NAAQS revisions and other related
regulatory changes. We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho
SIP on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho has incorporated by reference
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS into the Idaho
SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not
governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls
are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan
requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific
subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection
refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA,
and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain
to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the
CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR
or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).
    110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials: CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with
local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are
exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that
can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of
the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and
visibility protection.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to laws and
regulations relating to public participation processes for SIP
revisions and permitting programs. The submittals refer to IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> and 404 which provide for public processes related to new
source construction permitting and Tier II operating permits. The
submittals also refer to Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(c) which promotes
outreach with local governments and Idaho Code Section 39-129 which
provides authority for Idaho DEQ to enter into agreements with local
governments. In addition, the Idaho submittals reference the Idaho
transportation conformity rules and regional haze rules which provide
for consultation processes. With regard to public notification, the
Idaho submittals state that Idaho DEQ submits information to EPA's
AIRNOW program and provides daily air quality index scores for many
locations throughout Idaho. Finally, with regards to PSD, the
submittals reference the Idaho rules for major source permitting at
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> through 223, including PSD requirements for sources
in attainment and unclassifiable areas.
    EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP includes specific provisions for
consulting with local governments and Federal Land Managers as
specified in CAA section

121, including the Idaho rules for major source PSD permitting. The EPA
most recently approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> and
<IP_ADDRESS>4, which provide opportunity and procedures for public
comment and notice to appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, on
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). We most recently approved Idaho's
rules that define transportation conformity consultation on April 12,
2001 (66 FR 18873), and Idaho's regional haze rules on June 9, 2011 (76
FR 33651). In practice, Idaho DEQ routinely coordinates with local
governments, states, Federal Land Managers and other stakeholders on
air quality issues including permitting action, transportation
conformity, and regional haze. Therefore, we are proposing to find that
the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for
consultation with government officials for the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. The EPA calculates
an air quality index for five major air pollutants regulated by the
CAA: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The EPA AIRNOW program provides this air
quality index daily to the public, including health effects and actions
members of the public can take to reduce air pollution. Idaho actively
participates and submits information to the AIRNOW program, in addition
to the EPA's Enviroflash Air Quality Alert program. Idaho DEQ also
provides the daily air quality index to the public on the DEQ Web site
at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm, as well as measures that
can be taken to prevent exceedances. Therefore, we are proposing to
find that the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we
have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved
revisions to the State's PSD program on March 3, 2014, updating the
Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal requirements for fine
particulate matter implementation in attainment and unclassifiable
areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, we approved a
revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement the PSD
permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (77 FR
41916). The State's PSD program implements the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the Federal PSD
program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. We believe that
our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(J) is not affected by recent
court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Please see our
discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility
triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals state that air quality
modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as
appropriate for Idaho to demonstrate attainment with required air
quality standards. Idaho cites IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.02 and IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>2.03 which address permit to construct and Tier II operating
permit application procedures and modeling requirements for estimating
ambient concentrations, respectively. Modeling is also addressed in
Idaho's source permitting process as discussed at section 110(a)(2)(A)
above. Estimates of ambient concentrations are based on requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality
Models) which is incorporated by reference at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.
    EPA analysis: We most recently approved IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
(incorporations by reference) on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). This rule
incorporates by reference the following EPA regulations: Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40
CFR part 51; National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 40 CFR part 50; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans, 40 CFR part 52; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent
Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR
part 58 revised as of July 1, 2012. Idaho has incorporated by reference
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS into Idaho
regulations. Idaho models estimates of ambient concentrations based on
40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models). To cite
an example of a SIP supported by substantial modeling, the EPA approved
the PM10 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise
Idaho Area on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61106). Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such
time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by the EPA's approval of
the state's title V operating permit program.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>7
through 397, which sets the requirements for the annual registration of
Tier I (title V) sources and the annual assessment and payment of fees
to support the Tier I permitting program. The EPA approved Idaho's
title V permitting program on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574). The
submittals also reference IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>7 through 409 which set the
requirements for Tier II operating permit processing fees and usage.
    EPA analysis: We approved Idaho's title V program on October 4,
2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective date of November 5, 2001. While
Idaho's operating permit program is not formally approved into the
State's SIP, it is a legal mechanism the State can use to ensure that
Idaho DEQ has sufficient resources to support the air program,
consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before the EPA can grant
full approval, a state must demonstrate the

ability to collect adequate fees. Idaho's title V program included a
demonstration the State will collect a fee from title V sources above
the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Idaho
regulations require permitting fees for major sources subject to new
source review, as specified at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> through 227.
Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Idaho has satisfied the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    State submittals: The Idaho submittals reference IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>, 364 and 404 which provide for the public processes
related to developing and issuing air quality permits. In addition, the
submittals reference the transportation conformity consultation and
public processes at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>3 through 574. Finally, the
submittals reference the consultation and participation process
outlined in 40 CFR 51.102, incorporated by reference at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.
    EPA analysis: The EPA most recently approved IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
(incorporations by reference), which incorporates by reference EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 51--Requirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of Implementation Plans on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711).
In addition, we most recently approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>4, which provide opportunity and procedures
for public comment and notice to appropriate Federal, state and local
agencies, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). Finally, we approved the
State rules that define transportation conformity consultation on April
12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the following
CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This
action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because the action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
Idaho, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 27, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-08609 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P