83 FR 28382 - Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone Requirement
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 118 (June 19, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 118 (June 19, 2018)
| Page Range | 28382-28386 | |
| FR Document | 2018-13046 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 28382-28386] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-13046] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566; FRL-9979-48-Region 10] Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone Requirement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to agricultural crop residue burning. The Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted the revisions to EPA on September 22, 2017. IDEQ supplemented the original submission with photochemical modeling analyses on October 23, 2017. The revisions change the ambient ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may approve a permittee's request to burn. This final action is being taken for the reasons set out in EPA's proposed action in this matter. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA). DATES: This final rule is effective July 19, 2018. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566. 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: Randall Ruddick at (206) 553-1999, or ruddick.randall@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background On September 22, 2017, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP provisions regulating open burning of crop residue in the state to EPA for approval. On January 22, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve all of the revisions requested in the September 22, 2017 submittal. We are taking final action for the reasons explained in the January 22, 2018 notification of proposed approval (83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed approval for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for this proposal ended on February 21, 2018. EPA received public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Summaries of the comments as well as EPA's responses to adverse comments are in Section II of this rulemaking action. After consideration of the comments, we do not believe any changes in the rationale or conclusions in the proposed approval are appropriate. II. Response to Comments EPA received comments on a variety of issues related to the proposed approval of Idaho's crop residue burning SIP revisions. Out of a total of ten comments received, three were supportive of EPA's approval of the SIP revisions, four were adverse to the EPA's proposed approval, and three were determined to be not germane to this action. A full copy of all comments received is available in the docket for final action. Comment EPA received public comments arguing that the NAAQS are not adequately protective of public health in the context of crop residue burning and should not be relied upon as the basis for approval of the proposed crop residue burning SIP revisions. One commenter stated that because the PM2.5 NAAQS takes the form of a 24-hour average that it allows ``spikes'' of emissions that are sufficient to ``kill citizens, especially children with undeveloped lungs, the elderly, and anyone with underlying heart or lung diseases.'' Another commenter urged EPA to disapprove the proposed SIP revisions, citing studies that they assert demonstrate negative human health impacts to exposure to ozone at levels below the NAAQS. [[Page 28383]] Response These comments relate to the adequacy of the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, and are therefore outside of the scope of this action. The CAA contains provisions that specifically address the establishment and review of the NAAQS. To briefly summarize, under sections 108 and 109 of the Act, EPA issues ``air quality criteria'' and establishes NAAQS for certain air pollutants. CAA section 109(d)(1) requires EPA to periodically review, and if appropriate, revise the air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare, and to periodically review, and if appropriate revise, the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary (health-based) standard as one ``the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite to protect the public health.'' In setting primary NAAQS that are ``requisite'' to protect public health, as provided in section 109(b), EPA's task is to establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent than necessary for these purposes. See generally Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 465-472, 475-76 (2001). Pursuant to those provisions, EPA completed its last review of the ozone NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). With respect to the primary standard, in that review EPA determined that the NAAQS should be revised to provide the requisite protection of public health (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly, based on careful consideration of the extensive information in the record, including a thorough review of scientific evidence and information about ozone- related health effects, quantitative assessments that estimated public health risks associated with just meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and various alternative standards that were considered, advice from EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and public comments received in response to the proposal, the Administrator revised the level of the primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts per million, and retained the other elements of the prior standard (indicator, form, and averaging time) (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so doing, she concluded that the revised primary standard is requisite to protect public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015).\1\ EPA provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the proposal for this action (79 FR 75234, December 17, 2014) and there was an opportunity to file petitions for judicial review pursuant to CAA section 307. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ A more detailed summary of the considerations in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in public comments and EPA's responses, can be found in the Federal Register notification for the final action (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015), and in the Response to Comments document, which can be found in the docket for that action (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, EPA completed its last periodic review of the PM NAAQS in 2012, and published notice of its decision to revise the PM NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). With regard to the primary NAAQS for PM2.5 , in that review EPA revised the annual PM2.5 standard, including by lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) so as to provide increased protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures (including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease), and retained the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013).\2\ The Administrator concluded that with the revisions in that review the suite of standards would be requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety against health effects potentially associated with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures (78 FR 3164, January 15, 2013). EPA provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the proposal for this action (77 FR 38890, June 29, 2012) and there was an opportunity to file petitions for judicial review pursuant to CAA section 307. Since then, EPA has initiated the next periodic review of the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM (see 79 FR 71764, December 3, 2014; 81 FR 22977-78, April 19, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ A more detailed summary of the considerations in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in public comments and EPA's responses, can be found in the Federal Register notification for the final action (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), and in the Response to Comments document, which can be found in the docket for that action (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These actions revising the primary NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the related conclusions that the 2012 PM NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, are beyond the scope of this action. This action concerns a SIP submission under CAA section 110, and under section 110(a) such plans are to ``provide[ ] for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of the primary NAAQS. EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the NAAQS when taking action on proposed SIP modifications related to that pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably focuses on a determination of whether a SIP amendment will ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS as the relevant and applicable standard for approvals of SIP revisions under CAA section 110. In the matter at hand, Idaho requested a revision to the ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may authorize (authorization level) agricultural crop residue burning (CRB). The requested revision does not change the authorization levels for any other NAAQS and all other CRB requirements remain unchanged. For the reasons provided in our proposal for this action, we conclude that approval of Idaho's submitted SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. 83 FR 2955, January 22, 2018. Comment Several commenters expressed concern about Idaho's failure to evaluate how an increase in ozone emissions from crop residue burning would interact with other pollutants to impact public health. The commenters argued that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate that its proposed SIP revisions will not increase risks to public health. Several commenters objected to the SIP revision on the basis that the changes are not in the public interest and constitutes a weakening of a health-based standard. Commenters cited both impacts to public health associated with crop residue burning from both ozone and fine particles (PM2.5 ). One commenter asserted that Idaho did not consider the cumulative public health impacts of frequent or multiple exposures to PM from sources including both CRB and wildfires. They argue that Idaho did not adequately consider other pollutants (such as PM or CO) described as ``by-products'' of biomass burning, and more specifically did not consider the combined effects of PM2.5 , CO and ozone, as well as toxics such as ``benzene, PAH's [sic] and others'' that are in the air as a result of either CRB or from wildfires. One commenter argued that in the absence of ``conclusive studies of the effects of breathing all these substances at once, . . . maintaining the 75% of all NAAQS is the only proven way'' to protect public health. The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) argued that Idaho's SIP submission ``failed to provide sufficient justification that remaining CAA [[Page 28384]] requirements would not be violated'' and specifically cited section 101 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)) to support its assertion. Response As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking in this matter, whether or not a SIP revision will interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA is the relevant basis for approval or disapproval. SIPs, under CAA section 110, implement the NAAQS contained in CAA section 109 which are specific to the six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as benzene and PAHs, in general, are not regulated under Title I of the CAA and are not relevant to EPA determinations of whether or not a SIP revision meets the relevant requirements of the Act. Contrary to the arguments raised by these commenters, EPA does not have authority under the CAA to consider whether a proposed SIP revision will result in a general increased risk to public health (whether it be from one pollutant considered in isolation or the synergistic effects of human exposure to multiple pollutants interacting with one another) so long as the state can demonstrate that the SIP will result in the attainment or maintenance of the relevant NAAQS. ICL cites CAA section 101(b)(1) in support of its assertion that Idaho's SIP submission does not meet the requirements of the CAA, and that Idaho had not provided a sufficient justification that CAA requirements not related to the ozone NAAQS would not be violated. CAA section 101(b)(1) provides a declaration of one of the purposes of Title I of the Act, namely ``to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that CAA section 101(b)(1) authorizes EPA to disapprove a SIP revision based on the cumulative impacts of pollutants in evaluating a state's implementation plan under Title I. Comment One commenter disputed Idaho's assertion that raising the burn authorization trigger from 75% to 90% of the ozone NAAQS will facilitate authorizing burning on days when the conditions for pollutant dispersion are better. Multiple commenters asserted that Idaho did not consider alternative options to crop residue burning, including the option of simply not authorizing burns on days when the NAAQS will exceed the current 75% burning authorization level (e.g., making no changes to the current SIP-approved rules). The commenters cited the current 75% of the NAAQS SIP limit to be the product of a compromise of interests, and one that anticipated that monitored averages would not be an adequate gauge of actual PM2.5 or other criteria pollutant exposure, and thus provided a margin of safety to public health that the proposed SIP revision would eliminate. One commenter stated that the ozone monitoring network in Idaho could be ``more robust.'' Response In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Failure to consider alternatives to the proposed SIP revision is not a basis for disapproval. Even if the existing SIP burning threshold was originally established as a consensus-based standard at the state level taking into account the factors identified by the commenters, EPA cannot substitute its judgement or policy preferences for Idaho's lawfully submitted SIP revision so long as the SIP revision is consistent with the CAA's requirements. As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that the SIP revision will not interfere with continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in Idaho. Potential effects of the revision on attainment and maintenance is limited to the ozone NAAQS because the SIP submission does not alter any requirements related to other criteria pollutants. Under such circumstances, nothing in the CAA prohibits a state from modifying its SIP requirements to address its current air quality management needs. As explained in EPA's notification of proposed approval, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that it will continue to attain the ozone NAAQS after raising its ozone burning threshold. To the extent that the commenter is raising concerns about the adequacy of the Idaho ozone monitoring network to detect ozone NAAQS violations, it is relevant to note that EPA regularly assesses the adequacy of states' monitoring networks for all pollutants pursuant to its review of each state's Annual Network Monitoring Plan. EPA's most recent evaluation of the Idaho ozone monitoring network was addressed in its November 8, 2017, approval letter (included in the docket for this action). EPA's approval letter identified areas where an ozone monitor may need to be added in the future. EPA will continue to monitor the adequacy of the ozone monitoring network to determine if the network must be expanded to comply with 40 CFR part 58 requirements. III. Final Action EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference where appropriate in Idaho's SIP, all revisions requested by Idaho on September 22, 2017 to the following provisions:IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 (Burn Approval Criteria, state effective February 28, 2018); and Idaho Code 39-114 (Open Burning of Crop Residue, state effective February 28, 2018). We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is approving regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above in Section III. Final Action and set forth below, as amendments to 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final 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 [[Page 28385]] 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and does not provide 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 EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. 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 CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 20, 2018. 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, Administrative practice and procedure, 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: June 7, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, EPA 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: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart N--Idaho 0 2. Section 52.670 is amended by: 0 a. In paragraph (c), under table entitled ``EPA-Approved Idaho Regulations and Statutes'': 0 i. Revising entry ``621''; 0 ii. Removing entry ``Section 1 of House bill 557, codified at Idaho Code Section 39-114''; and 0 iii. Adding an entry at the end of the table. 0 b. In paragraph (e), under the table entitled ``EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'', adding an entry at the end of the table. The revision and additions read as follows: Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * EPA-Approved Idaho Regulations and Statutes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01--Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * 621............................ Burn Determination 2/28/2018, 4/2/2008 6/19/2018, [Insert ................. Federal Register citation]; 8/1/ 2008, 73 FR 44915. * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Statutes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 3 of Senate Bill 1009, Open Burning of 2/28/2018 6/19/2018, [Insert ................. codified at Idaho Code Section Crop Residue. Federal Register 39-114. citation]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * (e) * * * [[Page 28386]] EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicable Name of SIP provision geographic or State submittal date EPA approval date Comments nonattainment area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Open Burning of Crop Residue State-wide........ 9/22/2017, 10/23/ 6/19/2018, [Insert Original State Implementation Plan 2017 Federal Register submission and Revisions. citation]. supplemental modeling analyses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2018-13046 Filed 6-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![28382 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO § 165.943—Continued
[Datum NAD 1983]
Event Location Event date
(8) Superior 4th of July Fire- All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of On or around July 4th.
works Display. no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′28″N, 092°03′38″
W.
(9) Point to LaPointe Swim .. All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel between Bayfield and LaPointe, WI Early August.
within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′50″ N,
090°48′44″ W, moving southeast to 46°46′44″ N, 090°47′33″ W, then moving
northeast to 46°46′52″ N, 090°47′17″ W, then moving northwest to 46°49′03″ N,
090°48′25″ W, and finally returning to the starting position.
(10) Lake Superior Dragon All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of Late August.
Boat Festival Fireworks no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′28″ N, 092°03′47″
Display. W.
(11) Superior Man Triathlon All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within an Late August.
imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°46′36″ N, 092°06′06″ W,
moving southeast to 46°46′32″ N, 092°06′01″ W, then moving northeast to
46°46′45″ N, 092°05′45″ W, then moving northwest to 46°46′49″ N, 092°05′49″
W, and finally returning to the starting position.
Dated: June 13, 2018. No. EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0566. All comment period for this proposal ended
E.E. Williams, documents in the docket are listed on on February 21, 2018. EPA received
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the https://www.regulations.gov public comments on the proposed
the Port Duluth. website. Although listed in the index, rulemaking. Summaries of the
[FR Doc. 2018–13055 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am] some information is not publicly comments as well as EPA’s responses to
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P available, e.g., CBI or other information adverse comments are in Section II of
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. this rulemaking action. After
Certain other material, such as consideration of the comments, we do
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION copyrighted material, is not placed on not believe any changes in the rationale
AGENCY the internet and will be publicly or conclusions in the proposed approval
available only in hard copy form. are appropriate.
40 CFR Part 52 Publicly available docket materials are II. Response to Comments
[EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0566; FRL–9979–48–
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact EPA received comments on a variety
Region 10] of issues related to the proposed
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue INFORMATION CONTACT section for approval of Idaho’s crop residue
Burning; Revision to Ozone additional availability information. burning SIP revisions. Out of a total of
Requirement FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ten comments received, three were
Randall Ruddick at (206) 553–1999, or supportive of EPA’s approval of the SIP
AGENCY: Environmental Protection revisions, four were adverse to the
Agency (EPA). ruddick.randall@epa.gov.
EPA’s proposed approval, and three
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ACTION: Final rule. were determined to be not germane to
Throughout this document, wherever this action. A full copy of all comments
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is received is available in the docket for
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to intended to refer to EPA. final action.
approve revisions to Idaho’s State Table of Contents
Implementation Plan (SIP) related to Comment
agricultural crop residue burning. The I. Background EPA received public comments
Director of the Idaho Department of II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
arguing that the NAAQS are not
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) adequately protective of public health in
IV. Incorporation by Reference
submitted the revisions to EPA on V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review the context of crop residue burning and
September 22, 2017. IDEQ should not be relied upon as the basis
supplemented the original submission I. Background for approval of the proposed crop
with photochemical modeling analyses On September 22, 2017, the Idaho residue burning SIP revisions. One
on October 23, 2017. The revisions Department of Environmental Quality commenter stated that because the PM2.5
change the ambient ozone concentration (IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP NAAQS takes the form of a 24-hour
level at which IDEQ may approve a provisions regulating open burning of average that it allows ‘‘spikes’’ of
permittee’s request to burn. This final crop residue in the state to EPA for emissions that are sufficient to ‘‘kill
action is being taken for the reasons set approval. On January 22, 2018, the EPA citizens, especially children with
out in EPA’s proposed action in this proposed to approve all of the revisions undeveloped lungs, the elderly, and
matter. This action is being taken under requested in the September 22, 2017 anyone with underlying heart or lung
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act submittal. We are taking final action for diseases.’’ Another commenter urged
or CAA). the reasons explained in the January 22, EPA to disapprove the proposed SIP
DATES: This final rule is effective July 2018 notification of proposed approval revisions, citing studies that they assert
19, 2018. (83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed demonstrate negative human health
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a approval for further explanation and the impacts to exposure to ozone at levels
docket for this action under Docket ID basis for our finding. The public below the NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Jun 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM 19JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28500/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28383
Response 26, 2015).1 EPA provided notice and an EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the
These comments relate to the opportunity for public comment on the NAAQS when taking action on
adequacy of the PM2.5 and ozone proposal for this action (79 FR 75234, proposed SIP modifications related to
NAAQS, and are therefore outside of the December 17, 2014) and there was an that pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably
scope of this action. The CAA contains opportunity to file petitions for judicial focuses on a determination of whether
provisions that specifically address the review pursuant to CAA section 307. a SIP amendment will ensure
establishment and review of the Similarly, EPA completed its last attainment and maintenance with the
NAAQS. To briefly summarize, under periodic review of the PM NAAQS in NAAQS as the relevant and applicable
sections 108 and 109 of the Act, EPA 2012, and published notice of its standard for approvals of SIP revisions
issues ‘‘air quality criteria’’ and decision to revise the PM NAAQS in under CAA section 110.
establishes NAAQS for certain air 2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). In the matter at hand, Idaho requested
With regard to the primary NAAQS for a revision to the ozone concentration
pollutants. CAA section 109(d)(1)
PM2.5, in that review EPA revised the level at which IDEQ may authorize
requires EPA to periodically review, and
annual PM2.5 standard, including by (authorization level) agricultural crop
if appropriate, revise the air quality
lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms residue burning (CRB). The requested
criteria to reflect advances in scientific
per cubic meter (mg/m3) so as to provide revision does not change the
knowledge on the effects of the
increased protection against health authorization levels for any other
pollutant on public health and welfare,
effects associated with long- and short- NAAQS and all other CRB requirements
and to periodically review, and if
term exposures (including premature remain unchanged. For the reasons
appropriate revise, the NAAQS, based
mortality, increased hospital admissions provided in our proposal for this action,
on the revised air quality criteria.
and emergency department visits, and we conclude that approval of Idaho’s
Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary development of chronic respiratory submitted SIP revisions will not
(health-based) standard as one ‘‘the disease), and retained the 24-hour PM2.5 interfere with any applicable
attainment and maintenance of which in standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR requirement concerning attainment and
the judgment of the Administrator, 3086, January 15, 2013).2 The reasonable further progress or any other
based on such criteria and allowing an Administrator concluded that with the applicable requirement of the Clean Air
adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite revisions in that review the suite of Act. 83 FR 2955, January 22, 2018.
to protect the public health.’’ In setting standards would be requisite to protect
primary NAAQS that are ‘‘requisite’’ to Comment
public health with an adequate margin
protect public health, as provided in of safety against health effects Several commenters expressed
section 109(b), EPA’s task is to establish potentially associated with long- and concern about Idaho’s failure to evaluate
standards that are neither more nor less short-term PM2.5 exposures (78 FR 3164, how an increase in ozone emissions
stringent than necessary for these January 15, 2013). EPA provided notice from crop residue burning would
purposes. See generally Whitman v. and an opportunity for public comment interact with other pollutants to impact
American Trucking Associations, 531 on the proposal for this action (77 FR public health. The commenters argued
U.S. 457, 465–472, 475–76 (2001). 38890, June 29, 2012) and there was an that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate
Pursuant to those provisions, EPA opportunity to file petitions for judicial that its proposed SIP revisions will not
completed its last review of the ozone review pursuant to CAA section 307. increase risks to public health. Several
NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October Since then, EPA has initiated the next commenters objected to the SIP revision
26, 2015). With respect to the primary periodic review of the air quality criteria on the basis that the changes are not in
standard, in that review EPA and NAAQS for PM (see 79 FR 71764, the public interest and constitutes a
determined that the NAAQS should be December 3, 2014; 81 FR 22977–78, weakening of a health-based standard.
revised to provide the requisite April 19, 2016). Commenters cited both impacts to
protection of public health (80 FR These actions revising the primary public health associated with crop
65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly, NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the residue burning from both ozone and
based on careful consideration of the related conclusions that the 2012 PM fine particles (PM2.5). One commenter
extensive information in the record, NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are asserted that Idaho did not consider the
including a thorough review of requisite to protect the public health cumulative public health impacts of
scientific evidence and information with an adequate margin of safety, are frequent or multiple exposures to PM
about ozone-related health effects, beyond the scope of this action. This from sources including both CRB and
quantitative assessments that estimated action concerns a SIP submission under wildfires. They argue that Idaho did not
public health risks associated with just CAA section 110, and under section adequately consider other pollutants
meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and 110(a) such plans are to ‘‘provide[ ] for (such as PM or CO) described as ‘‘by-
various alternative standards that were implementation, maintenance, and products’’ of biomass burning, and more
considered, advice from EPA’s Clean enforcement’’ of the primary NAAQS. specifically did not consider the
Air Scientific Advisory Committee combined effects of PM2.5, CO and
(CASAC), and public comments 1 A more detailed summary of the considerations ozone, as well as toxics such as
received in response to the proposal, the in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in ‘‘benzene, PAH’s [sic] and others’’ that
public comments and EPA’s responses, can be
Administrator revised the level of the found in the Federal Register notification for the
are in the air as a result of either CRB
primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts final action (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015), and or from wildfires. One commenter
per million, and retained the other in the Response to Comments document, which can argued that in the absence of
elements of the prior standard be found in the docket for that action (Docket No. ‘‘conclusive studies of the effects of
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699).
(indicator, form, and averaging time) (80 breathing all these substances at once,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
2 A more detailed summary of the considerations
FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in . . . maintaining the 75% of all NAAQS
doing, she concluded that the revised public comments and EPA’s responses, can be is the only proven way’’ to protect
primary standard is requisite to protect found in the Federal Register notification for the public health. The Idaho Conservation
final action (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), and in
public health, including the health of at- the Response to Comments document, which can be
League (ICL) argued that Idaho’s SIP
risk populations, with an adequate found in the docket for that action (Docket No. submission ‘‘failed to provide sufficient
margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492). justification that remaining CAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Jun 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM 19JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28500/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28385
action because SIP approvals are country, the rule does not have Tribal by reference, Intergovernmental
exempted under Executive Order 12866; implications as specified by Executive relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
• does not impose an information Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
collection burden under the provisions 2000). and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 The Congressional Review Act, 5 oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
• is certified as not having a Business Regulatory Enforcement
significant economic impact on a Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Dated: June 7, 2018.
substantial number of small entities that before a rule may take effect, the Chris Hladick,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 agency promulgating the rule must Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); submit a rule report, which includes a For the reasons set forth in the
• does not contain any unfunded copy of the rule, to each House of the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
mandate or significantly or uniquely Congress and to the Comptroller General follows:
affect small governments, as described of the United States. EPA will submit a
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act report containing this action and other PART 52—APPROVAL AND
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); required information to the U.S. Senate, PROMULGATION OF
• does not have Federalism the U.S. House of Representatives, and IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
implications as specified in Executive the Comptroller General of the United
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, States prior to publication of the rule in ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
1999); the Federal Register. A major rule continues to read as follows:
• is not an economically significant cannot take effect until 60 days after it Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
regulatory action based on health or is published in the Federal Register.
safety risks subject to Executive Order This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Subpart N—Idaho
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
• is not a significant regulatory action Under CAA section 307(b)(1), ■ 2. Section 52.670 is amended by:
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR petitions for judicial review of this ■ a. In paragraph (c), under table
28355, May 22, 2001); action must be filed in the United States entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Idaho
• is not subject to requirements of Court of Appeals for the appropriate Regulations and Statutes’’:
Section 12(d) of the National circuit by August 20, 2018. Filing a ■ i. Revising entry ‘‘621’’;
Technology Transfer and Advancement petition for reconsideration by the ■ ii. Removing entry ‘‘Section 1 of
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Administrator of this final rule does not House bill 557, codified at Idaho Code
this action does not involve technical affect the finality of this action for the Section 39–114’’; and
standards; and purposes of judicial review nor does it ■ iii. Adding an entry at the end of the
• does not provide EPA with the extend the time within which a petition table.
discretionary authority to address, as for judicial review may be filed, and ■ b. In paragraph (e), under the table
appropriate, disproportionate human shall not postpone the effectiveness of entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Idaho
health or environmental effects, using such rule or action. This action may not Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-
practicable and legally permissible be challenged later in proceedings to Regulatory Measures’’, adding an entry
methods, under Executive Order 12898 enforce its requirements. (See CAA at the end of the table.
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). section 307(b)(2)). The revision and additions read as
The SIP is not approved to apply on any follows:
Indian reservation land or in any other List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has Environmental protection, Air § 52.670 Identification of plan.
demonstrated that a Tribe has pollution control, Administrative * * * * *
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian practice and procedure, Incorporation (c) * * *
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS AND STATUTES
EPA approval
State citation Title/subject State effective date Explanations
date
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
* * * * * * *
621 ....................................... Burn Determination ............. 2/28/2018, 4/2/2008 6/19/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation]; 8/1/
2008, 73 FR 44915.
* * * * * * *
State Statutes
Section 3 of Senate Bill Open Burning of Crop Res- 2/28/2018 6/19/2018, [Insert Federal
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
1009, codified at Idaho idue. Register citation].
Code Section 39–114.
* * * * * (e) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Jun 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM 19JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28500/page/4.svg)
![28386 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable geographic or EPA approval
Name of SIP provision State submittal date Comments
nonattainment area date
* * * * * * *
Open Burning of Crop Res- State-wide ........................... 9/22/2017, 10/23/2017 6/19/2018, [Insert Federal Original submission and
idue State Implementation Register citation]. supplemental modeling
Plan Revisions. analyses
[FR Doc. 2018–13046 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am] ‘‘eficiencies’’ with the word PART 1804–ADMINISTRATIVE
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ‘‘deficiencies’’. MATTERS
• Section 1852.215–79 is revised by 1804.170 [Amended]
replacing the clause reference ‘‘52.215–
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 21’’ with the clause reference ‘‘52.215– ■ 4. Revise section 1804.170 to read as
SPACE ADMINISTRATION 9’’. follows:
48 CFR Parts 1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, • Section 1852.216–76 is revised to 1804.170 Contract effective date.
and 1852 remove the words ‘‘, e.g., issuance of ‘‘Contract effective date’’ means the
unilateral modification by contracting date agreed upon by the parties for
NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation officer’’ from paragraph (c). beginning the period of performance
Supplement • Section 1852.245–71 is revised to under the contract. In no case shall the
provide space for a contracting officer to effective date precede the date on which
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
‘‘check’’ if property and services are the contracting officer or designated
Space Administration.
provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through higher approval authority signs the
ACTION: Technical amendments.
(11). document. Costs incurred before the
SUMMARY: NASA is making technical contract effective date are unallowable
• Section 1852.247–71 is revised by unless they qualify as precontract costs
amendments to the NASA FAR replacing the word ‘‘Mammals’’ with the
Supplement (NFS) to provide needed (see FAR 31.205–32) and the clause
word ‘‘Mammal’’ in paragraph (a). prescribed at 1831.205–70 is used.
editorial changes.
DATES: Effective: June 19, 2018. List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 1801,
1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852 PART 1815—CONTRACTING BY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NEGOTIATION
Geoffrey Sage, NASA, Office of
Government procurement.
Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy 1815.203–72 [Amended]
Division, via email at geoffrey.s.sage@ Geoffrey Sage, ■ 5. Amend section 1815.203–72 by
nasa.gov, or telephone (202) 358–2420. NASA FAR Supplement Manager. removing the words ‘‘and RFOs’’.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1803, 1815.305–70 [Amended]
I. Background 1804, 1815, and 1852 are amended as ■ 6. Amend section 1815.305–70 by
As part of NASA’s retrospective follows: removing from paragraph (a)(3) the
review of existing regulations NASA is word ‘‘eficiencies’’ and adding
conducting periodic reviews of the ■ 1. The authority citation for parts
1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852 ‘‘deficiencies’’ in its place.
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to ensure
the accuracy of information continues to read as follows:
PART 1852—SOLICITATION
disseminated to the acquisition Authority: 51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
community. This rule makes chapter 1. CLAUSES
administrative changes to the NFS to
correct typographical errors as well as PART 1801—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 1852.215–79 [Amended]
inadvertent omissions from prior REGULATIONS SYSTEM ■ 7. Amend section 1852.215–79 by—
rulemaking actions. A summary of ■ a. In the clause heading, removing
1801.105–1 [Amended] ‘‘(DEC 1988)’’ and adding ‘‘(JUN 2018)’’
changes follows:
• Section 1801.105–1, paragraph ■ 2. Amend section 1801.105–1 by in its place; and
(b)(iii), is revised to update the internet ■ b. Removing ‘‘52.215–21’’ and adding
removing ‘‘http://www.hq.nasa.gov/
link to ‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm’’ ‘‘52.215–9’’ in its place.
procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ’’. from paragraph (b)(iii) and adding
• Section 1803.906, paragraph (d), is 1852.216–76 [Amended]
‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/
revised by replacing the word ‘‘Unites’’ ■ 8. Amend section 1852.216–76 by—
procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ’’ in its place. ■ a. In the clause heading, removing
with the word ‘‘United’’.
• Section 1804.170 is revised to PART 1803—IMPROPER BUSINESS ‘‘(APR 2012)’’ and adding ‘‘(JUN 2018)’’
remove the paragraph designations ‘‘(a)’’ PRACTICES AND PERSONAL in its place; and
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
and ‘‘(b)’’ and combine the two ■ b. Removing from paragraph (c) ‘‘, e.g.,
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
paragraphs. issuance of unilateral modification by
• Section 1815.203–72 is revised to 1803.906 [Amended] contracting officer’’.
remove the redundant words ‘‘and
■ 3. Amend section 1803.906 by 1852.245–71 [Amended]
RFOs’’.
• Section 1815.305–70, paragraph removing from paragraph (d) ‘‘Unites’’ ■ 9. Amend section 1852.245–71 by
(a)(3), is revised by replacing the word and adding ‘‘United’’ in its place. revising the date of the clause and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Jun 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM 19JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28500/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-02 11:20:54
Document Modified: 2018-07-02 11:20:54
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective July 19, 2018. | |
| Contact | Randall Ruddick at (206) 553-1999, or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 28382 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR