[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57723-57727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19207]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0766, FRL-10012-38-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Idaho: Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates
a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the
Clean Air Act requires each State to make a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission to establish that its SIP provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the revised NAAQS. This
type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP
submission. The EPA is approving the State of Idaho's September 27,
2018, SIP submission as meeting applicable infrastructure requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: The final rule is effective October 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0766. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Jentgen at (206) 553-0340, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background Information
On April 9, 2019, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho's September 27,
2018, SIP submission as meeting certain infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (84 FR 14067). The
initial public comment period for this proposed action ended on May 9,
2019. Due to an administrative error, the EPA omitted certain documents
relevant to the proposed action from the docket during the initial
comment period, open from April 9, 2019 to May 9, 2019. The EPA
corrected the administrative error and on May 28, 2019, we provided an
additional 30 days for public comment on the proposed action (84 FR
24420). The public comment period ended on June 27, 2019. The EPA
received adverse comments on the proposal.
II. Response to Comments
The EPA received adverse comments during the initial comment period
related to our administrative docket error that left out documents
relevant to the proposed action. The EPA addressed these comments by
including the relevant documents in the docket and providing an
additional 30-day comment period. The EPA received one comment during
the second comment period. We have summarized and responded to the
remaining adverse comments below. The full text of the submitted
comments may be found in the docket for this action.
Comment--Ozone NAAQS Violations
Summary - The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) asserted that
monitoring data indicates Idaho's efforts to prevent a violation of the
2015 ozone NAAQS are ineffective. ICL further asserted that the EPA's
approval of the 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP submission should be
contingent upon the State's ``creation and implementation of new
management strategies to address ozone in Idaho.''
Specifically, ICL pointed to Idaho's infrastructure SIP submission,
at appendix B, Table B-1, indicating the 2015-2017 design value for
ozone measured at the Boise--White Pine air monitoring station was
0.070 parts per million (ppm), equal to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Moreover,
ICL stated that in more recent years the monitor has shown exceedances
and that the 2016-2018 design value is likely to violate the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. ICL concluded that the laws, rules, and regulations referenced
by Idaho in its 2015 ozone infrastructure SIP submission do not appear
adequate. Thus, the commenter advocated that the EPA's approval of this
SIP submission should be contingent upon Idaho's creation and
implementation of new emissions management strategies to address ozone
in Idaho.
Response--The EPA agrees that that the monitor data identified by
the commenter indicates that there may be violations of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS at this monitor, but disagrees that this is an issue that the
State should address in the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission. We have reviewed monitoring data at the Boise--White Pine
Elementary monitor (Site ID: 160010017) and the design value for the
most recent three-year period (2016-2018) is 0.072 ppm, which is over
the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. At this point in time, all areas of
Idaho are designated attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA
designated the entire State of Idaho as attainment/unclassifiable for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, based on 2013-2015 design value data (82 FR
54232, at page 54243). Each of the three monitors in Idaho that rely on
Federal Reference Method (FRM) ozone monitoring data (Boise-White Pine,
Meridian-St Luke's, and Craters of the Moon) had 2013-2015 design
values below the 0.070 ppm ozone NAAQS. If there are now violations of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS at any monitors, then either Idaho or the EPA may
need to consider the need for a redesignation under section 107(d)(3),
or other proactive actions to address the ambient ozone concentrations
in the area.
The existence of possible violations of the NAAQS does not,
however, directly affect Idaho's September 27, 2018, infrastructure SIP
submission. As stated in the proposal, the EPA's longstanding position
is that infrastructure SIP submissions are intended to address basic
SIP requirements to implement, maintain, and enforce a NAAQS in
[[Page 57724]]
general, and are not intended to address nonattainment plan
requirements for individual areas of a state that may be violating the
NAAQS.\1\ Infrastructure SIPs are due within three years of adoption or
revision of a particular NAAQS, according to CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
(2). The separate nonattainment plan SIP submissions to address the
emission limits and other control measures needed to attain a
particular NAAQS in an area designated nonattainment are due on a
separate schedule, pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various
pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5 of part D.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 84 FR 14067, April 9, 2019, at page 14068.
\2\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment--Adequacy of Idaho's ozone monitoring network
Summary--ICL stated that the EPA's approval of Idaho's SIP is
inconsistent with EPA's previous comments regarding Idaho's ambient air
monitoring network and compliance with CAA 110(a)(2)(B).
Specifically, for the Idaho Falls metropolitan statistical area
(MSA), ICL cited the EPA's November 8, 2017, Air Monitoring Network
Plan approval letter that noted monitoring network deficiencies,
including a lack of a state and local air monitoring station (SLAMS)
for ozone in Idaho Falls. Additionally, ICL stated that, pursuant to 40
CFR part 58, appendix D, Table D-2, cities with a population size
greater than 50,000 with 3-year average ozone concentrations exceeding
85 percent of the NAAQS are required to have, at a minimum, one ozone
monitor. ICL asserted that Idaho Falls meets this criterion.
ICL also referenced 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, Table D-2 and
asserted that the Pocatello MSA, with a population of 54,441 and 3-year
average ozone concentrations exceeding 85 percent of the NAAQS, is
required to have, at a minimum, one ozone monitor. ICL also stated that
Pocatello particularly needs a dedicated ozone monitor because the
EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping tool, EJSCREEN, shows
that the city of Pocatello is in the 90th percentile for ozone
concentrations relative to the rest of the State.
ICL also cited the EPA's November 8, 2017, Air Monitoring Network
Plan approval letter that noted a lack of ozone monitoring in the
Logan, UT-ID MSA. ICL also noted that another developing metropolitan
area in Idaho, Twin Falls (population: 47,468), needs an ozone monitor
based on the criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, Table D-2.
Response--The EPA disagrees that there are current deficiencies in
the ozone monitoring network in Idaho that require disapproval of the
State's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First,
in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) to require states to have SIP provisions that
provide for the 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. In our proposed action,
we stated that Idaho has a comprehensive air quality monitoring network
plan, originally approved by the EPA into the Idaho SIP on July 28,
1982 (40 CFR 52.670). We also determined that the plan includes
statutory and regulatory authority to establish and operate an air
quality monitoring network, including ozone monitoring (84 FR 14067,
April 9, 2019, at page 14068). The EPA recently approved Idaho's
comprehensive monitoring network plan, further discussed in this
document, on January 16, 2020. In practice, Idaho operates an ozone
monitoring network, compiles and analyzes collected data, and submits
the data to the EPA's Air Quality System on a quarterly basis.
Second, in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions, the EPA
considers whether the State has met the monitoring requirements for the
NAAQS at issue. With respect to monitor siting, Idaho regularly
assesses the adequacy of the State monitoring network for each NAAQS
pollutant and submits that assessment to the EPA for review (``Annual
Network Plan''). The Annual Network Plan provides details of the
State's air quality monitor system and evaluates whether the State's
ambient air quality monitoring network is achieving its monitoring
objectives, along with a discussion of any needed modifications. The
commenter pointed to specific ozone monitoring network issues
identified by the EPA in its November 2017 Annual Network Plan response
letter. We will explain further in this document how the State has
recently addressed each of the issues identified by the EPA concerning
the adequacy of the State's ozone monitoring network and cited in ICL's
comments on the proposed rulemaking. As a result, the EPA concludes
here that the State has satisfactorily addressed the issues that the
agency identified in the November 8, 2017, letter and do not present a
basis for a finding that Idaho's SIP does not meet the requirements of
CAA 110(a)(2)(B). These recent updates to Idaho's monitoring network
system are described as follows:
The commenter expressed concerns about the potential need for
additional ozone monitors in various locations in Idaho. With respect
to the commenter's concerns about ozone monitoring in Idaho Falls, the
EPA likewise disagrees that this is necessary at this time. In the 2019
Annual Network Plan response letter, included in this docket, the EPA
granted a waiver of the requirement to install a State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) ozone monitor in Idaho Falls through the
end of 2023. The EPA and Idaho will review the available eastern Idaho
ozone monitoring data for calendar years 2020 and 2021 to re-assess the
potential need to establish an ozone monitoring station in this MSA in
2023.
With respect to ozone monitoring in Pocatello, the EPA notes that
the State has already addressed this concern. In Idaho's 2019 Annual
Network Plan, Idaho DEQ acknowledged, based on recent modeling, the
need to install an ozone monitor in Pocatello, ID. In accordance with
appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Idaho has since installed a monitor in
that location.\3\ The EPA notes that while the commenter cited
information derived from the agency's EJSCREEN tool that combines
environmental and demographic indicators for a particular area, the
fact that Pocatello is in the 90th percentile for ozone concentrations
relative to the rest of the State, that statistical comparison is not a
monitor siting criteria under 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.\4\ The
relevant factors for ozone monitor siting are population size and
estimated ambient level relative to the ozone NAAQS (greater than or
equal to 85 percent of the ozone NAAQS), see 40 CFR part 58, appendix
D, Table D-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DEQ expands air quality monitoring in Pocatello, Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, news release, April 28, 2020,
https://www.deq.idaho.gov/news-archives/air-ozone-monitoring-pocatello-0420/.
\4\ EJSCREEN is an environmental justice mapping and screening
tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN users choose a geographic area; the tool then provides
demographic and environmental information for that area. See https:/
/www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-
ejscreen#:~:text=EJSCREEN%20is%20an%20environmental%20justice,environ
mental%20information%20for%20that%20area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the commenter's concerns about monitoring in the
Logan, UT-ID area, the EPA disagrees with the commenter concerning the
need for an
[[Page 57725]]
ozone monitor at this point in time. Idaho recently requested, and the
EPA approved in a letter dated May 12, 2020, an agreement, consistent
with 40 CFR. part 58, appendix D, Section 2(e), to waive the
requirement to locate an ozone monitor in the Idaho portion of the
Logan, UT-ID MSA. This May 12, 2020, letter is included in the docket
for this action. Idaho demonstrated that monitoring by the State of
Utah currently meets the monitoring requirements for the Logan, UT-ID
MSA. This waiver is effective for five years (CY-2020 through CY-2024)
and is supported by modeling that demonstrates the location of maximum
ozone concentrations is expected to be in Cache County, Utah and not in
Franklin County, Idaho. Accordingly, the EPA agreed that additional
monitoring performed by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
in Franklin County would not be necessary at this time to ensure the
adequacy of the Logan UT-ID MSA ozone monitoring network.
Finally, with respect to the commenter's concerns about monitoring
in Twin Falls, Idaho, the EPA disagrees with the need for such a
monitor for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at this time. The ozone
design criteria for state and local air monitors, 40 CFR part 58,
appendix D, Section 4.1, directs states to operate ozone monitoring
sites for various locations depending upon area size (in terms of
population and geographic characteristics) and typical peak
concentrations. The MSAs that meet these criteria are discussed above.
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, Idaho is not required to locate
an additional monitor in the Twin Falls area because its population
does not exceed 50,000.
Based on the resolution of the monitoring issues identified by the
commenter as described above, the EPA concludes that Idaho has met the
infrastructure SIP monitoring requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and is finalizing the proposed approval with
respect to this requirement.
Comment--Idaho's SO2 monitoring network and data
Summary--An anonymous commenter stated that EPA guidance requires
that Idaho must have a fully approved monitoring network for all
pollutants for the EPA to approve the monitoring network requirements
in section 110(a)(2)(B). In particular, the commenter asserted that
sulfur dioxide (SO2) monitors in the State are not sited
correctly, and until monitor siting issues are addressed, the EPA
should not approve the Idaho infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). The commenter
cited EPA statements related to SO2 NAAQS designations in
which the agency indicated that it did not have sufficient information
to determine whether existing monitors were located in an area of
maximum concentration around specific SO2 sources. The
commenter stated it was for this reason the EPA could not designate the
entire State as attainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The commenter
further asserted that by designating the State as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for the SO2 NAAQS, the EPA had determined that
Idaho does not have an adequate SO2 monitoring network.
Response--The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of
the EPA's 2013 Guidance as it pertains to monitoring network
requirements. The EPA's Guidance does not interpret CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) to require consideration of the adequacy of an
SO2 NAAQS monitoring network in the context of evaluating
the State's infrastructure SIP submission for the ozone NAAQS.
When the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, it triggers the
requirement for each state to submit an infrastructure SIP submission
that addresses basic SIP requirements for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of such standard. The infrastructure SIP
submission must meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2),
as applicable. The ozone NAAQS was revised on October 1, 2015, thus
triggering the requirement for Idaho to submit an infrastructure SIP
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including addressing the
monitoring requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B).
Although some infrastructure SIP elements are not NAAQS specific,
e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD permitting programs,
many other elements are NAAQS specific. The EPA interprets CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) to be such a NAAQS specific requirement, and thus only
requires states to address the relevant NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP
submission, which in this action is the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance: 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. Page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA notes that it most recently revised the
SO2 NAAQS in 2010. Idaho submitted an infrastructure SIP
submission for purposes of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the EPA
approved the submission as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS on August 11, 2014 (79 FR 46707). Because the
comments pertain to the SO2 NAAQS, they are outside of the
scope of this action, given that the EPA is not revisiting its prior
approval of the Idaho SO2 infrastructure SIP for CAA section
110(a)(2)(B).
The commenter also expressed concern that Idaho has incorrectly
sited SO2 monitors and therefore they must be corrected in
order to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources, provide periodic reports on the nature and amounts
of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and
correlate those reports with any emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to the CAA. The CAA further requires that those
reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
As previously explained, however, the infrastructure SIP submission at
issue in this action addresses the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As with CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B), however, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(2)(F)
in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions to pertain only to the
NAAQS at issue in such SIP submission, i.e., in this case with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Moreover, the EPA previously approved the
Idaho SIP for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on August 11, 2014, (79 FR 46707). The comment is,
thus, outside the scope of the present action.
The EPA has considered the concerns raised by this commenter with
respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) and section 110(a)(2)(F), but has
concluded that approval of Idaho's September 27, 2018, SIP submission
is appropriate for the reasons explained above.
Comment--Adequate resources
Summary--An anonymous commenter stated that, in its proposed
approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), the EPA failed to evaluate
adequate funding and resources necessary to carry out the functions
delegated to the State and required by the State to carry out the
functions of the SIP. The commenter asserts that the EPA must audit
Idaho's finances and accounting to make an affirmative determination as
to whether the State has the necessary funding and resources. The
anonymous commenter also stated that the EPA should affirmatively
determine whether Idaho actually has the necessary
[[Page 57726]]
personnel to carry out and operate programs required under the SIP,
rather than solely relying on the Idaho director's ability to hire
personnel.
Response--CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to
provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP.
CAA section 110 does not mandate a specific methodology for the EPA to
evaluate the adequacy of resources to implement the SIP. See 76 FR
42549 (July 19, 2011), at 42554. The commenter did not identify a
specific factual basis for concerns that Idaho lacks adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out the SIP.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that an audit of the
State's finances and accounting practices is required in order to
satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i). The EPA's role in
approving a SIP submission is to determine whether the submission
addresses the necessary requirements of the Act, not to evaluate the
way in which a SIP is being implemented. See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr.
v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2018).
In our proposed action, we identified Idaho Code 39-106 as
providing the Idaho DEQ Director authority to hire personnel to carry
out duties of the department. According to Idaho DEQ's Fiscal Year 2019
Performance Report, Idaho DEQ received $56 million overall to perform
its core functions ($23 million from federal funds, $20 million from
State funds, and $13 million from other permit and fee programs).
Specifically, Idaho receives CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds from
the EPA and provides State matching funds necessary to carry out SIP
requirements.
The EPA finds that Idaho has provided the necessary assurances of
adequate sources of personnel, funding, and authority under State law
to implement its SIP for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore,
it is appropriate to finalize the proposed finding that Idaho's SIP
satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving Idaho's September 27, 2018, infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting specific infrastructure requirements of the CAA.
We find that the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), as
applicable.
IV. 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 State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 26, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 57727]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--Idaho
0
2. In Sec. 52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements--2015 ozone NAAQS.'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA--Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) State-wide........ 9/27/2018 9/16/2020, [Insert Approves SIP for
Infrastructure Requirements-- Federal Register purposes of CAA
2015 ozone NAAQS. citation]. sections 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-19207 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P