[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65722-65727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21329]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0824; FRL-10014-79-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; ID; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requires each State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting 
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other 
states. On September 26, 2018, the State of Idaho (Idaho or the State) 
made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
address these requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is approving the submission as 
meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any 
other state.

DATES: This action is effective on November 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR- 2018-0824. 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 whose disclosure 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 form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available through 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: Claudia Vaupel, (206) 553-6121, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

    On January 23, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho's September 
26, 2018 submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (84 FR

[[Page 65723]]

7854). Please refer to the January 23, 2020 notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for an explanation of the CAA requirements, a 
detailed analysis of the submissions, and the EPA's proposed rationale 
for approval. The public comment period for this NPRM ended on February 
24, 2020.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received two sets of comments during the public comment 
period. Both commenters disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of 
Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (DC Cir. 2019) (Wisconsin v. EPA) as 
limited to the attainment dates for Moderate or higher classifications 
under CAA section 181, as well as the EPA's use of 2023 as the analytic 
year to determine whether sources in Idaho will significantly 
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\1\ One commenter argued that the EPA must 
reevaluate Idaho's significant contribution or interference with 
maintenance in alignment with the Marginal area attainment date. The 
other commenter supported the EPA's proposed approval of Idaho's SIP 
submission but argued that the EPA's approach to the treatment of 
Marginal nonattainment areas is inconsistent with Wisconsin v. EPA and 
is arbitrary and capricious. The commentator also disputed as arbitrary 
and capricious guidance published by the EPA in August 2018 indicating 
that, based on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the 
amount of upwind collective contribution captured using a 1 parts per 
billion (ppb) contribution threshold is generally comparable, overall, 
to the amount captured using a threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.\2\ The following section summarizes the comments and 
provides the EPA's responses to them. The full set of comments is 
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA used the 2023 as the analytic year because that year 
aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas 
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024. 
See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    \2\ Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation 
Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket for this action 
or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: Commenters asserted that the EPA's proposed action 
improperly focuses on the Moderate attainment date (analytic year 
2023), which commenters argued ignores the 2021 attainment year faced 
by Marginal 2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas.\3\ These commenters 
asserted that the EPA's decision to focus on the Moderate attainment 
date, rather than the Marginal attainment date, contravenes the 
statutory text, the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 
Court's decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, and is arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as 
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021. See CAA section 
181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter specifically avers that the distinction the EPA has 
drawn between Marginal and Moderate areas is ``unlawful'' and that the 
EPA relies on flawed assumptions in its interpretation of Wisconsin v. 
EPA. Specifically, the commenter asserted that although the EPA 
acknowledged the Wisconsin v. EPA decision in its proposal, the EPA 
inappropriately claims that the ruling does not apply to Marginal 
nonattainment areas because such areas do not have formal SIP planning 
obligations and are presumed to rely on in-place emission control 
measures to reach attainment. The commenter stated that the statute 
prohibits upwind states from significantly contributing to 
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, in any other state, 
``regardless of the severity of the downwind state's nonattainment 
classification.'' Moreover, the commenter stated that ``it would be 
illogical for the statute to contemplate action to address significant 
contribution to maintenance while disregarding contribution to marginal 
areas, which have worse air quality.''
    In support of the commenter's assertion that the EPA must consider 
Marginal nonattainment areas in 2021, the commenter argued that the 
EPA's methodology for classifying nonattainment areas is inaccurate, 
and therefore, the EPA cannot assume that Marginal nonattainment areas 
will attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS within 3 years. The commenter argues 
that because the EPA's ``percent-above-the-standard'' classification 
approach was developed for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard, it ``will 
skew toward a lower classification threshold (i.e., Marginal) at a much 
greater rate'' and the ppb reductions needed to attain the NAAQS within 
3 years of designation ``is extremely unlikely to occur when relying 
solely on existing control programs.'' The commenter further asserts 
that there are many Marginal nonattainment areas not likely to attain 
the 2015 standard by the statutory deadline. These areas will then be 
reclassified as Moderate nonattainment areas that will continue to 
struggle to meet their obligations because, according to the 
commentator, the EPA does not enforce the Good Neighbor provision.
    Another commenter also disagreed with the EPA's interpretation that 
the different statutory requirements applying to Marginal and Moderate 
ozone nonattainment areas provide a basis for aligning upwind Good 
Neighbor obligations with the Moderate area attainment date. They 
supported this argument by referring to the EPA's 2013 guidance for 
infrastructure SIP submissions. The commenter asserted that ``EPA 
incorrectly relies on data and analysis that was flatly rejected by the 
Wisconsin v EPA court case.'' They further asserted that ``EPA must 
reevaluate its decision for Idaho and must evaluate interstate 
transport to marginal areas by their marginal attainment date of 
2021.''
    Response 1: The commenters are referring to a D.C. Circuit court 
decision addressing, in part, the issue of the relevant analytic year 
for the purposes of evaluating interstate ozone transport under the 
good neighbor provision, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 
13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, 
remanding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update \4\ to the 
extent that Good Neighbor federal implementation plans in the CSAPR 
Update did not fully eliminate upwind states' ``significant 
contribution'' by the next applicable attainment date \5\ by which 
downwind states must attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d 303, 
313. As explained in the proposal of this action, the EPA had 
interpreted that holding as limited to the attainment dates for 
Moderate or higher classifications under CAA section 181 on the basis 
that Marginal nonattainment areas have reduced nonattainment SIP 
planning requirements and other considerations. See, e.g., 85 FR 3874, 
3877-3878 (January 23, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \5\ See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit in Maryland v. EPA, applying the 
Wisconsin decision, held that the EPA must assess the impacts of 
interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind attainment 
date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in evaluating the basis 
for the EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section 126(b). 958 F.3d 
at 1203-04. The EPA signed the NPRM proposing approval of

[[Page 65724]]

Idaho's good neighbor SIP prior to the D.C. Circuit's decision in 
Maryland. This decision also came after the close of the comment period 
on our proposed approval of Idaho's SIP submittal. However, this 
decision bears directly on our consideration of these comments. In 
accordance with the Maryland decision, the Agency now, in taking this 
final action approving the Idaho SIP, will consider 2021 \6\ to be the 
relevant analytic year for the purposes of determining whether sources 
in Idaho will significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other 
states.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as 
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021. See CAA section 
181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    \7\ The EPA notes that the court in Maryland did not have 
occasion to evaluate circumstances in which the EPA may determine 
that an upwind linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at 
steps 1 and 2 of the four-step Good Neighbor framework by a 
particular attainment date, but for reasons of impossibility or 
profound uncertainty the Agency is unable to mandate upwind 
pollution controls by that date. See 938 F.3d at 319-320. The D.C. 
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient showing, these 
circumstances may warrant a certain degree of flexibility in 
effectuating the implementation of the Good Neighbor provision. Id. 
Such circumstances are not at issue in the present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The points raised by the commenters to dispute the EPA's proposal 
to use 2023 as the analytic year are now moot because after the 
decision in Maryland v. EPA, the EPA is using 2021 as the analytic year 
in this final action. The EPA need not address commentator's claim that 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS designations were done incorrectly. This issue is 
beyond the scope of this action. As acknowledged by the commentator, 
they have previously raised this issue in comments on a different 
action, and the EPA responded to those comments in that context.\8\ 
Regardless, the rulemaking to evaluate Idaho's September 26, 2018, good 
neighbor SIP submission is not the appropriate forum to contest the 
2015 ozone NAAQS area designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications 
Approach,'' 83 FR 10376, 10379 (March 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho's September 26, 2018 SIP submission includes an interstate 
ozone transport analysis for the Good Neighbor provision that relied on 
the modeling information provided in the EPA's March 2018 
memorandum,\9\ which used 2023 as the analytic year (corresponding with 
the 2024 Moderate area attainment date).\10\ The State concluded that 
it has no emissions reduction obligations for purposes of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) on the basis that its emissions are not linked to 
any nonattainment or maintenance receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation 
Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 
2018, available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/memos-and-notices-regarding-interstate-air-pollution-transport.
    \10\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year because that 
year aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas 
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024. 
See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relying in part on the same data that informed its analysis of the 
year 2023, the EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that the impacts 
from emissions from sources in Idaho will not exceed a contribution 
threshold of 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance sites in 2021. This finding is a 
sufficient basis for the EPA to conclude that Idaho is not linked to 
any downwind receptors at step 2 of the four-step interstate transport 
framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Thus, it is not necessary for the EPA to proceed to 
evaluate whether the State's infrastructure SIP submission may also 
be approvable using an alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb. 
Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan 
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket for this action 
or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the contribution modeling included in the March 2018 
memorandum, the EPA concludes that Idaho's largest impact on any 
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2023 are 0.18 ppb 
and 0.19 ppb, respectively.\12\ These values are both far less than 1 
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb). In response to the Maryland 
decision, using the best available information (including the same data 
that informed the EPA's 2023 modeling) to analyze Idaho's air quality 
impacts in the year 2021, the EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that 
Idaho's impact on any potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptor in 2021 would be similar to those projected in 2023, and 
likewise well below 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as detailed in 
the methodology described in the following paragraphs. Therefore, the 
EPA finds that Idaho's September 26, 2018 infrastructure SIP submission 
satisfies the State's Good Neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA's analysis indicates that Idaho will have a 0.18 
ppb impact at the nonattainment receptor in Douglas County, Colorado 
(Site ID 80350004), which has a 2023 projected average design value 
of 71.1 ppb, and a 2023 projected maximum design value of 73.2 ppb. 
The EPA's analysis further indicates that Idaho will have a 0.19 ppb 
impact at the maintenance receptor in Arapahoe County, Colorado 
(Site ID 80050002), which has a projected 2023 average design value 
below the 2015 ozone NAAQS (69.3 ppb), and a 2023 projected maximum 
design value above the NAAQS (71.3 ppb). See the March 2018 
memorandum, attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's analysis of receptors and contributions in 2021 relies in 
part on the 2023 modeling used in the NPRM of this action, the results 
of which were included with the March 2018 memorandum. These data are 
the most recent published applicable modeling data available at the 
time of this final action. To estimate Idaho's maximum contribution to 
a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021, the EPA developed an 
interpolation analysis that evaluates available modeling, monitoring, 
and emissions data to assess air quality in this year. In general, this 
analysis utilizes 2019 measured design values \13\ and 2023 modeled 
design values to estimate design values at each monitoring site in 
2021. Specifically, 2021 average and maximum design values were 
calculated by straight-line linear interpolation between the 2019 
measured data and the 2023 modeled data. The EPA believes that the 
linear interpolation methodology using measured data and 2023 model 
projections provides a technically sound basis for estimation of ozone 
design values in 2021 in part because of the relatively short two-year 
span between 2021 and 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 2019 design values at each monitoring site nationwide 
are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA calculated ozone contributions in 2021 by applying the 
following two-step process. First, the contributions (in ppb) from each 
state to each monitoring site in 2023 were converted to a fractional 
portion of the 2023 average design value by dividing the contribution 
by the 2023 design value. In the second step, the resulting 
contribution fractions were multiplied by the estimated 2021 average 
design value to produce 2021 contributions from each state to each 
monitoring site.14 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note that the method used here for calculating 
contributions in 2021 is similar to the method used by the EPA to 
calculate the 2023 contributions from 2023 air quality modeling.
    \15\ Design values for 2019, 2021, and 2023 along with the 
contributions in 2021 and 2023 are provided in a file in the docket 
for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine 
if Idaho contributes at or above 1 percent of the 2015 ozone

[[Page 65725]]

NAAQS threshold (0.70 ppb) to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance 
receptor. The data indicate that the highest contribution in 2021 from 
Idaho to a downwind receptor is 0.49 ppb to the nonattainment receptor 
site 490353006 in Salt Lake County, Utah. Based on this analysis, the 
EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that Idaho will contribute less 
than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any potential nonattainment 
or maintenance receptors in 2021.
    The EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Idaho to 
support the findings from the air quality analysis. In evaluating 
emissions trends, we focused on state-wide emissions of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 
Idaho.16 17 Emissions from mobile sources, electricity 
generating units (EGUs), industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and 
chemical solvents are some of the major anthropogenic sources of ozone 
precursors. This evaluation looks at both past emissions trends, as 
well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This is because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly 
into the air but is a secondary air pollutant created by chemical 
reactions between ozone precursors, chiefly NOX and non-
methane VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
    \17\ 81 FR 74504, 74513-14. (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1 of this preamble, between 2011 and 2017, annual 
total NOX and VOC emissions have declined, by 19 percent and 
8 percent, respectively. The projected reductions are a result of ``on 
the books'' and ``on the way'' regulations that will continue to 
decrease NOX and VOC emissions in Idaho, as indicated by our 
2023 projected emissions. The large decrease in NOX 
emissions between 2017 emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Idaho 
are primarily driven by reductions in emissions from onroad and nonroad 
vehicles. The EPA projects that the downward trend in both VOC and 
NOX emissions from 2011 through 2017 will continue at a 
steady rate to 2023 and further into the future due to the replacement 
of higher emissions vehicles with lower emitting vehicles as a result 
of several mobile source control programs.\18\ This downward trend in 
emissions in Idaho adds support to the air quality analysis presented 
previously, which indicates that the impact of emissions from sources 
in Idaho to ozone in downwind states will continue to decline and 
remain below 1 percent of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty Greenhouse 
Gas Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule 
(August 2011), the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the 
Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the Corporate-Average 
Fuel Economy standards for 2008-2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad 
Heavy-Duty Rule (February 2009), and the Final Mobile Source Air 
Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (February 2007).

                                  Table 1--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Emission Sources in Idaho
                                                                         [Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Projected
                                                      2011         2012         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.............................................           90           87           84           82           78           76           73           49
VOC.............................................           90           89           88           87           86           84           82           63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA proposed in the NPRM to find that emissions 
from Idaho will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall 
Reservation in southeast Idaho in 2023.\19\ The EPA has reassessed air 
quality impacts of emissions sources in Idaho on the Fort Hall 
Reservation for 2021 and continues to believe Idaho will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation. As discussed in 
the proposal of this action, the EPA's modeling in the March 2018 
memorandum did not identify receptors in Idaho in 2023. Additionally, 
the ozone monitoring sites in Idaho are projected to remain below the 
current standard in 2023. The Idaho Falls area monitoring site (Site ID 
160230101), which is nearest to the Fort Hall Reservation, had a 2014-
2016 design value of 60 ppb and the EPA's modeling projects a 2023 
maximum design value of 60.2 ppb and a 2023 average design value of 
59.6 ppb, both below the 70 ppb standard.\20\ The Boise area monitoring 
site with the highest 2023 projected ozone concentrations (Site ID 
160010017) had a 2014-2016 design value of 67 ppb and the EPA's 
modeling projects a 2023 maximum design value of 59.8 ppb and a 2023 
average design value of 59.4 ppb. Because each of these monitoring 
sites were both attaining in 2016 and are projected to attain in 2023, 
and given the downward annual NOX and VOC emissions trends 
identified in the Table 1 of this preamble, the EPA therefore finds it 
reasonable to conclude that emissions from Idaho will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 
ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On January 19, 2017, the EPA determined that the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation were eligible for 
treatment in the same manner as a state for CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(D) and 126. The EPA's determination is available in the 
docket for this action. See also https://www.epa.gov/tribal/tribes-approved-treatment-state-tas.
    \20\ The EPA previously provided the 2023 projected ozone design 
values at individual monitoring sites nationwide. Supplemental 
Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan 
Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 
27, 2017, available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/memos-and-notices-regarding-interstate-air-pollution-transport. For data for the Idaho 
monitors, see page A-10 of attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the EPA concludes that the air quality and emission analyses 
indicate that emissions from Idaho will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 
any other state, including the Fort Hall Reservation, in 2021. 
Therefore, the EPA concludes that Idaho's infrastructure SIP submission 
satisfies the State's Good Neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.
    Comment 2: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's 1 ppb alternate 
contribution threshold for determining significant contributions. The 
commenter's reasoning was that ``a 1 ppb threshold would be a departure 
from the EPA's precedent of using 1 percent of the ozone NAAQS as the 
screening threshold'' and that this reversal of the EPA's 
``longstanding practice without adequate explanation is arbitrary, 
capricious and unreasonable.'' The commenter asserts that ``reducing 
the amount of total upwind contribution that is required to be 
addressed in an upwind state's state or federal implementation plan 
will necessarily increase the amount of ozone that a downwind state 
will be required to address on its own,'' shifting responsibility for 
reductions from upwind states to downwind states and

[[Page 65726]]

further impeding the ability of downwind states to attain the NAAQS.
    Response 2: It is unnecessary for the EPA to determine whether it 
may be appropriate to approve a state's use of an alternative 1 ppb 
threshold for the purposes of this action. The EPA's proposal, and this 
final action, are based on a finding that Idaho will not contribute 
above one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) at any projected 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021. Therefore, there is no 
need to evaluate any potential higher contribution threshold, as 
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum, in the present final action.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Idaho's September 26, 2018 submission as 
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this 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 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885; April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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).
    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 it 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 December 15, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region10.

    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:

    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 ``Interstate Transport Requirements 
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 65727]]



                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable  geographic       State
      Name of SIP provision        or nonattainment area  submittal date   EPA approval date       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport              State-wide............       9/26/2018  10/16/20, [Insert   This action
 Requirements for the 2015 Ozone                                           Federal Register    addresses CAA
 NAAQS.                                                                    citation].          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                               ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-21329 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P