Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements, 19292-19304 [2011-8330]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19292
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination will be
made available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. This
proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone. We seek
any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
Energy Effects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Indian Tribal Governments
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for Part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. The Coast Guard proposes to
amend § 165.1305 by revising paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
§ 165.1305
WA.
Commencement Bay, Tacoma,
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone for the Tacoma Freedom
Fair Air Show: All portions of
Commencement Bay bounded by the
following coordinates: Latitude
47°17′38″ N, Longitude 122°28′43″ W;
thence south easterly to Latitude
47°17′4″ N, Longitude 122°27′32″ W;
thence south westerly to Latitude
47°16′35″ N, Longitude 122°28′1″ W;
thence north westerly along the
shoreline to Latitude 47°17′10″ N,
Longitude 122°29′14″ W; thence
returning to the origin. This safety zone
resembles a rectangle protruding from
the shoreline along Ruston Way.
Floating markers will be placed by the
sponsor of the event to delineate the
boundaries of the safety zone.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: March 24, 2011.
S. J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011–8370 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0003; FRL–9291–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Oregon;
Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a portion of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Oregon for the purpose of
addressing the interstate transport
provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) and the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that
each State have adequate provisions to
prohibit air emissions from adversely
affecting air quality in other States
through interstate transport. EPA is
proposing to approve Oregon’s SIP
revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the these standards in
any other State and to prohibit
emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of these standards by any
other State.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2011–0003, by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E–Mail: R10Public_Comments@epa.gov.
C. Mail: Donna Deneen, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Mail Stop: AWT–107, Seattle, WA
98101.
D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Attn:
Donna Deneen (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington
98101, 9th Floor. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011–
0003. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of you comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, is not
publicly available. 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 either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Deneen, (206) 553–6706 or
deneen.donna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this notice, the words ‘‘we’’,
‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ means the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Table of Contents
I. What proposed action is EPA taking?
II. What is a SIP?
III. What is the background for this proposed
action?
IV. What is the state process to submit these
materials to EPA?
V. What is EPA’s evaluation of the state’s
submission?
A. EPA’s Evaluation of Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
1. Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
2. Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
3. Conclusion Regarding Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
B. EPA’s Evaluation of Interference With
Maintenance
1. Oregon’s 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
2. Interference With Maintenance
Evaluation for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
3. Interference With Maintenance
Evaluation for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19293
4. Conclusion Regarding Interference With
Maintenance
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What proposed action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion
of Oregon’s Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS submitted by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) on June 23, 2010.1 Specifically,
we are proposing to approve the portion
of the interstate transport SIP revision
that addresses the following elements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): (1)
Significant contribution to
nonattainment of these NAAQS in any
other state; and (2) interference with
maintenance of these NAAQS by any
other state. EPA will address element
(3), interference with any other state’s
required measures to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of its air quality; and
element (4), interference with any other
state’s required measures to protect
visibility, in a separate action.2 This
proposed action does not address the
requirements of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
or the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; those
standards will be addressed in future
actions.
II. What is a SIP?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
each state to develop a plan that
provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. EPA establishes NAAQS under
section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the
NAAQS address six criteria pollutants:
Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and
sulfur dioxide.
The plan developed by a state is
referred to as the SIP. The content of the
SIP is specified in section 110 of the
CAA, other provisions of the CAA, and
applicable regulations. SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations
or other enforceable measures and
various types of supporting information,
such as emissions inventories,
monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations.
A primary purpose of the SIP is to
provide the air pollution regulations,
control strategies, and other means or
techniques developed by the state to
1 See transmittal letters dated June 23, 2010, from
Joni Hammond, Deputy Director, ODEQ, and
December 23, 2010, from Dick Pedersen, Director,
ODEQ, to Dennis McLerran, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 10.
2 On March 8, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the
Oregon interstate transport SIP provisions
addressing interference with any other state’s
required measures to protect visibility. See 76 FR
12651 (March 8, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
19294
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ensure that the ambient air within that
state meets the NAAQS. However,
another important aspect of the SIP is to
ensure that emissions from within the
state do not have certain prohibited
impacts upon the ambient air in other
states through interstate transport of
pollutants. This SIP requirement is
specified in section 110(a)(2)(D).
Pursuant to that provision, each state’s
SIP must contain provisions adequate to
prevent emissions that significantly
contribute to violations of the NAAQS
in any other state, interfere with
maintenance in any other state, interfere
with any other state’s required measures
to prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality, and interfere with any other
state’s required measures to protect
visibility.
States are required to update or revise
SIPs under certain circumstances. One
such circumstance is EPA’s
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. Each state must submit these
revisions to EPA for approval and
incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. What is the background for this
proposed action?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated
new standards for 8-hour ozone 3 and
fine particulate matter 4 (PM2.5). This
proposed action is in response to the
promulgation of these standards (the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS).
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to address a new
or revised NAAQS within three years
after promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the
elements that such new SIPs must
address, as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions.
3 See 62 FR 38856. The level of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 40
CFR part 50.10. The 8-hour ozone standard is met
when the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations is 0.08
ppm or less (i.e., less than 0.085 ppm based on the
rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix
I). This 3-year average is referred to as the ‘‘design
value.’’
4 See 62 FR 38652. The level of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS are 15.0 μg/m3 (annual arithmetic mean
concentration) and 65 μg/m3 (24-hour average
concentration). 40 CFR part 50.7. The annual
standard is met when the 3-year average of the
annual mean concentrations is 15.0 μg/m3 or less
(i.e., less than 15.05 μg/m3 based on the rounding
convention in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N Section
4.3). The 24-hour standard is met when the 3-year
average annual 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations is 65 μg/m3 or less (i.e., less than
65.5 μg/m3 based on the rounding convention in 40
CFR part 40 Appendix N Section 4.3). Id. These 3year averages are referred to as the annual PM2.5 and
24-hour PM2.5 ‘‘design values,’’ respectively.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
On August 15, 2006, EPA issued a
guidance memorandum that provides
recommendations to states for making
submissions to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards
(2006 Guidance).5
The interstate transport SIP
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(also called ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions)
require each state to submit a SIP that
prohibits emissions that adversely affect
another state in the ways contemplated
in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
identifies four distinct elements related
to the evaluation of impacts of interstate
transport of air pollutants. In this
rulemaking EPA is addressing the first
two elements of this subsection.
The first element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that a state’s
SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must
contain adequate measures to prohibit
emissions from sources within the state
that ‘‘contribute significantly’’ to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state. The second element of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that a
state’s SIP must prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in the
state from emitting pollutants that will
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the
applicable NAAQS in any other state.
The CAA does not specifically
mandate how to determine significant
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance.
Therefore, EPA has interpreted these
terms in past regulatory actions, such as
the 1998 NOX SIP Call, in which EPA
took action to remediate emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly
contributed to nonattainment of, or
interfered with maintenance of, the then
applicable ozone NAAQS through
interstate transport of NOX and the
resulting ozone.6 The NOX SIP Call was
the mechanism through which EPA
evaluated whether or not the NOX
emissions from sources in certain states
had such prohibited interstate impacts,
and if they had such impacts, required
the states to adopt substantive SIP
revisions to eliminate the NOX
emissions, whether through
5 Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled
‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,’’ August 15, 2006.
6 See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA’s
general approach to section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX
SIP Call was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d
663 (DC Cir. 2000), cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001).
However, EPA’s approach to interference with
maintenance in the NOX SIP Call was not explicitly
reviewed by the court. See, North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896, 907–09 (DC Cir. 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
participation in a regional cap and trade
program or by other means.
After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA again recognized that
regional transport was a serious concern
throughout the eastern United States
and therefore developed the 2005 Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
NOX that exacerbate ambient ozone and
PM2.5 levels in many downwind areas
through interstate transport.7 Within
CAIR, EPA interpreted the term
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ as part of
the evaluation of whether or not the
emissions of sources in certain states
had such impacts on areas that EPA
determined would either be in violation
of the NAAQS, or would be in jeopardy
of violating the NAAQS, in a modeled
future year unless action were taken by
upwind states to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions. Through CAIR, EPA again
required states that had such interstate
impacts to adopt substantive SIP
revisions to eliminate the SO2 and NOX
emissions, whether through
participation in a regional cap and trade
program or by other means.
EPA’s 2006 Guidance addressed CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For those states
subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that
compliance with CAIR would meet the
two requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. For
states outside of the CAIR region, the
2006 Guidance recommended various
methods by which states might evaluate
whether or not their emissions
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state. Among other methods, EPA
recommended consideration of available
EPA modeling conducted in
conjunction with the CAIR, or in the
absence of such EPA modeling,
consideration of other information such
as the amount of emissions, the
geographic location of violating areas,
meteorological data, or various other
forms of information that would be
relevant to assessing the likelihood of
significant contribution to violations of
the NAAQS in another state.
The assessment of significant
contribution to nonattainment is not
restricted to impacts upon areas that are
formally designated nonattainment.
Consistent with EPA’s approach in
CAIR and recently in the Transport Rule
7 See ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate
Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to
the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ at 70 FR 25162 at
25263–69 (May 12, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Proposal, as discussed further below,
this impact must be evaluated with
respect to monitors showing a violation
of the NAAQS.8 Furthermore, although
relevant information other than
modeling may be considered in
assessing the likelihood of significant
contribution to nonattainment of the 8hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state, EPA notes that no single piece of
information is by itself dispositive of the
issue. Instead, the total weight of all the
evidence taken together is used to
evaluate significant contributions to
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone or
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
As to the second element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), for states not within the
CAIR region, EPA recommended that
states evaluate whether or not emissions
from their sources would ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ in other states following
the conceptual approach adopted by
EPA in CAIR. After recommending
various types of information that could
be relevant for the technical analysis to
support the SIP submission, such as the
amount of emissions and meteorological
conditions in the state, EPA further
indicated that it would be appropriate
for the state to assess impacts of its
emissions on other states using
considerations comparable to those used
by EPA ‘‘in evaluating significant
contribution to nonattainment in the
CAIR.’’ 9 EPA did not make specific
recommendations for how states should
assess interference with maintenance
separately, and discussed the first two
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
together without explicitly
differentiating between them.
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit found that CAIR and the
related CAIR federal implementation
plans were unlawful.10 Among other
issues, the court held that EPA had not
correctly addressed the second element
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR and
noted that ‘‘EPA gave no independent
significance to the ‘interfere with
maintenance’ prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to separately identify
upwind sources interfering with
downwind maintenance.’’ 11 EPA’s
approach, the court reasoned, would
leave areas that are ‘‘barely meeting
attainment’’ with ‘‘no recourse’’ to
address upwind emissions sources.12
The court therefore concluded that a
plain language reading of the statute
8 See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NO SIP
X
Call; 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 75 FR
45210 (August 2, 2010), Transport Rule Proposal.
9 2006 Guidance at 5.
10 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC
Circuit 2008).
11 531 F.3d at 909.
12 Ibid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
requires EPA to give independent
meaning to the interfere with
maintenance requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and that the approach
used by EPA in CAIR failed to do so. In
addition to affecting CAIR directly, the
court’s decision in the North Carolina
case indirectly affects EPA’s
recommendations to states in the 2006
Guidance with respect to the interfere
with maintenance element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) because the agency’s
guidance suggested that states use an
approach comparable to that used by
EPA in CAIR.
To address the judicial remand of
CAIR, EPA has recently proposed a new
rule to address interstate transport of air
pollution pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ‘‘Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone’’ (Transport Rule
Proposal).13 As part of the Transport
Rule Proposal, EPA specifically
reexamined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements that emissions from
sources in a state must not ‘‘contribute
significantly to nonattainment’’ or
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in other states. In the proposal,
EPA developed an approach to identify
areas that it predicts to be violating the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in
the future, and areas that it predicts to
be close to the level of these NAAQS in
the future and therefore at risk to
become nonattainment unless emissions
from sources in other states are
appropriately controlled. This approach
starts by identifying those specific
geographic areas for which further
evaluation is appropriate, and
differentiates between areas where the
concern is significant contribution to
nonattainment as opposed to
interference with maintenance.
As described in more detail below,
EPA evaluated data from existing
monitors over three overlapping 3-year
periods (i.e., 2003–2005, 2004–2006,
and 2005–2007), as well as air quality
modeling data, in order to determine
which areas are predicted to be violating
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS in 2012, and which areas are
predicted potentially to have difficulty
maintaining attainment as of that date.
In essence, if an area’s projected data for
2012 indicates that it would be violating
the NAAQS based on the average of
these three overlapping periods, then
this monitor location is appropriate for
comparison for purposes of the
significant contribution to
nonattainment element of section
13 See
PO 00000
75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19295
110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, however, an area’s
projected data indicate that it would be
violating the NAAQS based on the
highest single period, but not over the
average of the three periods, then this
monitor location is appropriate for
comparison for purposes of the interfere
with maintenance element of the
statute.14
By this method, EPA has identified
those areas with monitors that are
appropriate ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’
or ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ for
evaluating whether the emissions from
sources in another state could
significantly contribute to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance in, that particular area.
EPA believes that this approach for
identifying areas that are predicted to be
nonattainment or to have difficulty
maintaining the NAAQS, is appropriate
to evaluate a state’s submission in
relation to the elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to
significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance.15 EPA’s 2006 Guidance
did not provide this specific
recommendation to states, but in light of
the court’s decision on CAIR, EPA will
itself follow this approach in evaluating
the Oregon submission.
As explained in the 2006 Guidance,
EPA does not believe that section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions from all
states necessarily need to follow
precisely the same analytical approach
of CAIR. In the 2006 Guidance, EPA
stated that: ‘‘EPA believes that the
contents of the SIP submission required
by section 110(a)(2)(D) may vary,
depending upon the facts and
circumstances related to the specific
NAAQS. In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the
State develops and submits a SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS necessarily
14 A memorandum in the docket for this action
provides the information EPA used to identify
monitors that are receptors for evaluation of
significant contribution or interference with
maintenance for certain states in the western United
States. See Memorandum from Brian Timin, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
‘‘Documentation of Future Year Ozone and Annual
PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in Western
States,’’ August 23, 2010 (Timin Memo).
15 To begin this analysis, EPA first identifies all
monitors projected to be in nonattainment or, based
on historic variability in air quality, projected to
have maintenance problems in 2012. Monitors
projected to be in nonattainment are those with
future year design values that violate the standard,
based on the projection of 5-year weighted average
concentrations. Monitors projected to have
maintenance problems are those at risk of not
staying in attainment because the air quality data
is close enough to the level of the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS that minor variations in
weather or emissions could result in violations of
the NAAQS in 2012.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
19296
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
affects the contents of the required
submission.’’ 16 EPA also indicated in
the 2006 Guidance that it did not
anticipate that sources in states outside
the geographic area covered by CAIR
were significantly contributing to
nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, in other states.17 As noted
in the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA
continues to believe that the more
widespread and serious transport
problems in the eastern United States
are analytically distinct.18 For the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
believes that nonattainment and
maintenance problems in the western
United States are relatively local in
nature with only limited impacts from
interstate transport. In the Transport
Rule Proposal, EPA did not calculate the
portion of predicted ozone or PM
concentrations in any downwind state
that would result from emissions from
individual western states, such as
Oregon.
Accordingly, EPA believes that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions
for states outside the geographic area of
the Transport Rule Proposal may be
evaluated using a ‘‘weight of the
evidence’’ approach that takes into
account the available relevant
information, such as that recommended
by EPA in the 2006 Guidance for states
outside the area affected by CAIR. Such
information may include, but is not
limited to, the amount of emissions in
the state relevant to the NAAQS in
question, the meteorological conditions
in the area, the distance from the state
to the nearest monitors in other states
that are appropriate receptors, or such
other information as may be probative to
consider whether sources in the state
may significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
These submissions can rely on modeling
when acceptable modeling technical
analyses are available, but EPA does not
believe that modeling is necessarily
required if other available information is
sufficient to evaluate the presence or
degree of interstate transport in a given
situation.
II. What is the state process to submit
these materials to EPA?
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and
section 110(l) require that revisions to a
SIP be adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
EPA has promulgated specific
16 2006
Guidance at 4.
at 5.
18 See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at
45227 (August 2, 2010).
17 Ibid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
procedural requirements for SIP
revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
These requirements include publication
of notices, by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, of a
public hearing on the proposed
revisions, a public comment period of at
least 30 days, and an opportunity for a
public hearing.
On June 23, 2010, and December 23,
2010, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
submitted a SIP revision to update
Oregon’s infrastructure SIP for ozone
and PM2.5. Included in this submittal
was a SIP revision entitled ‘‘Oregon SIP
Infrastructure for Addressing the
Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine
Particulate Matter’’ to address the
interstate transport SIP requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
(2010 interstate transport SIP).19
ODEQ’s June 23, 2010, submittal
includes public process documentation
for the 2010 interstate transport SIP
submittal. In addition, the SIP revision
includes documentation of a duly
noticed public hearing held on
December 22, 2009.
We find that the process followed by
ODEQ in adopting the 2010 interstate
transport SIP complies with the
procedural requirements for SIP
revisions under CAA section 110 and
EPA’s implementing regulations.
V. What is EPA’s evaluation of the
state’s submission?
A. EPA’s Evaluation of Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
This proposed approval evaluates the
significant contribution to
nonattainment element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
several ways. It takes into account
Oregon’s 2010 interstate transport SIP,
in which the State explains that based
on meteorological and other
characteristics in Oregon and in the
surrounding areas, PM2.5 and ozone
precursor emissions from Oregon
sources do not significantly contribute
to violations of the PM2.5 or ozone
NAAQS in other states.20 In addition,
EPA has supplemented the State’s
19 Oregon’s submission addresses the interstate
transport requirements of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
this action, EPA is only taking action with respect
to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5
and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
20 Oregon’s submission makes this conclusion
with respect to not only the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS
and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but also the 2006
PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
analysis with its own evaluation of the
evidence, including a review of the
nearest monitors in other states that are
appropriate nonattainment receptors, in
order to assess whether emissions
sources in Oregon contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in
other states.
Finally, EPA has also reviewed recent
ozone and PM2.5 monitoring data for the
states bordering Oregon to consider
whether Oregon emissions could
significantly contribute to violations of
the 1997 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS
in those states.
1. Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
To address whether emissions from
Oregon sources significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in another state, the State
argued in the 2010 interstate transport
SIP that meteorological and other
characteristics of the Pacific Northwest
support a finding that emissions from
Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to violations of the PM2.5 or
ozone NAAQS in other states. Oregon
pointed out that, in the Pacific
Northwest, exceedances of the 8-hour
ozone standard occur in the summer
months, and during that season the
prevailing winds 21 are predominantly
from the north to northwest and,
consequently, preclude any significant
influence from Oregon on Washington
ozone nonattainment areas.22 While
acknowledging the possibility that
prevailing summer winds could result
in some interstate transport of ozone
forming emissions to western Idaho,
Nevada and northern California, the
State asserted in the 2010 interstate
transport SIP that significant distances
and topography (such as major
mountain ranges that separate Oregon
from California, Idaho and Nevada)
would likely minimize the significance
of these impacts on other states. Oregon
gave as an example the largest major
urban center in Oregon (the greater
Portland area), which it estimated is 400
to 700 miles away from urban areas in
western Idaho, Nevada, and northern
California, and is separated by at least
one major mountain range (the
Cascades).
Oregon also pointed to its section 110
infrastructure SIP to show that ODEQ
21 This north/northwest prevailing wind direction
was derived from surface level winds and airport
data and is not necessarily indicative of the
prevailing wind direction of typical weather
systems in the west.
22 Note that there are currently no ozone
nonattainment areas in Oregon or Washington.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
has the ability to participate as needed
in future studies on regional air
pollution issues, or collaborate with
other states if air quality concerns are
identified that require a case-specific
evaluation of interstate transport, and
also ensures the legal mechanism for
ODEQ to take action as needed to
reduce emissions to help attain
compliance with Federal NAAQS.
Finally, the State explained that it
consulted with air agencies in
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and
California and other agencies to evaluate
case-specific air quality problems that
may involve regional transport of air
pollution. These staff-level
communications indicated no impacts
on ozone concentrations in other states
caused by transport from the State of
Oregon. The State added that if any
future violations of ozone standards
occur, Oregon would work with other
air agencies and EPA as necessary to
evaluate the role of interstate air
pollution transport. This consultation
provided additional support for the
state’s view that emissions from Oregon
sources do not significantly contribute
to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states.
Based on the information provided in
its 2010 interstate transport SIP, ODEQ
concluded that emissions from air
pollution sources in Oregon do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states.
EPA does not necessarily agree that
Oregon’s methodology is adequate for
purposes of a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
analysis. Therefore, EPA is
supplementing the State’s submission
with additional, and more recent,
information in order to assess this issue
more fully. As noted above, EPA is
evaluating the State’s 2010 interstate
transport SIP taking into account
methodologies and analyses for the
identification of receptor monitors that
was developed in the Transport Rule
Proposal, as well as EPA’s projections of
future air quality at monitors in western
states in the Timin Memo, and
preliminary air quality data from
monitors in the states bordering Oregon.
Although each of the factors considered
in the following analysis are not in and
of themselves determinative,
consideration of these factors together
provides a reliable qualitative
conclusion that emissions from Oregon
do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at monitors in other states.
The Transport Rule Proposal includes
an approach to determining whether
emissions from a state contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other
states. Specifically, EPA used existing
monitoring data to project future
concentrations of ozone at monitors to
identify areas that are expected to be
violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in 2012, based on the 5-year weighted
average design value. We call these
monitors ‘‘nonattainment receptors.’’ To
identify the states with emissions that
may contribute significantly to ozone
nonattainment in other states, the
Transport Rule Proposal models the
states’ contributions to ambient ozone
levels at these nonattainment
receptors.23 Because the Transport Rule
Proposal does not model the
contribution of emissions from Oregon
(nor other western states not fully inside
the Transport Rule Proposal’s modeling
domain) to 8-hour ozone nonattainment
receptors in other states, our assessment
in this proposed action relies on a
weight of evidence approach that
considers relevant information from the
Transport Rule Proposal pertaining to
states within its modeling domain, and
additional material such as geographical
and meteorological factors, EPA’s
projections of future air quality at
monitors in western states in the Timin
Memo, and AQS monitoring data.
Our analysis begins by assessing
Oregon’s contribution to the closest
nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8hour ozone standard. The Transport
Rule Proposal identifies within its
modeling domain (consisting of 37
states east of the Rocky Mountains, and
the District of Columbia) 11
nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8hour ozone standard. Of these, the
nonattainment receptors closest to
Oregon are seven receptors in the
Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas in eastern Texas.
The remaining four nonattainment
receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are in Louisiana, New York,
and Pennsylvania.24
The nonattainment receptors in
Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas are
over 1200 miles from the closest point
on Oregon’s border, and the receptors in
Louisiana, New York, and Pennsylvania
are significantly further away. Although
distance alone is not determinative in
the analysis of potential ozone
transport, with increasing distance there
are greater opportunities for ozone and
NOX dispersion and/or removal from
the atmosphere due to the effect of
winds or chemical sink processes.
23 Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at
45253–45273.
24 See Transport Rule Proposal, Table IV.C–11, 75
FR 45210 at 45252.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19297
Moreover, the intervening Rocky
Mountains act as a natural barrier to air
pollution transport. These factors
together support a conclusion that
Oregon sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
nearest areas with nonattainment
receptors identified in the Transport
Rule Proposal.
To assist in the evaluation of the
potential for ozone transport among
western states, EPA also developed an
additional analysis in the Timin Memo
identifying monitors projected to record
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the western U.S. The Timin
Memo identified predicted future
nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS in southern and
central California. This analysis did not,
however, identify any projected
nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS in any other
western state.25 The nonattainment
receptor nearest to Oregon for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS was identified as
Nevada County, California. Nevada
County is approximately 170 miles
south/southeast of the closest point on
Oregon’s border and on the other side of
intervening mountain ranges that act as
a natural barrier to air pollution
transport. Although not determinative
by themselves, distance and topography
are not favorable to 8-hour ozone
transport from Oregon to central
California. In addition, prevailing winds
in the west generally move from southwesterly, westerly, or north-westerly
directions, as indicated by the typical
movement of weather systems. Hence
central and southern California are not
in the predominant direction of winds
from Oregon. Given the distance
between Oregon’s border and central
and southern California nonattainment
receptors, the intervening mountainous
topography, and the general direction of
transport winds in the Western U.S., it
is reasonable to conclude that Oregon
sources do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in Nevada County or to
any more distant nonattainment
receptors in California. EPA’s analysis
for western states therefore supports our
proposal to conclude that Oregon
sources do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
In addition to the information in the
2010 interstate transport SIP and EPA’s
projections of future air quality in the
Transport Rule Proposal and in the
25 See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year
2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average
Ozone Design Values—Western States’’).
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
19298
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Timin Memo, EPA also evaluated
preliminary air quality monitoring data
for the areas in states bordering Oregon
that are designated nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. While
significant contribution must be
measured not just against designated
nonattainment areas but also against
areas with monitors showing violations
of the NAAQS, nonattainment areas are
a convenient point of analysis. Two
states bordering Oregon—California and
Nevada—have areas currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. In California, the
closest nonattainment area is Butte
County, and in Nevada, the closest
nonattainment area is the Las Vegas area
in Clark County. EPA designated both of
these areas as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2004.
See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004); 40
CFR 81.305 and 81.329. Both of these
areas, however, have current design
values indicating attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our review of
preliminary monitoring data for the
2007–2009 period available in EPA’s Air
Quality System (AQS) database
indicates that the 8-hour ozone design
values for Butte County and Las Vegas
during this period were 82 and 74 ppb,
respectively.26 We therefore believe it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon
sources are not contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Butte
County, California or Clark County,
Nevada. The closest nonattainment area
to the Oregon border that had a design
value above the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the 2007–2009 period was
Nevada County, California. As noted
above, given the distance between the
Oregon border and Nevada County, the
intervening mountainous topography,
and the general direction of transport
winds in the Western U.S., it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon
sources do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment in Nevada County or
to any more distant central or southern
California 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. There are no
designated nonattainment areas in Idaho
and Washington for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This is further support
that Oregon sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state.
We also evaluated ozone monitoring
data from the 2007–2009 period from
each of the ozone monitoring sites in
Washington, Idaho, Nevada and
26 See EPA AQS, ‘‘Preliminary Design Value
Report,’’ 2007–2009, for Washington, Idaho,
Nevada, and California.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
California, to determine whether the
ozone levels in any of these states
violate the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.27 We have identified no design
values above the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at any of the monitors in
Washington, Idaho, or Nevada, nor any
indication that emissions from Oregon
sources contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in these adjacent states.
Although AQS data for California show
8-hour ozone design values above the
1997 NAAQS during the 2007–2009
period, the closest monitor to Oregon
that has a 2007–2009 8-hour ozone
design value above the 1997 NAAQS is
located in Nevada County. As noted
above, given the distance between the
Oregon border and Nevada County, the
intervening mountainous topography,
and the general direction of transport
winds in the Western U.S., it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon
sources do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment in Nevada County or
to any more distant central or southern
California monitors. This is further
support that Oregon sources do not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
Finally, none of the ozone monitors in
Oregon have themselves indicated a
violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The absence of violations in
Oregon itself does not rule out the
possibility of transport, but taken in
conjunction with other relevant
information, including the distance
from Oregon to areas with design values
above the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and Pacific Northwest meteorology and
topography, this fact helps to support
the conclusion that there is no transport
from Oregon resulting in significant
contribution to nonattainment in
another state. Distance per se is also not
an obstacle to long range transport of
ozone and its precursors, as discussed
above. However, with increasing
distance there are greater opportunities
for ozone and NOX dispersion and
removal from the atmosphere due to the
effects of winds and chemical sink
processes. In this context, the distance
between Oregon sources and areas not
meeting the 8-hour ozone standard
reduces, but does not exclude, the
possibility of significant contribution to
nonattainment. Nevertheless, the
absence of violations in Oregon
combined with the total weight of all of
the factors discussed above supports a
conclusion that emissions from its
sources do not significantly contribute
27 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to nonattainment in other states, in
accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
2. Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
To address whether emissions from
sources in Oregon significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, the State
argued in its 2010 interstate transport
SIP that meteorological and other
characteristics of any areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the surrounding states of
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and
California support a finding that
emissions from Oregon sources do not
significantly contribute to violations of
the PM2.5 NAAQS or ozone NAAQS in
other states. Oregon explained that the
closest nonattainment areas in
neighboring states are the Tacoma area
(Pierce County) in Washington; the
Chico area (portions of Butte County) in
California, and the Cache Valley area in
Southeast Idaho (portions of Cache
County, Utah and Franklin County,
Idaho).28 Oregon argues that the area of
highest Oregon emission densities
(Portland Metro area) is separated from
these PM2.5 nonattainment areas by
significant distances and major
mountain ranges up to approximately
7000 feet. Oregon identifies one
exception—the Portland-Vancouver
metro area, which shares a common air
shed between Oregon and Washington.
Oregon, however, notes that both
Portland and Vancouver are in
attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Oregon described typical seasonal
wind patterns during the winter when
PM2.5 levels are the highest. It noted that
wind speeds are typically variable with
the majority of wind speeds occurring at
less than 8 miles per hour, and a
significant portion of low winds at less
than 5 miles per hour. Oregon explained
that these low wind speeds and air
stagnation conditions do not lend
themselves to long distance air
pollution transport, and noted that the
Portland area can experience high wind
speeds in the winter travelling through
the Columbia River Gorge east of
Portland that are not conducive to the
buildup of air pollution. Oregon
concluded that general meteorology
28 Although the 2010 Interstate transport SIP
identified these areas as PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
they are all 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. There are no 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment areas
in Washington or Idaho, and the closest 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment area to Oregon is in California (San
Joaquin County). Oregon asserts that its evaluation
of more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment areas is indicative of potential
contribution to nonattainment of the less stringent
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
supports the conclusion that high
winter time PM2.5 levels in Pacific
Northwest communities are typically
dominated by local emission sources.
Oregon also pointed to its section 110
infrastructure SIP to show that ODEQ
has the ability to participate as needed
in future studies on regional air
pollution issues, or collaborate with
other states if air quality concerns are
identified that require a case-specific
evaluation of interstate transport, and
also ensures the legal mechanism for
ODEQ to take action as needed to
reduce emissions to help attain
compliance with Federal NAAQS.
Oregon stated that that high PM2.5 levels
that threaten the NAAQS are
investigated as needed to identify
contributing sources, including any
potential role of interstate transport.
Finally, the state explained that it had
consulted with air agencies in
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and
California and other agencies to evaluate
case-specific air quality problems that
may involve regional transport of air
pollution. These staff-level
communications indicated no impacts
on PM2.5 concentrations in other states
caused by transport from the state of
Oregon, providing additional support
for the state’s view that emissions from
Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to violations of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
Based on this and other information
provided in its 2010 interstate transport
SIP, ODEQ concluded that emissions
from air pollution sources in Oregon do
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in other states.
EPA does not necessarily agree that
Oregon’s methodology is adequate for
purposes of a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
analysis. Therefore, EPA is
supplementing the State’s submission
with additional, and more recent,
information in order to assess this issue
more fully. As noted above, EPA is
evaluating the 2010 interstate transport
SIP taking into account methodologies
and analyses for the identification of the
receptor monitors that was developed in
the Transport Rule Proposal, as well as
EPA’s projections of future air quality at
monitors in western states in the Timin
Memo, and air quality data from
monitors in the states bordering Oregon.
Although each of the factors considered
in the following analysis are not in and
of themselves determinative,
consideration of these factors together
provides a reliable qualitative
conclusion that emissions from Oregon
do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS at
monitors in other states.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
Specifically, we identified the
nonattainment receptors for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS closest to Oregon
to evaluate whether emissions from
Oregon sources contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state.29 For the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
projected nonattainment receptors
closest to Oregon that EPA identified
from the modeling analyses conducted
for the Transport Rule Proposal are all
east of the Mississippi River.30 Given
the significant distance between Oregon
and these nonattainment receptors and
the intervening mountainous terrain, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these
areas.
To address the potential for PM2.5
transport among western states, EPA
also relied on the additional analysis in
the Timin Memo identifying monitors
projected to record violations of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Timin
Memo identified predicted future
nonattainment receptors for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in southern and
central California but did not identify
predicted future nonattainment
receptors for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in any other western state.31
For Oregon, the closest nonattainment
receptor in California for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS was Fresno
County. Fresno County is over 300 miles
south of the closest point on Oregon’s
border and is on the other side of
intervening mountain ranges that act as
a natural barrier to air pollution
transport. Although not determinative
by themselves, distance and topography
are not favorable to PM2.5 transport from
Oregon to central California. In
addition, prevailing winds in the west
generally move from south-westerly,
westerly, or north-westerly directions,
as indicated by the typical movement of
weather systems. Hence central and
29 For PM , the Transport Rule Proposal
2.5
identified nonattainment receptors for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 75 FR 45210 at 45212. Because our
proposal on Oregon’s 2010 Interstate transport SIP
addresses requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) only for purposes of the 1997 ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS, for PM2.5 purposes we consider
only the nonattainment receptors for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS identified in the Transport
Rule Proposal.
30 Specifically, the nonattainment receptors for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard are located in
Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at
45247–45248 (August 2, 2010).
31 See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year
2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average
Ozone Design Values—Western States’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19299
southern California are not in the
predominant direction of winds from
Oregon. Given the distance between the
Oregon border and central and southern
California nonattainment receptors, the
intervening mountainous topography,
and the general westerly direction of
transport winds in the Western U.S.,
EPA concludes that Oregon sources do
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in Fresno County or to any
more distant nonattainment receptors in
California. EPA’s analysis for western
states therefore supports our proposal to
conclude that Oregon sources do not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state.
The analysis for the Transport Rule
Proposal did not identify any
nonattainment receptors for the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the portions of
the U.S. covered by the Transport Rule
Proposal modeling domain (i.e., the 12
km grid covering the continental U.S.
east of the Rockies).32 Recent
monitoring data in EPA’s Air Quality
System (2007–2009 design values)
indicate that the highest 24-hour PM2.5
design value in the 47 states of the
continental U.S. (excluding California)
is 50 μg/m3,33 which is well below the
level of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 65 μg/m3. In California, 2007–2009
AQS data indicate that only one area,
Kern County, has a design value above
the level of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA
believes that given the relatively long
distance between the Oregon border and
Kern County, the intervening
mountainous topography, and the
generally westerly direction of transport
winds in the Western U.S., emissions
from Oregon sources do not interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in Kern County. These
data and factors further support our
proposed finding that Oregon sources
do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
In addition to the information in the
2010 interstate transport SIP and our
review of the nearest nonattainment
receptors identified from the modeling
analyses conducted for the Transport
Rule Proposal, EPA evaluated air quality
data for the areas in states bordering
Oregon that are designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
32 75
FR 45210 at 45249–45251 (August 2, 2010).
values were recorded at monitors in
Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania and Provo, Utah. See
https://epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/PM2.5%202007–
2009%20design%20value%20update.pdf. Data
from EPA’s Air Quality System can be viewed at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
33 These
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
19300
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
NAAQS. Although significant
contribution must be measured not just
against nonattainment areas but also
against areas with monitors showing
violations of the NAAQS,
nonattainment areas are a convenient
point of analysis.
The closest 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment
area in any state bordering Oregon is the
San Joaquin Valley in California.34 This
nonattainment area is located in central
California and is over 250 miles from
the closest point on Oregon’s border and
on the other side of intervening
mountain ranges that act as a natural
barrier to air pollution transport. In
addition, prevailing winds in the
western U.S. generally move from
south-westerly, westerly, or northwesterly directions, as indicated by the
typical movement of weather systems.
Hence, Joaquin Valley, California, is not
in the predominant direction of winds
from Oregon. Given the relatively long
distance between Oregon and the San
Joaquin Valley, the intervening
mountainous topography, and the
general direction of transport winds in
the Western U.S., EPA believes that
Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area or to any more
distant California 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment areas. There are no areas
in Idaho and Washington currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This is further support
that Oregon sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
Although not located in a state
bordering Oregon, the closest designated
nonattainment area to Oregon for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is Libby, in Lincoln
County, Montana.35 In 2005, EPA
designated this area nonattainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR
944 (January 5, 2005) and 40 CFR
81.327. A number of factors provide
evidence that Oregon emissions do not
significantly contribute to past
violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standards in Libby, Montana.
First, in the process of designating
Libby nonattainment for both the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA noted the
predominantly local origins of PM2.5
34 In 2005, EPA designated this area
nonattainment for violations of the 1997 and annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), and 40
CFR 81.305.
35 Libby is in a narrow valley surrounded by
mountains 4,000 feet higher than the town. The
Rocky Mountain Range to the west of Libby (and
east of the Idaho border) reaches summit elevations
of 12,000 feet with most summit elevations between
6000 and 7000 feet that act as a barrier to air
movement between Idaho and Montana.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
nonattainment in Libby.36 37 Residential
wood-burning stoves during the wintertime, when frequent and persistent
temperature inversions occurred, were
specifically identified as a key source of
PM emissions. The fact that
nonattainment in a given area is
primarily the result of local emissions
sources does not, however, exclude the
possibility of significant contribution to
nonattainment from interstate transport.
EPA believes that other evidence
supports the conclusion that emissions
from Oregon sources are not
significantly contributing to violations
in Libby, Montana.
Second, monitoring data from 1999
through 2009 from areas outside of
Libby in Montana support a
determination that Oregon does not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment in Libby. At all other
sites in Montana, annual PM2.5 design
value levels have remained below the 15
μg/m3 nonattainment threshold. Annual
PM2.5 design values for this period for
most of these monitors remained at
levels equal to, or less than, two-thirds
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Even
the three highest design values at these
monitors were 20 percent below the
level of the annual standard.38 The
lower PM2.5 levels elsewhere in
Montana are evidence that local sources,
and not interstate transport, are key
contributors to past nonattainment in
Libby.
Third, for 2007–2009, AQS data show
that the annual PM2.5 design values for
the Libby nonattainment area
themselves fell below the levels of the
NAAQS. This reduction has been
attributed to an effective wood stove
replacement program that decreased
PM2.5 emissions by approximately 59
percent.39 In other words, even if
emissions from Oregon sources were
reaching Libby, they would not
significantly contribute to violations of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS because
monitoring data demonstrate that Libby
is not violating the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
Finally, EPA’s conclusion that
emissions from Oregon do not
significantly contribute to
36 ‘‘Technical Support for State and Tribal Air
Quality Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations,’’ (for
Montana) Chapter 6, pp. 347–352, December 2004.
37 ‘‘Technical Support for State and Tribal Air
Quality Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations,’’ (for
Montana) Chapter 4.8.1, pp. 1–15, December 2008.
38 In 2001, 2002 and 2006, design values for two
monitors in Missoula County were 11.1, 11.4 and
11.8 μg/m3. Computed from AQS monitoring data.
75 FR 16028 (March 31, 2010).
39 State of Montana, Department of
Environmental Quality, ‘‘State Implementation
Plan-Libby Annual PM2.5 Control Plan,’’ submitted
to EPA April 1, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nonattainment in Libby, Montana, is
further supported by the analysis of
monitors in the western United States.40
This analysis concludes that in 2012 the
average annual PM2.5 design values in
Lincoln County, Montana will be below
the threshold for consideration as a
nonattainment receptor. These factors
together support a conclusion that
Oregon sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Libby
1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area.
As mentioned above, EPA considers
not only significant contribution to
designated nonattainment areas, but
also significant contribution to areas
with monitors showing violations of the
NAAQS. A review of the most recent
three years (2007–2009) of monitoring
data in AQS for the bordering states of
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and
California shows that the only monitors
with design values above the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS are located in
central and southern California. The
county closest to the Oregon border that
has a design value above the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS is Kern County,
California. Kern County is more than
400 miles from the closest point on
Oregon’s border and is on the other side
of intervening mountain ranges that act
as a natural barrier to air pollution
transport. Although not determinative
by themselves, distance and topography
are not favorable to PM2.5 transport from
Oregon to central California. In
addition, prevailing winds in the west
generally move from south-westerly,
westerly, or north-westerly directions,
as indicated by the typical movement of
weather systems. Hence Kern County,
California is not in the predominant
direction of winds from Oregon. Given
the relatively long distance between the
Oregon border and Kern County, the
intervening mountainous topography,
and the generally westerly direction of
transport winds in the Western U.S., it
is reasonable to conclude that Oregon
sources do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in Kern County or to any more
distant monitors in California.
As noted above no monitors in
Washington, Idaho and Nevada or
Northern California had design values
above the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for
the 2007–2009 period. The fact that
monitors in these areas are not
registering violations of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS does not in itself conclusively
establish that emissions from Oregon
could not contribute in the aggregate to
40 See Timin Memo at Appendix A (‘‘Base year
2003–20007 and Future Year 2012 Annual Average
PM2.5 Design Values—Western States’’).
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
violations in these areas. But this fact
combined with our above evaluation of
the nearest nonattainment receptors,
nearest nonattainment areas, and
nearest monitors with design values
above the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
supports a conclusion that Oregon
sources do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in other states.
Finally, none of the PM2.5 monitors in
Oregon have themselves indicated a
violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. The absence of violations in
Oregon itself does not rule out the
possibility of transport, but taken in
conjunction with other relevant
information, including the distance
from Oregon to areas with design values
above the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and Pacific Northwest meteorology and
topography, this fact helps to support
the conclusion that there is no transport
from Oregon resulting in significant
contribution to nonattainment in
another state. Taking into account the
total weight of all of the factors
discussed above, EPA concludes that
Oregon does not significantly contribute
to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment in any other state.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Conclusion Regarding Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
Based on the weight of evidence
discussed above, including the location
of the nearest projected nonattainment
receptors, distance to the nearest
designated PM2.5 nonattainment area,
meteorology, topography, and recent air
quality monitoring data, we propose to
determine that Oregon’s 2010 interstate
transport SIP is adequate to ensure that
emissions from Oregon do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment in any other state for the
1997 8-hour ozone or 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, consistent with the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Thus, we propose to
determine that Oregon’s SIP includes
the measures necessary to prevent such
prohibited interstate transport impacts
for these NAAQS.
B. EPA’s Evaluation of Interference With
Maintenance
This proposed approval evaluates the
interfere with maintenance element of
section of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in several ways. It takes into
account Oregon’s 2010 interstate
transport SIP, in which the State
explains that based on meteorological
and other characteristics in Oregon and
in the surrounding areas, PM2.5 and
ozone precursor emissions do not
interfere with maintenance of the 1997
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
8-hour ozone or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
other states.41 In addition, EPA has
supplemented the State’s analysis with
its own evaluation of the evidence,
including a review of the nearest
monitors in other states that are
appropriate maintenance receptors,
consistent with EPA’s approach in the
Transport Rule Proposal, in order to
assess whether emissions sources in
Oregon interfere with maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS in other states.
1. Oregon’s 2010 Interstate Transport
SIP
To show that Oregon emissions, as
controlled under its SIP, do not interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in another state, Oregon’s 2010
interstate transport SIP analyzed several
types of factors to support its assertion.
First, the State pointed to topography
and meteorology for its evaluation,
maintaining that high PM2.5
concentrations in adjacent states
typically occur under winter conditions
when air speeds are low and/or
localized air inversions occur.
Describing wind direction as being
typically variable with the majority of
wind speeds less than 8 miles per hour,
and a significant portion of low winds
less than 5 miles per hour, the state
noted that these low wind speeds and
air stagnation conditions do not lend
them to long distance air pollution
transport. The State indicated that there
are occasional high 8-hour ozone levels
that occur in the summer months, but
maintained that prevailing winds42 in
Oregon are predominantly from the
north to northwest.43 The state
indicated that prevailing summer winds
could theoretically result in some
interstate transport of ozone forming
emission from Oregon to western Idaho,
Nevada and northern California. It also
noted, however, that significant
distances and topography (such as major
mountain ranges that separate Oregon
from California, Idaho, and Nevada)
would likely minimize the significance
of these impacts on other states. It
pointed to, for example, the
approximately 400 to 700 miles distance
between the largest major urban center
in Oregon (the greater Portland area)
41 Oregon’s submission makes this conclusion
with respect to not only the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but also the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
42 This north/northwest prevailing wind direction
was derived from surface level winds and airport
data and is not necessarily indicative of the
prevailing wind direction of typical weather
systems in the west.
43 There are currently no 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas in Oregon or Washington.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19301
and urban areas in western Idaho,
Nevada, and northern California and at
least one major mountain range between
those areas.
Second, Oregon used AQS monitoring
data for 2006–2008 from other states in
its analysis. Oregon pointed out that
both PM2.5 and ozone design values in
all counties adjacent to Oregon are
below the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Oregon also consulted with
each of the state air agencies for
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and
California to get a sense of what the
local air agencies believe are the likely
causes of any air quality concerns for
maintaining compliance with the PM2.5
and ozone NAAQS. Based on these
consultations and the other information
above, Oregon concluded that emissions
from air pollution sources in Oregon do
not interfere with the maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in
other states.
Oregon also relied on information
about air stagnation conditions in other
states to support its assertions that
Oregon sources do not interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
other states. Oregon noted that stagnant
air conditions are associated with weak
transport and that high PM2.5
concentrations in adjacent states
typically occur under winter conditions
when air speeds are low and/or
localized air inversions occur. Oregon
also pointed to examples of where it has
collaborated with other states to
demonstrate its ability and willingness
to address problems involving interstate
transport. Examples included the
Portland-Vancouver 1-hour ozone
attainment and maintenance plans, and
Oregon’s regional haze plan. Oregon
described how in the mid-1990s and
again in 2007, ODEQ collaborated with
the Southwest Clean Air Agency (i.e.,
the State of Washington air agency with
jurisdiction over Vancouver) to develop
bi-state ozone attainment and
maintenance plans with emission
reduction strategies needed to attain and
maintain compliance with federal ozone
standards. In 2008–09, ODEQ worked
with the states of Washington, Idaho
and California, as well as Federal Land
Managers in developing Oregon’s
Regional Haze plan. Oregon described
how under that plan ODEQ adopted
several emission reduction strategies,
including emission control
requirements to reduce the interstate
transport of haze forming emissions.
Finally, Oregon pointed to its section
110 infrastructure SIP to show that
ODEQ has the ability to participate as
needed in future studies on regional air
pollution issues, or collaborate with
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
19302
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
other states if air quality concerns are
identified that require a case-specific
evaluation of interstate transport.
Oregon added that its infrastructure SIP
also ensures the legal mechanism for
ODEQ to take action as needed to
reduce emissions to help maintain
compliance with federal NAAQS.
EPA does not necessarily agree that
Oregon’s methodology is adequate for
purposes of a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
analysis. Therefore, EPA is
supplementing the State’s submission
with additional, and more recent,
information in order to assess this issue
more fully. As noted above, EPA is
evaluating the 2010 interstate transport
SIP taking into account methodologies
and analyses for the identification of the
receptor monitors that was developed in
the Transport Rule Proposal, as well as
EPA’s projections of future air quality at
monitors in western states in the Timin
Memo and preliminary air quality data
from monitors in the states bordering
Oregon. Although each of the factors
considered in the following analysis are
not in and of themselves determinative,
consideration of these factors together
provides a reliable qualitative
conclusion that emissions from Oregon
do not interfere with maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS at
monitors in other states.
2. Interfere With Maintenance
Evaluation for the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
As discussed above, in the Transport
Rule Proposal, EPA projected future
concentrations of ozone at monitors to
identify areas that are expected to be
violating the NAAQS or to have
difficulty maintaining compliance with
the NAAQS in 2012. For purposes of the
interference with maintenance
evaluation, EPA projected future
concentrations of ozone at monitors to
identify areas that are expected to have
a maximum design value (based on a
single 3-year period) that exceeds the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and EPA
anticipates that by 2012 these
maintenance receptors will have
difficulty in maintaining attainment of
the NAAQS if there are adverse
variations in meteorology or emissions.
To identify the states with emissions
that may cause interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS at
maintenance receptors, the Transport
Rule Proposal modeled the states’
contributions to ambient ozone levels at
these maintenance receptors.44 Because
the Transport Rule Proposal did not
identify the contribution of emissions
44 See
Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at
45253–45273.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
from Oregon (and other western states
not fully inside the Transport Rule
Proposal’s modeling domain) to 8-hour
ozone maintenance receptors in other
states, our assessment relies on a weight
of evidence approach that considers
relevant information from the Transport
Rule Proposal pertaining to states
within its modeling domain, and
additional information such as
geographical and meteorological factors,
EPA’s projections of future air quality at
monitors in western states in the Timin
Memo, and AQS monitoring data.
Although each of the factors considered
in the following analysis is not in and
of itself determinative, consideration of
these factors together supports a reliable
qualitative conclusion that emissions
from Oregon do not interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at monitors in other states.
Our analysis begins by assessing
Oregon’s contribution to the closest
maintenance receptors for the 1997 8hour ozone standard. The Transport
Rule Proposal identifies 16 maintenance
receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard within its modeling domain
(consisting of 37 states east of the Rocky
Mountains, and the District of
Columbia). Of these, the receptors
closest to Oregon are eight receptors in
the Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas in eastern Texas.
The remaining eight maintenance
receptors are located in Connecticut,
Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.45
As discussed above in section V.A.1,
the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston
areas are over 1200 miles from the
closest point on Oregon’s border. The
maintenance receptor monitors located
in Connecticut, Georgia, New York and
Pennsylvania are significantly further
away. Although distance alone is not
determinative in the analysis of
potential ozone transport, with
increasing distance there are greater
opportunities for ozone and NOX
dispersion and/or removal from the
atmosphere. Moreover, the intervening
Rocky Mountains act as a natural barrier
to air pollution transport. These factors
together support a conclusion that
emissions from Oregon sources do not
interfere with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the nearest
areas with monitors projected to violate
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as part
of the Transport Rule Proposal.
EPA’s analysis in the Timin Memo
identified four maintenance receptors
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
45 See
Transport Rule Proposal, Table IV.C–12, 75
FR 45210 at 45252–45253.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
southern and central California.46 The
closest 8-hour ozone maintenance
receptor to Oregon was in Placer
County, California. Placer County is
approximately 185 miles south of the
closest point on Oregon’s border and is
not in the predominant direction of
transport winds. As noted earlier,
prevailing winds generally move from
south-westerly, westerly, or
northwesterly directions, as indicated
by the typical movement of weather
systems. Given the relatively long
distance between Oregon and central
California, the intervening mountainous
topography, and the general direction of
west-to-east transport winds across
Oregon, it is reasonable to conclude that
Oregon sources do not interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in Placer County, California. It
is also reasonable to conclude that
emissions from sources in Oregon
would not have such impacts at other
identified maintenance receptor sites
that are in central or southern California
that are in the same direction and
further away from the Oregon border.
All of these factors taken together
supports a conclusion that emissions
from Oregon sources do not interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Finally, none of the ozone monitors in
Oregon have themselves indicated a
violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The absence of violations in
Oregon itself does not rule out the
possibility of transport, but taken in
conjunction with other relevant
information, including the distance
from Oregon to areas with design values
above the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and Pacific Northwest meteorology and
topography, this fact helps to support a
conclusion that there is no transport
from Oregon resulting in interference
with maintenance in another state.
Taking into account the total weight of
all of the factors discussed above, EPA
concludes that Oregon does not interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
3. Interference With Maintenance
Evaluation for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
The Transport Rule Proposal
identifies within its modeling domain
16 predicted future maintenance
receptors for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Of these, the closest to Oregon
are receptors located in Harris County,
Texas. Harris County, Texas, is over
1,400 miles from the closest point on
Oregon’s border and on the other side of
46 See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year
2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average
Ozone Design Values—Western States’’).
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the Rocky Mountains. Given the long
distance and intervening mountainous
topography between Oregon and this
area, it is reasonable to conclude that
there is a very low probability that
Oregon sources interfere with
maintenance in that area or at the other
identified maintenance sites east of
Harris County, Texas.47 EPA, therefore,
concludes that Oregon sources do not
interfere with maintenance of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in other states
within the geographic region covered by
the Transport Rule Proposal.
EPA’s analysis in the Timin Memo
identified Los Angeles County,
California, as the closest projected
maintenance receptor to Oregon’s
border. Los Angeles County is located
almost 500 miles south of the closest
point on Oregon’s border and is on the
other side of intervening mountain
ranges that act as a natural barrier to air
pollution transport. Although not
determinative by themselves, distance
and topography are not favorable to
PM2.5 transport from Oregon to central
California. In addition, prevailing winds
in the west generally move from southwesterly, westerly, or north-westerly
directions, as indicated by the typical
movement of weather systems. Given
the relatively long distance between
Oregon and Los Angeles County, the
intervening mountainous topography,
and the general westerly direction of
transport winds in the Western U.S., it
is reasonable to conclude that Oregon
sources do not interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in Los Angeles County or to
any more distant maintenance receptors
in central or southern California. EPA’s
analysis for the western states therefore
supports our proposal to conclude that
Oregon sources do not interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in any other states. Based on all
of these factors taken together, EPA
further believes it is reasonable to
conclude that Oregon emissions under
the SIP do not interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state.
The analysis for the Transport Rule
Proposal did not identify any
maintenance receptors for the 1997 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the portions of
the U.S. covered by the Transport Rule
Proposal modeling domain.48 Recent
monitoring data in EPA’s AQS Database
(2007–2009 design values that are under
final EPA review) indicate that the
47 Specifically, the remaining 15 maintenance
sites for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are located
in Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.
48 75 FR 45210 at 45249–45251 (August 2, 2010).
See also fn. 39 and fn. 47.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
highest 24-hour PM2.5 design value in
the 47 states of the continental U.S.
(excluding California) is 50 μg/m3,
which is well below the level of the
1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/
m3.49 For California, AQS data indicate
that only Kern County has a 24-hour
design value above the level of the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed
above, EPA believes that, based on the
relatively long distance between the
Oregon border and Kern County, the
intervening mountainous topography,
and the generally westerly direction of
transport winds in the Western U.S.,
emissions from Oregon sources do not
interfere with maintenance of the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Kern County.
4. Conclusion Regarding Interference
With Maintenance
Based on the weight of evidence,
including the location of the nearest
projected maintenance sites, taking into
account distance, meteorology,
topography, and recent air quality
monitoring data, as discussed above, we
propose to determine that Oregon’s 2010
interstate transport SIP is adequate and
that emissions from Oregon do not
interfere with maintenance in any other
state for the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with the
requirements of element (2) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Thus, we
propose to determine that Oregon’s SIP
contains adequate provisions necessary
to prevent such prohibited interstate
transport impacts for these NAAQS and
does not require any additional
measures for this purpose at this time.
VI. Proposed Action
In light of the data and the weight of
evidence analysis presented above, EPA
is proposing to approve revisions to the
Oregon SIP, submitted on June 23, 2010,
and December 23, 2010, and concludes
that for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, air pollutant emissions
from sources within Oregon do not
either (1) significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state; or (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any
other state.
As noted previously, EPA will
address element (3) interference with
any other state’s required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality and element (4), interference
with any other state’s required measures
to protect visibility, in a separate action.
EPA will also take action on the portion
of Oregon’s SIP that addresses the 2006
49 Data from EPA’s Air Quality System can be
viewed at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19303
PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
a separate action.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to 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 EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
19304
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
1. April 27, 2011: Midland, Texas.
2. April 28, 2011: Roswell, New
Mexico.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0041.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–
ES–2010–0041; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
Fish and Wildlife Service
Information Sessions and Hearings
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 30, 2011.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011–8330 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0041;MO
92210–0–0008]
RIN 1018–AV97
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Status for
Dunes Sagebrush Lizard
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period and announcement of
public hearings.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the December 14, 2010, proposed
rule to list the dunes sagebrush lizard
(Sceloporus arenicolus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We are reopening the
comment period to allow all interested
parties another opportunity to comment
on the proposed rule. Comments
previously submitted need not be
resubmitted and will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rule. We will also hold two public
informational sessions and hearings (see
DATES and ADDRESSES sections).
DATES: We will consider comments
received on or before May 9, 2011.
Comments must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
Any comments that we receive after the
closing date may not be fully considered
in the final decision on this action.
We will hold a public informational
session from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.,
followed by a public hearing from 6:30
p.m. to 8 p.m., on each of the following
dates:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:16 Apr 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
ADDRESSES:
The public informational sessions and
hearings will be held at the following
locations:
1. Midland, Texas: Midland Center &
Centennial Plaza, 105 N. Main Street,
Midland, Texas 79701.
2. Roswell, New Mexico: ENMU—
Roswell, Performing Arts Center, 64
University Blvd., Roswell, New Mexico
88202.
People needing reasonable
accommodations in order to attend and
participate in the public hearings
should contact Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,
at 505–761–4718 as soon as possible
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
In order to allow sufficient time to
process requests, please call no later
than one week before the hearing date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor,
New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque,
NM 87113; by telephone 505–761–4781
or by facsimile 505–346–2542. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
comment period for the proposed rule to
list the dunes sagebrush lizard
(Sceloporus arenicolus) that was
published in the Federal Register on
December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77801). We
intend that any final action resulting
from this proposed rule will be based on
the best scientific and commercial data
available and be as accurate and as
effective as possible. Therefore, we
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
request comments or information from
the public, other concerned government
agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or other interested parties
concerning this proposed rule. Verbal
testimony or written comments may
also be presented during the public
hearing. We will consider information
and recommendations from all
interested parties. We are particularly
interested in comments concerning:
(1) Information on the dunes
sagebrush lizard relevant to the factors
that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). These factors are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(2) Additional information concerning
the range, distribution, and population
size of this species, including the
locations of any additional populations
of this species.
(3) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of the
species.
If you submitted comments or
information on the proposed rule (75 FR
77801, December 14, 2010) during the
initial comment period from December
14, 2010, to February 14, 2011, please
do not resubmit them. We will
incorporate them into the public record
as part of this comment period, and we
will fully consider them in the
preparation of our final determination.
Our final determination will take into
consideration all written comments and
any additional information we receive
during both comment periods.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, such
as your street address, phone number, or
e-mail address, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold
this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing the proposed rule,
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19292-19304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8330]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0003; FRL-9291-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon;
Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for
the purpose of addressing the interstate transport provisions of Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air
[[Page 19293]]
Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
requires that each State have adequate provisions to prohibit air
emissions from adversely affecting air quality in other States through
interstate transport. EPA is proposing to approve Oregon's SIP revision
for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
these standards in any other State and to prohibit emissions that will
interfere with maintenance of these standards by any other State.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0003, by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-Mail: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
C. Mail: Donna Deneen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop: AWT-107, Seattle, WA
98101.
D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Attn: Donna Deneen (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101, 9th Floor. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of you comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, is not publicly available. 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 either electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours
at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington
98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, (206) 553-6706 or
deneen.donna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this notice, the words ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' means the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Table of Contents
I. What proposed action is EPA taking?
II. What is a SIP?
III. What is the background for this proposed action?
IV. What is the state process to submit these materials to EPA?
V. What is EPA's evaluation of the state's submission?
A. EPA's Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
1. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Evaluation for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
2. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Evaluation for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
3. Conclusion Regarding Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
B. EPA's Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
1. Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
2. Interference With Maintenance Evaluation for the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
3. Interference With Maintenance Evaluation for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
4. Conclusion Regarding Interference With Maintenance
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What proposed action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Oregon's Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS submitted by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on June 23, 2010.\1\
Specifically, we are proposing to approve the portion of the interstate
transport SIP revision that addresses the following elements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): (1) Significant contribution to nonattainment
of these NAAQS in any other state; and (2) interference with
maintenance of these NAAQS by any other state. EPA will address element
(3), interference with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration (PSD) of its air quality; and element (4),
interference with any other state's required measures to protect
visibility, in a separate action.\2\ This proposed action does not
address the requirements of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS; those standards will be addressed in future
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See transmittal letters dated June 23, 2010, from Joni
Hammond, Deputy Director, ODEQ, and December 23, 2010, from Dick
Pedersen, Director, ODEQ, to Dennis McLerran, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 10.
\2\ On March 8, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the Oregon
interstate transport SIP provisions addressing interference with any
other state's required measures to protect visibility. See 76 FR
12651 (March 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is a SIP?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires each state to develop a plan
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the NAAQS. EPA establishes NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA.
Currently, the NAAQS address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
The plan developed by a state is referred to as the SIP. The
content of the SIP is specified in section 110 of the CAA, other
provisions of the CAA, and applicable regulations. SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable measures
and various types of supporting information, such as emissions
inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide the air pollution
regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques
developed by the state to
[[Page 19294]]
ensure that the ambient air within that state meets the NAAQS. However,
another important aspect of the SIP is to ensure that emissions from
within the state do not have certain prohibited impacts upon the
ambient air in other states through interstate transport of pollutants.
This SIP requirement is specified in section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to
that provision, each state's SIP must contain provisions adequate to
prevent emissions that significantly contribute to violations of the
NAAQS in any other state, interfere with maintenance in any other
state, interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of its air quality, and interfere with any
other state's required measures to protect visibility.
States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain
circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these revisions to EPA for
approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.
III. What is the background for this proposed action?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
\3\ and fine particulate matter \4\ (PM2.5). This proposed
action is in response to the promulgation of these standards (the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 62 FR 38856. The level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
0.08 parts per million (ppm). 40 CFR part 50.10. The 8-hour ozone
standard is met when the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations is 0.08 ppm or less (i.e.,
less than 0.085 ppm based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part
50 Appendix I). This 3-year average is referred to as the ``design
value.''
\4\ See 62 FR 38652. The level of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS are 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (annual arithmetic mean concentration)
and 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (24-hour average concentration). 40 CFR part
50.7. The annual standard is met when the 3-year average of the
annual mean concentrations is 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ or less (i.e., less
than 15.05 [micro]g/m\3\ based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR
part 50 Appendix N Section 4.3). The 24-hour standard is met when
the 3-year average annual 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations
is 65 [micro]g/m\3\ or less (i.e., less than 65.5 [micro]g/m\3\
based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 40 Appendix N
Section 4.3). Id. These 3-year averages are referred to as the
annual PM2.5 and 24-hour PM2.5 ``design
values,'' respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address,
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA
issued a guidance memorandum that provides recommendations to states
for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
standards (2006 Guidance).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interstate transport SIP provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit
a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in
the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
identifies four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts
of interstate transport of air pollutants. In this rulemaking EPA is
addressing the first two elements of this subsection.
The first element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that a
state's SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate measures
to prohibit emissions from sources within the state that ``contribute
significantly'' to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. The
second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that a
state's SIP must prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in the state from emitting pollutants that will ``interfere
with maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
The CAA does not specifically mandate how to determine significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance.
Therefore, EPA has interpreted these terms in past regulatory actions,
such as the 1998 NOX SIP Call, in which EPA took action to
remediate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) that
significantly contributed to nonattainment of, or interfered with
maintenance of, the then applicable ozone NAAQS through interstate
transport of NOX and the resulting ozone.\6\ The
NOX SIP Call was the mechanism through which EPA evaluated
whether or not the NOX emissions from sources in certain
states had such prohibited interstate impacts, and if they had such
impacts, required the states to adopt substantive SIP revisions to
eliminate the NOX emissions, whether through participation
in a regional cap and trade program or by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA's general approach
to section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX SIP Call was upheld in
Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (DC Cir. 2000), cert denied, 532 U.S.
904 (2001). However, EPA's approach to interference with maintenance
in the NOX SIP Call was not explicitly reviewed by the
court. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 907-09 (DC Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA again recognized that regional transport
was a serious concern throughout the eastern United States and
therefore developed the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to
address emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX
that exacerbate ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels in many
downwind areas through interstate transport.\7\ Within CAIR, EPA
interpreted the term ``interfere with maintenance'' as part of the
evaluation of whether or not the emissions of sources in certain states
had such impacts on areas that EPA determined would either be in
violation of the NAAQS, or would be in jeopardy of violating the NAAQS,
in a modeled future year unless action were taken by upwind states to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions. Through CAIR, EPA
again required states that had such interstate impacts to adopt
substantive SIP revisions to eliminate the SO2 and
NOX emissions, whether through participation in a regional
cap and trade program or by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' at 70 FR 25162 at 25263-69 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2006 Guidance addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. For those states subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that compliance
with CAIR would meet the two requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for these NAAQS. For states outside of the CAIR region, the 2006
Guidance recommended various methods by which states might evaluate
whether or not their emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone or the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in another state. Among other methods, EPA recommended
consideration of available EPA modeling conducted in conjunction with
the CAIR, or in the absence of such EPA modeling, consideration of
other information such as the amount of emissions, the geographic
location of violating areas, meteorological data, or various other
forms of information that would be relevant to assessing the likelihood
of significant contribution to violations of the NAAQS in another
state.
The assessment of significant contribution to nonattainment is not
restricted to impacts upon areas that are formally designated
nonattainment. Consistent with EPA's approach in CAIR and recently in
the Transport Rule
[[Page 19295]]
Proposal, as discussed further below, this impact must be evaluated
with respect to monitors showing a violation of the NAAQS.\8\
Furthermore, although relevant information other than modeling may be
considered in assessing the likelihood of significant contribution to
nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state, EPA notes that no single piece of information is by itself
dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence
taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions to
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NOX SIP Call;
70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010),
Transport Rule Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for states not
within the CAIR region, EPA recommended that states evaluate whether or
not emissions from their sources would ``interfere with maintenance''
in other states following the conceptual approach adopted by EPA in
CAIR. After recommending various types of information that could be
relevant for the technical analysis to support the SIP submission, such
as the amount of emissions and meteorological conditions in the state,
EPA further indicated that it would be appropriate for the state to
assess impacts of its emissions on other states using considerations
comparable to those used by EPA ``in evaluating significant
contribution to nonattainment in the CAIR.'' \9\ EPA did not make
specific recommendations for how states should assess interference with
maintenance separately, and discussed the first two elements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) together without explicitly differentiating between
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 2006 Guidance at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that
CAIR and the related CAIR federal implementation plans were
unlawful.\10\ Among other issues, the court held that EPA had not
correctly addressed the second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
CAIR and noted that ``EPA gave no independent significance to the
`interfere with maintenance' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind
maintenance.'' \11\ EPA's approach, the court reasoned, would leave
areas that are ``barely meeting attainment'' with ``no recourse'' to
address upwind emissions sources.\12\ The court therefore concluded
that a plain language reading of the statute requires EPA to give
independent meaning to the interfere with maintenance requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and that the approach used by EPA in CAIR
failed to do so. In addition to affecting CAIR directly, the court's
decision in the North Carolina case indirectly affects EPA's
recommendations to states in the 2006 Guidance with respect to the
interfere with maintenance element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because
the agency's guidance suggested that states use an approach comparable
to that used by EPA in CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Circuit 2008).
\11\ 531 F.3d at 909.
\12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has recently proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport of air pollution pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule Proposal).\13\ As part of the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA
specifically reexamined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
that emissions from sources in a state must not ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other
states. In the proposal, EPA developed an approach to identify areas
that it predicts to be violating the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in the future, and areas that it predicts to be
close to the level of these NAAQS in the future and therefore at risk
to become nonattainment unless emissions from sources in other states
are appropriately controlled. This approach starts by identifying those
specific geographic areas for which further evaluation is appropriate,
and differentiates between areas where the concern is significant
contribution to nonattainment as opposed to interference with
maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in more detail below, EPA evaluated data from existing
monitors over three overlapping 3-year periods (i.e., 2003-2005, 2004-
2006, and 2005-2007), as well as air quality modeling data, in order to
determine which areas are predicted to be violating the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012, and which areas are predicted
potentially to have difficulty maintaining attainment as of that date.
In essence, if an area's projected data for 2012 indicates that it
would be violating the NAAQS based on the average of these three
overlapping periods, then this monitor location is appropriate for
comparison for purposes of the significant contribution to
nonattainment element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, however, an
area's projected data indicate that it would be violating the NAAQS
based on the highest single period, but not over the average of the
three periods, then this monitor location is appropriate for comparison
for purposes of the interfere with maintenance element of the
statute.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A memorandum in the docket for this action provides the
information EPA used to identify monitors that are receptors for
evaluation of significant contribution or interference with
maintenance for certain states in the western United States. See
Memorandum from Brian Timin, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, ``Documentation of Future Year Ozone and Annual
PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in Western States,''
August 23, 2010 (Timin Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this method, EPA has identified those areas with monitors that
are appropriate ``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance
receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from sources in
another state could significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance in, that particular area. EPA believes that
this approach for identifying areas that are predicted to be
nonattainment or to have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS, is
appropriate to evaluate a state's submission in relation to the
elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance.\15\
EPA's 2006 Guidance did not provide this specific recommendation to
states, but in light of the court's decision on CAIR, EPA will itself
follow this approach in evaluating the Oregon submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ To begin this analysis, EPA first identifies all monitors
projected to be in nonattainment or, based on historic variability
in air quality, projected to have maintenance problems in 2012.
Monitors projected to be in nonattainment are those with future year
design values that violate the standard, based on the projection of
5-year weighted average concentrations. Monitors projected to have
maintenance problems are those at risk of not staying in attainment
because the air quality data is close enough to the level of the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS that minor variations
in weather or emissions could result in violations of the NAAQS in
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the 2006 Guidance, EPA does not believe that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions from all states necessarily
need to follow precisely the same analytical approach of CAIR. In the
2006 Guidance, EPA stated that: ``EPA believes that the contents of the
SIP submission required by section 110(a)(2)(D) may vary, depending
upon the facts and circumstances related to the specific NAAQS. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
State develops and submits a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS necessarily
[[Page 19296]]
affects the contents of the required submission.'' \16\ EPA also
indicated in the 2006 Guidance that it did not anticipate that sources
in states outside the geographic area covered by CAIR were
significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, in other states.\17\ As noted in the Transport Rule
Proposal, EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious
transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically
distinct.\18\ For the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
believes that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the western
United States are relatively local in nature with only limited impacts
from interstate transport. In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA did not
calculate the portion of predicted ozone or PM concentrations in any
downwind state that would result from emissions from individual western
states, such as Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 2006 Guidance at 4.
\17\ Ibid. at 5.
\18\ See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 45227 (August
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP
submissions for states outside the geographic area of the Transport
Rule Proposal may be evaluated using a ``weight of the evidence''
approach that takes into account the available relevant information,
such as that recommended by EPA in the 2006 Guidance for states outside
the area affected by CAIR. Such information may include, but is not
limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS
in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the distance
from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that are
appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be probative to
consider whether sources in the state may significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions can
rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are
available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily
required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the
presence or degree of interstate transport in a given situation.
II. What is the state process to submit these materials to EPA?
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and
public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements
for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements
include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the
relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed
revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an
opportunity for a public hearing.
On June 23, 2010, and December 23, 2010, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a SIP revision to update
Oregon's infrastructure SIP for ozone and PM2.5. Included in
this submittal was a SIP revision entitled ``Oregon SIP Infrastructure
for Addressing the Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particulate
Matter'' to address the interstate transport SIP requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (2010 interstate transport SIP).\19\ ODEQ's June
23, 2010, submittal includes public process documentation for the 2010
interstate transport SIP submittal. In addition, the SIP revision
includes documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held on
December 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Oregon's submission addresses the interstate transport
requirements of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In this action, EPA is only taking action with respect
to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 and
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the process followed by ODEQ in adopting the 2010
interstate transport SIP complies with the procedural requirements for
SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations.
V. What is EPA's evaluation of the state's submission?
A. EPA's Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
This proposed approval evaluates the significant contribution to
nonattainment element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in several ways. It takes into
account Oregon's 2010 interstate transport SIP, in which the State
explains that based on meteorological and other characteristics in
Oregon and in the surrounding areas, PM2.5 and ozone
precursor emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly contribute
to violations of the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS in other
states.\20\ In addition, EPA has supplemented the State's analysis with
its own evaluation of the evidence, including a review of the nearest
monitors in other states that are appropriate nonattainment receptors,
in order to assess whether emissions sources in Oregon contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Oregon's submission makes this conclusion with respect to
not only the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but also
the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA has also reviewed recent ozone and PM2.5
monitoring data for the states bordering Oregon to consider whether
Oregon emissions could significantly contribute to violations of the
1997 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in those states.
1. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS
To address whether emissions from Oregon sources significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in another state,
the State argued in the 2010 interstate transport SIP that
meteorological and other characteristics of the Pacific Northwest
support a finding that emissions from Oregon sources do not
significantly contribute to violations of the PM2.5 or ozone
NAAQS in other states. Oregon pointed out that, in the Pacific
Northwest, exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard occur in the summer
months, and during that season the prevailing winds \21\ are
predominantly from the north to northwest and, consequently, preclude
any significant influence from Oregon on Washington ozone nonattainment
areas.\22\ While acknowledging the possibility that prevailing summer
winds could result in some interstate transport of ozone forming
emissions to western Idaho, Nevada and northern California, the State
asserted in the 2010 interstate transport SIP that significant
distances and topography (such as major mountain ranges that separate
Oregon from California, Idaho and Nevada) would likely minimize the
significance of these impacts on other states. Oregon gave as an
example the largest major urban center in Oregon (the greater Portland
area), which it estimated is 400 to 700 miles away from urban areas in
western Idaho, Nevada, and northern California, and is separated by at
least one major mountain range (the Cascades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This north/northwest prevailing wind direction was derived
from surface level winds and airport data and is not necessarily
indicative of the prevailing wind direction of typical weather
systems in the west.
\22\ Note that there are currently no ozone nonattainment areas
in Oregon or Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon also pointed to its section 110 infrastructure SIP to show
that ODEQ
[[Page 19297]]
has the ability to participate as needed in future studies on regional
air pollution issues, or collaborate with other states if air quality
concerns are identified that require a case-specific evaluation of
interstate transport, and also ensures the legal mechanism for ODEQ to
take action as needed to reduce emissions to help attain compliance
with Federal NAAQS.
Finally, the State explained that it consulted with air agencies in
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California and other agencies to
evaluate case-specific air quality problems that may involve regional
transport of air pollution. These staff-level communications indicated
no impacts on ozone concentrations in other states caused by transport
from the State of Oregon. The State added that if any future violations
of ozone standards occur, Oregon would work with other air agencies and
EPA as necessary to evaluate the role of interstate air pollution
transport. This consultation provided additional support for the
state's view that emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other
states.
Based on the information provided in its 2010 interstate transport
SIP, ODEQ concluded that emissions from air pollution sources in Oregon
do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in other states.
EPA does not necessarily agree that Oregon's methodology is
adequate for purposes of a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) analysis. Therefore,
EPA is supplementing the State's submission with additional, and more
recent, information in order to assess this issue more fully. As noted
above, EPA is evaluating the State's 2010 interstate transport SIP
taking into account methodologies and analyses for the identification
of receptor monitors that was developed in the Transport Rule Proposal,
as well as EPA's projections of future air quality at monitors in
western states in the Timin Memo, and preliminary air quality data from
monitors in the states bordering Oregon. Although each of the factors
considered in the following analysis are not in and of themselves
determinative, consideration of these factors together provides a
reliable qualitative conclusion that emissions from Oregon do not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at monitors in other states.
The Transport Rule Proposal includes an approach to determining
whether emissions from a state contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states.
Specifically, EPA used existing monitoring data to project future
concentrations of ozone at monitors to identify areas that are expected
to be violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2012, based on the 5-
year weighted average design value. We call these monitors
``nonattainment receptors.'' To identify the states with emissions that
may contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment in other states,
the Transport Rule Proposal models the states' contributions to ambient
ozone levels at these nonattainment receptors.\23\ Because the
Transport Rule Proposal does not model the contribution of emissions
from Oregon (nor other western states not fully inside the Transport
Rule Proposal's modeling domain) to 8-hour ozone nonattainment
receptors in other states, our assessment in this proposed action
relies on a weight of evidence approach that considers relevant
information from the Transport Rule Proposal pertaining to states
within its modeling domain, and additional material such as
geographical and meteorological factors, EPA's projections of future
air quality at monitors in western states in the Timin Memo, and AQS
monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 45253-45273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis begins by assessing Oregon's contribution to the
closest nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The
Transport Rule Proposal identifies within its modeling domain
(consisting of 37 states east of the Rocky Mountains, and the District
of Columbia) 11 nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Of these, the nonattainment receptors closest to Oregon are
seven receptors in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in eastern Texas. The remaining four
nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are in
Louisiana, New York, and Pennsylvania.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Transport Rule Proposal, Table IV.C-11, 75 FR 45210 at
45252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nonattainment receptors in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas
are over 1200 miles from the closest point on Oregon's border, and the
receptors in Louisiana, New York, and Pennsylvania are significantly
further away. Although distance alone is not determinative in the
analysis of potential ozone transport, with increasing distance there
are greater opportunities for ozone and NOX dispersion and/
or removal from the atmosphere due to the effect of winds or chemical
sink processes. Moreover, the intervening Rocky Mountains act as a
natural barrier to air pollution transport. These factors together
support a conclusion that Oregon sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
nearest areas with nonattainment receptors identified in the Transport
Rule Proposal.
To assist in the evaluation of the potential for ozone transport
among western states, EPA also developed an additional analysis in the
Timin Memo identifying monitors projected to record violations of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the western U.S. The Timin Memo identified
predicted future nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in southern and central California. This analysis did not,
however, identify any projected nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in any other western state.\25\ The nonattainment
receptor nearest to Oregon for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was
identified as Nevada County, California. Nevada County is approximately
170 miles south/southeast of the closest point on Oregon's border and
on the other side of intervening mountain ranges that act as a natural
barrier to air pollution transport. Although not determinative by
themselves, distance and topography are not favorable to 8-hour ozone
transport from Oregon to central California. In addition, prevailing
winds in the west generally move from south-westerly, westerly, or
north-westerly directions, as indicated by the typical movement of
weather systems. Hence central and southern California are not in the
predominant direction of winds from Oregon. Given the distance between
Oregon's border and central and southern California nonattainment
receptors, the intervening mountainous topography, and the general
direction of transport winds in the Western U.S., it is reasonable to
conclude that Oregon sources do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Nevada County or to any
more distant nonattainment receptors in California. EPA's analysis for
western states therefore supports our proposal to conclude that Oregon
sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Timin Memo at Appendix B (``Base year 2003-2007 and
Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average Ozone Design Values--Western
States'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the information in the 2010 interstate transport SIP
and EPA's projections of future air quality in the Transport Rule
Proposal and in the
[[Page 19298]]
Timin Memo, EPA also evaluated preliminary air quality monitoring data
for the areas in states bordering Oregon that are designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. While significant
contribution must be measured not just against designated nonattainment
areas but also against areas with monitors showing violations of the
NAAQS, nonattainment areas are a convenient point of analysis. Two
states bordering Oregon--California and Nevada--have areas currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In
California, the closest nonattainment area is Butte County, and in
Nevada, the closest nonattainment area is the Las Vegas area in Clark
County. EPA designated both of these areas as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2004. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004);
40 CFR 81.305 and 81.329. Both of these areas, however, have current
design values indicating attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our
review of preliminary monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period
available in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database indicates that the
8-hour ozone design values for Butte County and Las Vegas during this
period were 82 and 74 ppb, respectively.\26\ We therefore believe it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon sources are not contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Butte
County, California or Clark County, Nevada. The closest nonattainment
area to the Oregon border that had a design value above the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the 2007-2009 period was Nevada County, California. As
noted above, given the distance between the Oregon border and Nevada
County, the intervening mountainous topography, and the general
direction of transport winds in the Western U.S., it is reasonable to
conclude that Oregon sources do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Nevada County or to any more distant central or
southern California 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. There are no
designated nonattainment areas in Idaho and Washington for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. This is further support that Oregon sources do not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See EPA AQS, ``Preliminary Design Value Report,'' 2007-
2009, for Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also evaluated ozone monitoring data from the 2007-2009 period
from each of the ozone monitoring sites in Washington, Idaho, Nevada
and California, to determine whether the ozone levels in any of these
states violate the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\27\ We have identified no
design values above the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at any of the monitors
in Washington, Idaho, or Nevada, nor any indication that emissions from
Oregon sources contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in these adjacent states. Although AQS data for
California show 8-hour ozone design values above the 1997 NAAQS during
the 2007-2009 period, the closest monitor to Oregon that has a 2007-
2009 8-hour ozone design value above the 1997 NAAQS is located in
Nevada County. As noted above, given the distance between the Oregon
border and Nevada County, the intervening mountainous topography, and
the general direction of transport winds in the Western U.S., it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in Nevada County or to any more distant
central or southern California monitors. This is further support that
Oregon sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, none of the ozone monitors in Oregon have themselves
indicated a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The absence of
violations in Oregon itself does not rule out the possibility of
transport, but taken in conjunction with other relevant information,
including the distance from Oregon to areas with design values above
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and Pacific Northwest meteorology and
topography, this fact helps to support the conclusion that there is no
transport from Oregon resulting in significant contribution to
nonattainment in another state. Distance per se is also not an obstacle
to long range transport of ozone and its precursors, as discussed
above. However, with increasing distance there are greater
opportunities for ozone and NOX dispersion and removal from
the atmosphere due to the effects of winds and chemical sink processes.
In this context, the distance between Oregon sources and areas not
meeting the 8-hour ozone standard reduces, but does not exclude, the
possibility of significant contribution to nonattainment. Nevertheless,
the absence of violations in Oregon combined with the total weight of
all of the factors discussed above supports a conclusion that emissions
from its sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in
other states, in accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
2. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS
To address whether emissions from sources in Oregon significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
another state, the State argued in its 2010 interstate transport SIP
that meteorological and other characteristics of any areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the surrounding
states of Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California support a finding
that emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to
violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS or ozone NAAQS in other
states. Oregon explained that the closest nonattainment areas in
neighboring states are the Tacoma area (Pierce County) in Washington;
the Chico area (portions of Butte County) in California, and the Cache
Valley area in Southeast Idaho (portions of Cache County, Utah and
Franklin County, Idaho).\28\ Oregon argues that the area of highest
Oregon emission densities (Portland Metro area) is separated from these
PM2.5 nonattainment areas by significant distances and major
mountain ranges up to approximately 7000 feet. Oregon identifies one
exception--the Portland-Vancouver metro area, which shares a common air
shed between Oregon and Washington. Oregon, however, notes that both
Portland and Vancouver are in attainment with the PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Although the 2010 Interstate transport SIP identified these
areas as PM2.5 nonattainment areas, they are all 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas. There are no 1997
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Washington or Idaho, and the
closest 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area to Oregon is in
California (San Joaquin County). Oregon asserts that its evaluation
of more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment
areas is indicative of potential contribution to nonattainment of
the less stringent 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon described typical seasonal wind patterns during the winter
when PM2.5 levels are the highest. It noted that wind speeds
are typically variable with the majority of wind speeds occurring at
less than 8 miles per hour, and a significant portion of low winds at
less than 5 miles per hour. Oregon explained that these low wind speeds
and air stagnation conditions do not lend themselves to long distance
air pollution transport, and noted that the Portland area can
experience high wind speeds in the winter travelling through the
Columbia River Gorge east of Portland that are not conducive to the
buildup of air pollution. Oregon concluded that general meteorology
[[Page 19299]]
supports the conclusion that high winter time PM2.5 levels
in Pacific Northwest communities are typically dominated by local
emission sources.
Oregon also pointed to its section 110 infrastructure SIP to show
that ODEQ has the ability to participate as needed in future studies on
regional air pollution issues, or collaborate with other states if air
quality concerns are identified that require a case-specific evaluation
of interstate transport, and also ensures the legal mechanism for ODEQ
to take action as needed to reduce emissions to help attain compliance
with Federal NAAQS. Oregon stated that that high PM2.5
levels that threaten the NAAQS are investigated as needed to identify
contributing sources, including any potential role of interstate
transport.
Finally, the state explained that it had consulted with air
agencies in Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California and other
agencies to evaluate case-specific air quality problems that may
involve regional transport of air pollution. These staff-level
communications indicated no impacts on PM2.5 concentrations
in other states caused by transport from the state of Oregon, providing
additional support for the state's view that emissions from Oregon
sources do not significantly contribute to violations of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
Based on this and other information provided in its 2010 interstate
transport SIP, ODEQ concluded that emissions from air pollution sources
in Oregon do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
EPA does not necessarily agree that Oregon's methodology is
adequate for purposes of a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) analysis. Therefore,
EPA is supplementing the State's submission with additional, and more
recent, information in order to assess this issue more fully. As noted
above, EPA is evaluating the 2010 interstate transport SIP taking into
account methodologies and analyses for the identification of the
receptor monitors that was developed in the Transport Rule Proposal, as
well as EPA's projections of future air quality at monitors in western
states in the Timin Memo, and air quality data from monitors in the
states bordering Oregon. Although each of the factors considered in the
following analysis are not in and of themselves determinative,
consideration of these factors together provides a reliable qualitative
conclusion that emissions from Oregon do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS at monitors in other
states.
Specifically, we identified the nonattainment receptors for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS closest to Oregon to evaluate
whether emissions from Oregon sources contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state.\29\ For the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the projected
nonattainment receptors closest to Oregon that EPA identified from the
modeling analyses conducted for the Transport Rule Proposal are all
east of the Mississippi River.\30\ Given the significant distance
between Oregon and these nonattainment receptors and the intervening
mountainous terrain, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that
Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ For PM2.5, the Transport Rule Proposal
identified nonattainment receptors for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
See 75 FR 45210 at 45212. Because our proposal on Oregon's 2010
Interstate transport SIP addresses requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) only for purposes of the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, for PM2.5 purposes we consider
only the nonattainment receptors for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS identified in the Transport Rule Proposal.
\30\ Specifically, the nonattainment receptors for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard are located in Alabama, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia. See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 45247-45248
(August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the potential for PM2.5 transport among
western states, EPA also relied on the additional analysis in the Timin
Memo identifying monitors projected to record violations of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Timin Memo identified predicted
future nonattainment receptors for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in southern and central California but did not identify predicted
future nonattainment receptors for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in any other western state.\31\ For Oregon, the closest
nonattainment receptor in California for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS was Fresno County. Fresno County is over 300
miles south of the closest point on Oregon's border and is on the other
side of intervening mountain ranges that act as a natural barrier to
air pollution transport. Although not determinative by themselves,
distance and topography are not favorable to PM2.5 transport
from Oregon to central California. In addition, prevailing winds in the
west generally move from south-westerly, westerly, or north-westerly
directions, as indicated by the typical movement of weather systems.
Hence central and southern California are not in the predominant
direction of winds from Oregon. Given the distance between the Oregon
border and central and southern California nonattainment receptors, the
intervening mountainous topography, and the general westerly direction
of transport winds in the Western U.S., EPA concludes that Oregon
sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Fresno County or to any more distant
nonattainment receptors in California. EPA's analysis for western
states therefore supports our proposal to conclude that Oregon sources
do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Timin Memo at Appendix B (``Base year 2003-2007 and
Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average Ozone Design Values--Western
States'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis for the Transport Rule Proposal did not identify any
nonattainment receptors for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
the portions of the U.S. covered by the Transport Rule Proposal
modeling domain (i.e., the 12 km grid covering the continental U.S.
east of the Rockies).\32\ Recent monitoring data in EPA's Air Quality
System (2007-2009 design values) indicate that the highest 24-hour
PM2.5 design value in the 47 states of the continental U.S.
(excluding California) is 50 [mu]g/m\3\,\33\ which is well below the
level of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. In
California, 2007-2009 AQS data indicate that only one area, Kern
County, has a design value above the level of the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA believes that given the
relatively long distance between the Oregon border and Kern County, the
intervening mountainous topography, and the generally westerly
direction of transport winds in the Western U.S., emissions from Oregon
sources do not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in Kern County. These data and factors further
support our proposed finding that Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 75 FR 45210 at 45249-45251 (August 2, 2010).
\33\ These values were recorded at monitors in Liberty-Clairton,
Pennsylvania and Provo, Utah. See https://epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/PM2.5%202007-2009%20design%20value%20update.pdf. Data from EPA's Air
Quality System can be viewed at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the information in the 2010 interstate transport SIP
and our review of the nearest nonattainment receptors identified from
the modeling analyses conducted for the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA
evaluated air quality data for the areas in states bordering Oregon
that are designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
[[Page 19300]]
NAAQS. Although significant contribution must be measured not just
against nonattainment areas but also against areas with monitors
showing violations of the NAAQS, nonattainment areas are a convenient
point of analysis.
The closest 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area in any state
bordering Oregon is the San Joaquin Valley in California.\34\ This
nonattainment area is located in central California and is over 250
miles from the closest point on Oregon's border and on the other side
of intervening mountain ranges that act as a natural barrier to air
pollution transport. In addition, prevailing winds in the western U.S.
generally move from south-westerly, westerly, or north-westerly
directions, as indicated by the typical movement of weather systems.
Hence, Joaquin Valley, California, is not in the predominant direction
of winds from Oregon. Given the relatively long distance between Oregon
and the San Joaquin Valley, the intervening mountainous topography, and
the general direction of transport winds in the Western U.S., EPA
believes that Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area or to any more distant California 1997
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. There are no areas in Idaho and
Washington currently designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This is further support that Oregon sources do
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In 2005, EPA designated this area nonattainment for
violations of the 1997 and annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 944
(January 5, 2005), and 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not located in a state bordering Oregon, the closest
designated nonattainment area to Oregon for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS is Libby, in Lincoln County, Montana.\35\ In 2005, EPA designated
this area nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 70
FR 944 (January 5, 2005) and 40 CFR 81.327. A number of factors provide
evidence that Oregon emissions do not significantly contribute to past
violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standards in Libby,
Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Libby is in a narrow valley surrounded by mountains 4,000
feet higher than the town. The Rocky Mountain Range to the west of
Libby (and east of the Idaho border) reaches summit elevations of
12,000 feet with most summit elevations between 6000 and 7000 feet
that act as a barrier to air movement between Idaho and Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, in the process of designating Libby nonattainment for both
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA noted the predominantly local origins of PM2.5
nonattainment in Libby.36 37 Residential wood-burning stoves
during the winter-time, when frequent and persistent temperature
inversions occurred, were specifically identified as a key source of PM
emissions. The fact that nonattainment in a given area is primarily the
result of local emissions sources does not, however, exclude the
possibility of significant contribution to nonattainment from
interstate transport. EPA believes that other evidence supports the
conclusion that emissions from Oregon sources are not significantly
contributing to violations in Libby, Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality Fine
Particle (PM2.5) Designations,'' (for Montana) Chapter 6,
pp. 347-352, December 2004.
\37\ ``Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality Fine
Particle (PM2.5) Designations,'' (for Montana) Chapter
4.8.1, pp. 1-15, December 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, monitoring data from 1999 through 2009 from areas outside
of Libby in Montana support a determination that Oregon does not
significantly contribute to nonattainment in Libby. At all other sites
in Montana, annual PM2.5 design value levels have remained
below the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ nonattainment threshold. Annual
PM2.5 design values for this period for most of these
monitors remained at levels equal to, or less than, two-
