[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16722-16734]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06666]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0183, FRL-9908-67-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the February 14, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from Idaho demonstrating that the SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead (Pb) on
October 15, 2008. The CAA requires that each state, after a new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their

SIP to ensure that it meets the infrastructure requirements necessary
to implement the new or revised NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find
that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA infrastructure requirements for the
2008 Pb NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0183, by any of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.
     Hand Delivery: 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-
2012-0183. 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 State's Submittal
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and
secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)
to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards, so-called ``infrastructure''
requirements. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS to the EPA no later than October 15, 2011.
    To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued
guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2).\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. The certification
should address all requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements as applicable for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Such
certification should include documentation demonstrating a correlation
between each infrastructure element specified at 110(a)(2) and an
equivalent state statutory authority in the existing or submitted SIP.
As for all SIP submittals, a state should provide reasonable public
notice of, and an opportunity for a public hearing on, the
certification before it is submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
the case of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met the basic
program elements required in CAA section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions. On February 14, 2012, the State of Idaho made a submittal
to the EPA certifying that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
The submittal included an analysis of Idaho's SIP as it relates to each
section of the infrastructure requirements with regard to the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Idaho provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on
the submittal from November 29, 2011 through December 28, 2011. A
notice of public hearing was published in the Idaho Statesman on
November 29, 2011. The State held a public hearing on December 28, 2011
in Boise, Idaho. No comments or testimony were received by the State.
We have evaluated Idaho's submittal and determined that Idaho met the
requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA.

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 enforcement
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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In accordance with the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer
City, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIP submission from Idaho for the 2008 Pb NAAQS as a required SIP
submission. 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).
However, even if the submission is not considered to be
``required,'' the EPA must act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submission from Idaho because section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires
the EPA to act on all SIP submissions. 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, 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 submission relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
in contrast, are required. In this notice, we are proposing to act
on all portions of Idaho's 110(a)(2)(D) submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 October 14, 2011 guidance restated our interpretation
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, are 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 2008 Pb 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.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.\4\
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.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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)).
    \5\ 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.\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
    \7\ 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.\9\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\10\ 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.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.
    \10\ ``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.
    \11\ 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.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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.\13\ Section 110(k)(6)
authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as

past approvals of SIP submissions.\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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).
    \14\ 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).
    \15\ 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 State's Submittal

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA.
    State submittal: Idaho's submittal cites an overview of the State
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 in the Idaho Administrative Procedures
Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) annually updates, and submits to the EPA for incorporation by
reference, all NAAQS and updates to 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W--
Guidelines on Air Quality Models. Relevant laws include Idaho Code
Section 39-105(3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ with 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. Specific regulations
referenced in the State's submittal include IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.3
(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>0-623 (control of open
burning), IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-651 (control of fugitive emissions), IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>5 (visible emissions requirements and testing), and IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>0-461 (banking of emissions).
    EPA analysis: Idaho's SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, subject to the following
clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the
submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically
for attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Furthermore, the State has no areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and generally regulates
emissions of Pb through its SIP-approved major and minor new source
review (NSR) permitting programs, in addition to rules for the control
of open burning, fugitive emissions, activities that generate visible
emissions, and emissions banking.
    The State of Idaho incorporates by reference the Federal NAAQS
promulgated as of July 1, 2012, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS, at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>. The EPA most recently approved IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> on
March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). This section also incorporates by
reference Federal requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal
of implementation plans, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program provisions, and ambient air monitoring.
    The EPA most recently approved changes to the State's major and
minor NSR permitting rules on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). The State's
NSR rules incorporate the Federal nonattainment NSR regulations and
Federal PSD regulations at IDAPA 58.01.204 and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
respectively. In addition, the State's Tier II operating permit rules
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 Idaho DEQ authority to require
an operating permit if the department 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, the State has
promulgated rules to limit and control emissions from open burning
(IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-623), fugitive dust (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-651), and
activities that generate visible emissions (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5). These
rules include emission limits, control measures, and opacity limits.
The State has also promulgated rules addressing banking of emissions at
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-461. Based on the above analysis, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    We note that, in this action, we are not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State 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 \16\
and the EPA plans to address such state regulations. In the meantime,
the EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take
steps to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 State 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 (52
FR 45109), November 24, 1987, 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 the EPA guidance to take steps to correct the
deficiency as soon as possible.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal references IDAPA <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 51, Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans; 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 State
submittal states that these rules give the State authority to implement
ambient air monitoring surveillance systems in accordance with the
requirements of referenced sections of the CAA. The collected
information is analyzed and submitted by the State to the EPA.
    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 approved by the EPA on March 10, 2014.\17\ This approved plan meets
the EPA's revised ambient monitoring requirements for Pb promulgated on
December 14, 2010 (75 FR 81126) as specified in 40 CFR part 58. Idaho
provides the State's annual network monitoring plan, air quality
monitoring data summaries, and a map of the State air monitoring
network at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Idaho Air 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 to include a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program
to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to Idaho Code Section
39-108 which provides Idaho DEQ with authority to enforce both
administratively and civilly the Idaho EPHA, or any rule, permit or
order promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. Criminal enforcement is
authorized at Idaho Code Section 39-109. Emergency order authority,
similar to that under Section 303 of the CAA, is located at Idaho Code
Section 39-112. The Idaho submittal also refers to laws and regulations
requiring stationary source compliance with the NAAQS discussed in the
response to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    The Idaho submittal also refers to the annual incorporation by
reference (IBR) rulemaking which updates the Idaho SIP to include
Federal changes to the NAAQS and PSD program. The submittal states that
the annual IBR updates, along with IDAPA sections 200-228 (permitting
requirements for new and modified sources) and 575-587 (air quality
standards and area classification), provide Idaho DEQ with authority to
implement the PSD and NSR program.
    EPA analysis: With regards to the requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find
that the Idaho code 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 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regards 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 2008 Pb NAAQS. As
explained above, we are not in this action evaluating nonattainment
related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by
part D, Title I of the CAA. In addition, Idaho has no designated
nonattainment areas for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on March
3, 2014 (79 FR 11711), including updates of the Idaho PSD program for
purposes of fine particulate matter implementation in attainment and
unclassifiable areas. Previously on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41916), we
approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.
The Idaho PSD program implements the 2008 Pb NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference 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 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    The EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in
the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the
EPA's rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (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.
    In addition, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir.
2013), issued a judgment that, inter alia, vacated the provisions
adding the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration to the
Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC); Final Rule''
(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, were a state PSD program that contains such a
provision to use that provision to issue new permits without requiring
ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the
vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the Court's opinion and the
requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
    This decision also, on the EPA's request, vacated and remanded to
the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this
vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA
regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5, because the wording
of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR
52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the
preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these
provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not
vacated and remains in effect. The Court's decision does not affect the
PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
    Because of the vacatur of the EPA regulations as they relate to the
PM2.5 SILs and SMC, in our previous action on March 3, 2014,
we disapproved Idaho's incorporation by reference of the vacated
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. 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 in the future regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will
address the Court's remand. In the meantime, the EPA is advising states
to begin preparations to remove the vacated provisions from state PSD
regulations.
    With regard to the minor NSR requirement of this element, we have
determined that the Idaho minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA regulates emissions of Pb. 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 2008 Pb 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 submittal: As suggested by the EPA's October 14, 2011
guidance, Idaho submitted an assessment as to whether or not emissions
from Pb sources located in close proximity to the State's borders have
emissions that impact neighboring states such that they contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in those
states. The Idaho submittal includes an inventory of Idaho Pb sources
from the 2008 National Emissions Inventory, in addition to a map of the
largest Pb sources. The submittal states that all Idaho Pb sources emit
well below 0.5 tons per year, and that Pb sources are very dispersed
and far away from the nearest designated Pb nonattainment areas. The
submittal concludes that Idaho's very small Pb emission sources,
combined with the distance and terrain between these sources and the
closest Pb nonattainment areas, indicate that Idaho is not causing or
contributing to any Pb nonattainment or maintenance issues or
interfering with any control measures in applicable implementation
plans in other states.
    The Idaho submittal further states that East Helena, Montana, is
the only designated Pb nonattainment area in states surrounding Idaho.
Although in 1992 East Helena was designated nonattainment for the 1978
Pb NAAQS, the primary source of Pb emissions in East Helena was the
local smelter, which shut down in 2001. In 2011, the entire state of
Montana was designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,
the level of which is an order of magnitude lower than the level of the
1978 NAAQS. The next closest designated Pb nonattainment area is
located in Los Angeles, California. The State submittal references a
South Coast Air Quality Management District Pb Monitoring Network Plan
which assessed major sources of Pb emissions in Los Angeles, and found
that modeled Pb concentrations dropped to low levels within 250-500
meters of the sources.
    With regard to provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, the submittal
references Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program. Finally, with regard to
visibility, the Idaho submittal references the Idaho regional haze SIP
submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010, and the EPA's final Pb NAAQS
Rule promulgated on November 12, 2008 that noted Pb particulate does
not transport over long distances (73 FR 66964).
    EPA analysis: The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011
guidance, that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from
experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as fine particulate
matter or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source
in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or

interfere with maintenance by, any other state, the EPA anticipates
that this would be a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in
close proximity to state boundaries. The EPA's experience with initial
Pb designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per
year or that are located more than two miles from a state border
generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment
in another state. The Idaho submittal indicates that the largest
sources of Pb emissions in Idaho emit well below 0.5 tons per year, and
are located greater than two miles from the state border. As a result,
the EPA believes that the Idaho submittal provides a reasonable basis
to conclude that Idaho sources of Pb emissions do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    The EPA believes that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-
element is satisfied where new major sources and major modifications in
Idaho are subject to a SIP-approved PSD program that satisfactorily
implements the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We most recently approved revisions to
the Idaho PSD program on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711), updating the
program for purposes of fine particulate matter NAAQS implementation in
attainment and unclassifiable areas. On July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41916), we
approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.
The Idaho PSD program implements the 2008 Pb NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July
1, 2012. We believe that our proposed approval of element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by recent court vacaturs of Federal
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)(D)(i)(II) with
regards to PSD for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011 guidance, that
with regard to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-
element, significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources
are expected to be limited to short distances from the source and most,
if not all Pb stationary sources, are located at distances from Class I
areas such that visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can
be a component of coarse and fine particles, Pb generally comprises a
small fraction of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, when
evaluating the extent that Pb could impact visibility, Pb-related
visibility impacts were found to be insignificant (e.g., less that
0.10%).\18\ Where a state's regional haze SIP has been approved as
meeting all current obligations, a state may rely upon those provisions
in support of its demonstration that is satisfies the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS. ``Ambient Pb's
Contribution to Class 1 Area Visibility Impairment,'' November 7,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Idaho submittal points to the Idaho regional haze SIP,
submitted on October 25, 2010, which addresses visibility impacts
across states within the region. On June 9, 2011, we approved a SIP
revision which provides Idaho DEQ authority to address regional haze
and to implement best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements
(76 FR 33651). Subsequently on June 22, 2011, we approved portions of
the Idaho regional haze SIP, including the requirements for BART (76 FR
36329). We approved the remainder of the Idaho regional haze SIP on
November 8, 2012 (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 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
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.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal references the Idaho SIP-
approved PSD program. The submittal also references IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>
(procedures for issuing permits) which provides notice and comment
procedures for various permit actions with regard to the public and to
appropriate Federal, state, international, and local agencies.
    EPA analysis: We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho PSD
program on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711), updating the program for
purposes of fine particulate matter NAAQS implementation in attainment
and unclassifiable areas. 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 2008 Pb 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. The
State also has no pending obligations under 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 2008
Pb 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) requires that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128 and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to specific Idaho
statutory authority including: Idaho Code 39-105, which lays out the
powers and duties of Idaho DEQ's director; Idaho Code 39-106, which
gives the Idaho DEQ Director authority to hire personnel to carry out
duties of the department; Idaho Code 39-107, which establishes the
State's Board of Environmental Quality; Idaho Code 39-107B which
establishes the Department of Environmental Quality Fund to receive
appropriated funds, transfers from the general fund, Federal grants,
fees for services, permitting fees and other program income; and Idaho
Code 39-129, which provides authority for 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 2008 Pb NAAQS as required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii),
we previously approved a revision to the Idaho SIP for purposes of
meeting CAA section 128 on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63394). We are
proposing to find that Idaho has provided 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 the
SIP with regards to the 2008 Pb 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 2008
Pb 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 submittal: The Idaho submittal states that Idaho statutes and
regulations provide DEQ with authority to monitor stationary source
emissions for compliance purposes and make them available to the
public. The submittal references the following regulatory provisions:
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, which outlines the authority of Idaho DEQ 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;
and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, which outlines test methods and procedures for
source testing and reporting to the Idaho DEQ.
    EPA analysis: The provisions cited by the Idaho submittal 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 by the submittal 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, Idaho 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. The EPA published the
Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified
the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
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
2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal cites Idaho air quality laws
and regulations which provide authority and rules for identifying air
pollution emergency episode contingency plans and abatement strategies.
Relevant sections include Idaho Code Section 39-112, which provides
emergency order authority; and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-561, the air
pollution emergency rules section in the Idaho SIP.
    EPA analysis: As noted in the October 14, 2011 guidance, based on
the EPA's experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designating Pb
nonattainment areas, the EPA expects that an emergency episode
associated with Pb emissions would be unlikely and, if it were to
occur, would be the result of a malfunction or other emergency
situation at a relatively large source of Pb. Accordingly, the EPA
believes that the central components of a contingency plan would be to
reduce emissions from the source at issue and public communication as
needed. We note that 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150-51.152) and 40
CFR part 51, Appendix L do not apply to Pb.0
    Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator
to restrain any source from causing or contribution 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>0-561
were previously approved by the EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).
In addition, the EPA approved IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>2 (specific emergency
episode abatement plans for point sources) on January 16, 2003 (68 FR
2217). This provision requires that specific point sources adopt and
implement their own emergency episode abatement plans in accordance
with the criteria set forth in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>1 through 556.
Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the

Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional
requirements under the CAA.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to Idaho Code Section
39-105(2) and (3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ with 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 submittal also
refers to provisions at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5-.587, which include area
classifications, designations, PSD classifications, and references to
the State's incorporation by reference of the Federal NAAQS and Federal
PSD increments.
    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, the State regularly
submits SIP revisions to the EPA to revise the SIP for recent Federal
regulatory changes. We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho
SIP on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711), April 3, 2013 (78 FR 20001), and
March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16790). Accordingly, we are proposing to approve
the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H)
for the 2008 Pb 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 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 CAA section 121. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of Part C,
title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration
and visibility protection.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal refers to laws and regulations
relating to authority to carry out the PSD part C requirements and the
consultation process and notification to the public, the EPA and
Federal Land Managers. Specific provisions referenced include IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>, 364, and 404 which provide for public processes for SIPs
and permitting under IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>-223 (permit to construct
rules); Idaho Code 39-129 which provides Idaho DEQ authority to enter
into agreements with local governments; Idaho Code 39-105.03(c) which
promotes outreach with local governments; IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>3-574
(transportation conformity); IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0-860 (rulemaking); and
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>7 (regional haze). In addition, the Idaho submittal
states that Idaho DEQ submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW program
and provides daily air quality index scores for locations throughout
the state on the Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm.
    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) and
January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217) respectively. We most recently approved
the Idaho rules that define transportation conformity consultation on
April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). While transportation conformity
requirements do not apply for Pb because of the nature of the standard,
the consultation procedures that Idaho has in place to implement
transportation conformity requirements provides evidence of the State's
ability to consult with other governmental agencies on air quality
issues.
    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 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    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. This air quality index provides daily
information to the public on air quality. While Pb is not specifically
part of the air quality index, we note that Idaho actively participates
and submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality
Alert programs which provide information to the public on the air
quality in their locale. In addition, Idaho provides air quality
reports and forecasts to the public on the Idaho DEQ Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/daily-reports-and-forecasts.aspx, as well as measures that can be taken to prevent
exceedances.
    Idaho provides the State's annual network monitoring plan, annual
air quality monitoring data summaries, and a map of the state air
monitoring network to the public on their Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. The
monitoring plans and data summaries include information on Pb
monitoring. In addition, the Idaho SIP provides authority at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>7 through 560 for notifying the public when air quality is
degrading, as determined by the Director of Idaho DEQ, and that the
Director will utilize appropriate news media to insure that information
is announced to the public about the definition of the extent of the
problem, the action taken by the Director, the air pollution forecast
for the next few days, notice of when the next statement from DEQ will
be issued, a listing of all general procedures which the public,
commercial, institution and industrial sectors are required to follow,
and specific warnings and advice to those persons who because of acute
or chronic health problems may be most

susceptible. 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 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we
have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved
revisions to Idaho's PSD program on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711),
updating the program for purposes of fine particulate matter NAAQS
implementation in attainment and unclassifiable areas. On July 17, 2012
(77 FR 41916), we approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide
authority to implement the PSD permitting program with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions. The State's PSD program implements the 2008
Pb NAAQS and incorporates the Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR
52.21 by reference 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 Federal 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 110(a)(2)(J)
with regards to PSD for the 2008 Pb 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
2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal states that air quality
modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as
appropriate for the State to demonstrate attainment with required air
quality standards. Modeling is also addressed in the permitting process
(see discussion at CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) above). Estimates of
ambient concentrations are based on air quality models, data bases and
other requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines
on Air Quality Models) and incorporated by reference at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.
    EPA analysis: The EPA most recently approved IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>,
which 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, on March 3,
2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho has incorporated by reference the 2008 Pb
NAAQS into State regulations. While Idaho has no nonattainment areas
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the State has submitted modeling data to EPA
related to other pollutants. For example, Idaho submitted to the EPA
the PM10 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise
Idaho Area which contained air quality modeling data. We approved the
maintenance plan as a SIP revision 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 2008 Pb 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.
    State submittal: The State submittal references the regulatory
requirements for annual registration of title V sources through the
Idaho Tier I permitting program and the annual assessment and payment
of fees to support the Tier I permitting program.
    EPA analysis: The EPA approved the Idaho title V program on October
4, 2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective date of November 5, 2001. While
the State's operating permit program is not formally approved into the
State 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. The Idaho title V program included a demonstration that fees were
adequate, and the State will collect a fee from title V sources above
the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). In
addition, Idaho regulations require fees for purposes of major and
minor NSR permitting, as specified in 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 2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    State submittal: The Idaho submittal states that Idaho DEQ follows
the consultation and participation process outlined in 40 CFR 51.102
and incorporates 40 CFR part 51 by reference at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>. The
submittal also references the following regulations: IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>, which provides for public comment and notice related to
proposed actions on permit applications to construct; IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>4, which provides for public comment and notice on actions
related to Tier II operating permits; and IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>3-574, which
provides for transportation conformity consultation process and
procedures.
    EPA analysis: We most recently approved IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, 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) and January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217) respectively. Finally,
we approved the State rules that define transportation conformity
consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). While transportation
conformity requirements do not apply for Pb because of the nature of
the standard, the consultation procedures that Idaho has in place to

implement transportation conformity requirements provides evidence of
the State's ability to consult with other governmental agencies on air
quality issues.
    Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the February 14, 2012, submittal
from the State of Idaho to demonstrate that the SIP meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the Pb NAAQS
promulgated on October 15, 2008. Specifically, we are proposing to find
that the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

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 Act 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 this 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
the State, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-06666 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P