Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Interstate Transport of Ozone, 65680-65683 [2015-27165]

Download as PDF 65680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not cause or permit the emission of SO2 from stack SV001 (serving Units 1 and 2) to exceed 0.050 lbs/MMBTU as a 30day rolling average. (2) On and after the 30-boileroperating-day period ending on May 31, 2017, the owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not cause or permit the emission of SO2 from Unit 3 to exceed 0.29 lbs/ MMBTU as a 30-day rolling average. (3) The owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall operate continuous SO2 emission monitoring systems in compliance with 40 CFR part 75, and the data from this emission monitoring shall be used to determine compliance with the limits in this paragraph (e). (4) For each boiler operating day, compliance with the 30-day average limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section shall be determined by summing total emissions in pounds for the period consisting of the day and the preceding 29 successive boiler operating days, summing total heat input in MMBTU for the same period, and computing the ratio of these sums in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is used to mean a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted the entire 24-hour period. A boiler operating day with respect to the limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall be a day in which fuel is combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2. Bias adjustments provided for under 40 CFR part 75 appendix A shall be applied. Substitute data provided for under 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall not be used. [FR Doc. 2015–27168 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259; FRL–9936–16Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Interstate Transport of Ozone Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On June 28, 2010, the State of Oregon made a submittal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2015–0259, by any of the following methods: • https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: R10-Public_Comments@ epa.gov. • Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT— 150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. 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–2015– 0259. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows: Table of Contents I. Background II. State Submittal III. EPA Evaluation IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These subelements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States in several past regulatory actions.1 We most recently promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States.2 CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality standards, but did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.3 In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state’s contribution to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state’s contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state was not considered ‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state’s emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one percent was appropriate.4 The EPA evaluated the comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if 1 NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); X Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 2 76 FR 48208. 3 CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 4 CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA’s analysis showed that the onepercent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be excluded.5 In addition, the EPA determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels.6 The EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in modest increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very small impact on those receptors— an indicator that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.’’ 7 In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.8 The projected contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the onepercent threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was 5 See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, Appendix F; Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. 6 CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 2011). 7 Id. 8 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 65681 appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.9 II. State Submittal 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. The 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, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing. On June 28, 2010, Oregon made a submittal to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone NAAQS. The Oregon submittal included public process documentation on the interstate transport submittal, including a duly noticed public hearing held on December 22, 2009. Oregon subsequently notified the EPA that a clerical error was made and that all interstate transport SIP documents had not been attached to the June 28, 2010 cover letter. The State transmitted the remaining documents to the EPA on December 23, 2010. We find that the process followed by Oregon in adopting the SIP submittal complies with the procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA’s implementing regulations. With respect to the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the Oregon submittal stated that the area of highest Oregon emission densities (Portland metropolitan area) is separated from the nearest ozone nonattainment areas (in Nevada and California) by significant distances and major mountain ranges up to approximately 7,000 feet. The submittal noted that the Portland metropolitan area shares a common airshed with Vancouver, Washington metropolitan area. This bi-state airshed historically violated the one-hour ozone standard and emissions in the area have been managed under the Portland-Vancouver ozone maintenance plan. The PortlandVancouver area is in attainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Oregon submittal stated that meteorology and prevailing wind direction, the effect of significant topography on transport of pollutants, and characteristics of emissions sources 9 Id. E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1 65682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS in states bordering Oregon that are experiencing ozone attainment problems (California and Nevada) support a finding that emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of, the 2008 ozone NAAQS in these nearby states. The Oregon submittal also asserted that the Oregon SIP provides authority to participate in regional air planning, collaborate with other states as necessary to address regional ozone issues should they arise, and control emissions from Oregon sources if necessary. The Oregon submittal also stated that Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 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 Oregon, and the submittal stated that this provided additional support for Oregon’s assertion that emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other states. III. EPA Evaluation On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.10 The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 10 See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting technical support documents have been included in the docket for this SIP action. The modeling data released in the NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most upto-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For purposes of evaluating Oregon’s interstate transport SIP with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that states whose contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors are considered nonsignificant. The modeling indicates that Oregon’s largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.65 ppb and Oregon’s largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.65 ppb.11 These values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages between Oregon and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites. Note that the EPA has not done an assessment to determine the applicability of the one percent screening threshold for western states that contribute above the one percent threshold. There may be additional considerations that may impact regulatory decisions regarding ‘‘potential’’ linkages in the west identified by the modeling. IV. Proposed Action As discussed in Section II, Oregon concluded based on its own technical analysis that emissions from the State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. The EPA’s modeling, discussed in Section III, confirms this finding. Based on the modeling data and the information and analysis provided in Oregon’s June 28, 2010 submittal, we are proposing to approve the submittal for purposes of meeting the CAA section 11 80 PO 00000 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3. Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA’s modeling confirms the results of the State’s analysis: Oregon does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et se.); • 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 se.); • 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 it does not involve technical standards; and • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: October 15, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2015–27165 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 55 [EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0568; FRL–9917–70– Region 3] Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for Maryland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (COA), as mandated by the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the Act). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which Maryland is the designated COA. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is taking this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by November 27, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2014–0568 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0568, Dave Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 0568. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If 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 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 65683 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 is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathleen Van Osten, (215) 814–2746, or by email at vanosten.cathleen@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register publication. Dated: March 10, 2015 William C. Early, Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on October 21, 2015. [FR Doc. 2015–27159 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 150902807–5949–01] RIN 0648–BE99 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Vessel Register Required Information, International Maritime Organization Numbering Scheme National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65680-65683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27165]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0259; FRL-9936-16-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: 
Interstate Transport of Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions 
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
June 28, 2010, the State of Oregon made a submittal to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. 
The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the 
requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0259, by any of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (AWT--150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin 
Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. 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-
2015-0259. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at 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 email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through https://www.regulations.gov your email address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and 
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 
be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, 
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
    Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within 
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs 
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' 
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on 
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are 
four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action

[[Page 65681]]

addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, 
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each 
SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the 
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly 
to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable 
air quality standard in any other state. We note that the EPA has 
addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States in 
several past regulatory actions.\1\ We most recently promulgated the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States.\2\ 
CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality standards, but 
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \2\ 76 FR 48208.
    \3\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 
fine particulate matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine 
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality 
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution 
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state 
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly 
contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's 
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality 
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions 
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe 
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to 
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of 
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of 
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether 
one percent was appropriate.\4\ The EPA evaluated the comments received 
and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low 
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, 
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a 
higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the 
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of 
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's 
analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high 
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, 
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger 
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent 
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting 
downwind receptors would be excluded.\5\ In addition, the EPA 
determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent 
threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with 
ambient ozone even at low levels.\6\ The EPA also determined that a 
lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in modest increases in 
the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution 
transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent 
level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to 
emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that 
individually have a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator 
that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air 
quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that 
selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.'' 
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \5\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, Appendix F; Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.
    \6\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a 
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple 
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low 
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's 
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single 
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\8\ The projected contribution from 
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled 
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded 
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold 
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was 
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, 
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any 
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. State Submittal

    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. The 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, a public comment period of at least 30 
days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    On June 28, 2010, Oregon made a submittal to address the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone 
NAAQS. The Oregon submittal included public process documentation on 
the interstate transport submittal, including a duly noticed public 
hearing held on December 22, 2009. Oregon subsequently notified the EPA 
that a clerical error was made and that all interstate transport SIP 
documents had not been attached to the June 28, 2010 cover letter. The 
State transmitted the remaining documents to the EPA on December 23, 
2010. We find that the process followed by Oregon in adopting the SIP 
submittal complies with the procedural requirements for SIP revisions 
under CAA section 110 and the EPA's implementing regulations.
    With respect to the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
the Oregon submittal stated that the area of highest Oregon emission 
densities (Portland metropolitan area) is separated from the nearest 
ozone nonattainment areas (in Nevada and California) by significant 
distances and major mountain ranges up to approximately 7,000 feet. The 
submittal noted that the Portland metropolitan area shares a common 
airshed with Vancouver, Washington metropolitan area. This bi-state 
airshed historically violated the one-hour ozone standard and emissions 
in the area have been managed under the Portland-Vancouver ozone 
maintenance plan. The Portland-Vancouver area is in attainment with the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The Oregon submittal stated that meteorology and prevailing wind 
direction, the effect of significant topography on transport of 
pollutants, and characteristics of emissions sources

[[Page 65682]]

in states bordering Oregon that are experiencing ozone attainment 
problems (California and Nevada) support a finding that emissions from 
Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or 
interfere with maintenance of, the 2008 ozone NAAQS in these nearby 
states. The Oregon submittal also asserted that the Oregon SIP provides 
authority to participate in regional air planning, collaborate with 
other states as necessary to address regional ozone issues should they 
arise, and control emissions from Oregon sources if necessary.
    The Oregon submittal also stated that Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality 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 Oregon, and the 
submittal stated that this provided additional support for Oregon's 
assertion that emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in any other states.

III. EPA Evaluation

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR 
approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\10\ The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 
ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by 
this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient 
ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for 
the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone 
concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated 
state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This 
modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx 
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base 
case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and 
maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 
used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx 
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 
base case nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 
projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a 
modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and 
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting 
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this 
SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of 
the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport 
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in the NODA on July 23, 2015, is the 
most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our 
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For 
purposes of evaluating Oregon's interstate transport SIP with respect 
to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that states 
whose contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors are considered non-significant. The modeling 
indicates that Oregon's largest contribution to any projected downwind 
nonattainment site is 0.65 ppb and Oregon's largest contribution to any 
projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.65 ppb.\11\ These values 
are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and 
therefore there are no identified linkages between Oregon and 2017 
downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites. Note that the 
EPA has not done an assessment to determine the applicability of the 
one percent screening threshold for western states that contribute 
above the one percent threshold. There may be additional considerations 
that may impact regulatory decisions regarding ``potential'' linkages 
in the west identified by the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 80 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section II, Oregon concluded based on its own 
technical analysis that emissions from the State do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
ozone standard in any other state. The EPA's modeling, discussed in 
Section III, confirms this finding. Based on the modeling data and the 
information and analysis provided in Oregon's June 28, 2010 submittal, 
we are proposing to approve the submittal for purposes of meeting the 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone 
standard. The EPA's modeling confirms the results of the State's 
analysis: Oregon does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other 
state.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et se.);
     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 se.);
     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 it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

[[Page 65683]]

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-27165 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.