Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5, 34094-34096 [2018-15353]

Download as PDF 34094 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 [NPS–AKRO–25874; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000] RIN 1024–AE38 National Park Service, Interior. Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. ACTION: (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 94 and MM 95 above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA. (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on October 6, 2018. (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or 67. (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 36 CFR Part 13 AGENCY: § 165.T08–0619 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 95, New Orleans, LA. [FR Doc. 2018–15439 Filed 7–18–18; 8:45 am] National Park Service Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves—Extension of Public Comment Period 2. Add § 165.T08–0619 to read as follows: ■ Dated: July 12, 2018. Kristi M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The National Park Service is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves in Alaska. Extending the comment period for 45 days will allow more time for the public to review the proposal and submit comments. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23621), is extended. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on September 6, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE38, by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. • Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must include the words ‘‘National Park Service’’ or ‘‘NPS’’ and must include the docket number or RIN (1024–AE38) for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https:// www.regulations.gov and enter ‘‘1024– AE38’’ in the search box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herbert C. Frost, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644–3510. Email: AKR_ Regulations@nps.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 22, 2018, the National Park Service (NPS) published in the Federal Register (83 FR 23621) a proposed rule to amend SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves in Alaska. This proposed rule would remove a regulatory provision issued by the NPS in 2015 that prohibited certain sport hunting practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. These proposed changes are consistent with Secretary of the Interior Orders 3347 and 3356. The public comment period for this proposal is scheduled to close on July 23, 2018. In order to give the public additional time to review and comment on the proposal, the NPS is extending the public comment period for 45 days until September 6, 2018. If you already commented on the proposed rule you do not have to resubmit your comments. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director. [FR Doc. 2018–15420 Filed 7–18–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–EJ–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0505; FRL–9981– 01—Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve the submission 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 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in any other state. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2018–0505 at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553– 0256; email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: Table of Contents sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS I. What is the background of this SIP submission? II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission? III. The EPA’s Review IV. What action is the EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of this SIP submission? This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) assessing interstate transport requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must submit within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof), a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ submission must address. The EPA commonly refers to such state plans as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, which requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission? The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, titled ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (memorandum). The memorandum describes the EPA’s past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides the EPA’s general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The memorandum provides information relevant to the EPA regional office review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided in that memorandum. The memorandum also provides states and the EPA regional offices with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum describes how these projected potential design values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The memorandum explains that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 34095 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in the memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However, there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The memorandum also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including the latest available data should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported emissions. This rulemaking considers analysis in Oregon’s submission, as well as additional analysis conducted by the EPA during review of its submission. For more information on how we conducted our analysis, please see the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action. III. The EPA’s Review This rulemaking proposes action on Oregon’s October 20, 2015, SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State plans must address specific requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs’’), including: —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong one); and —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong two). The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the relevant NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 34096 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules maintenance of the relevant NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.1 In its submission, ODEQ reviewed air quality monitoring data for several surrounding western states to identify potential downwind receptors that may have problems attaining or maintaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. ODEQ then reviewed geographical distance, topography, meteorology (local stagnation events), air monitoring trends, industrial source emissions near the state border, and Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) modeling to determine if emissions from Oregon may impact these specific areas. From this analysis and consultation with neighboring state air agencies, ODEQ concluded that Oregon does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. As discussed in the TSD for this action, we came to the same conclusion as the state. In our evaluation, potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors were identified in other states. The EPA evaluated these potential receptors to determine first if, based on review of relevant data and other information, there would be downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems, and if so, whether Oregon contributes to such problems in these areas. After reviewing air quality reports, modeling results, designation letters, designation technical support documents, attainment plans and other information for these areas, we find there is no contribution sufficient to warrant additional SIP measures. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 1 Oregon was not part of the CSAPR rulemaking. The EPA approved the Oregon SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33650) and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2313). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 IV. What action is the EPA taking? The EPA is proposing to approve ODEQ’s October 20, 2015, submission certifying that the Oregon SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above. The EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval. 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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 3, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2018–15353 Filed 7–18–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 74 [MB Docket No. 18–119; DA 18–669] FM Translator Interference: Media Bureau Grants Extension of Time To File Comments and Reply Comments Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. AGENCY: This document announces that the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission granted the Motion for Extension of Time to extend the comment and reply comment deadlines, filed by Beasley Media Group, LLC; Educational Media Foundation; Gradick Communications, LLC; iHeart Communications, Inc.; Neuhoff Corp.; Radio One Licenses, LLC/Urban One, Inc.; and Withers Broadcasting Companies (Petitioners), in MB Docket 18–119. DATES: Comments may be filed on or before August 6, 2018, and reply comments may be filed on or before September 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, by any of the following methods: SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34094-34096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15353]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0505; FRL-9981-01--Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that 
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submission to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. 
The EPA is proposing to approve the submission 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 2012 annual fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in any 
other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0505 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be

[[Page 34095]]

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office 
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 
553-0256; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary 
information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this 
SIP submission?
III. The EPA's Review
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Oregon Department 
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) assessing interstate transport 
requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises 
from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 
states must submit within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof), a plan 
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make 
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is 
not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating 
a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. The EPA 
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.'' 
Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the requirements under CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' 
provision, which requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.

II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP 
submission?

    The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on 
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good 
Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (memorandum). The memorandum describes the EPA's 
past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides the 
EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality 
projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 
The memorandum provides information relevant to the EPA regional office 
review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' 
provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided 
in that memorandum.
    The memorandum also provides states and the EPA regional offices 
with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in 
the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient 
monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum describes how 
these projected potential design values can be used to help determine 
which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address 
whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The memorandum explains that the 
pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing 
interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the 
attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 
classified as Moderate.
    Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in the 
memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located 
in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However, 
there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one 
potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The memorandum 
also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient 
monitoring data, additional information including the latest available 
data should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential 
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported 
emissions.
    This rulemaking considers analysis in Oregon's submission, as well 
as additional analysis conducted by the EPA during review of its 
submission. For more information on how we conducted our analysis, 
please see the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket 
for this action.

III. The EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on Oregon's October 20, 2015, SIP 
submission addressing the good neighbor provision requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State plans must address specific 
requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as 
``prongs''), including:

--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one 
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong one); and
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one 
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state 
(prong two).

    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the 
prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The 
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind 
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining 
the relevant NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to 
these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further 
review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to 
downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions 
necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to 
nonattainment or interfering with

[[Page 34096]]

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are 
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS downwind, reducing 
the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and 
enforceable measures. This framework was applied with respect to 
PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 
designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, 
as well as the 1997 ozone standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Oregon was not part of the CSAPR rulemaking. The EPA 
approved the Oregon SIP as meeting the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33650) and the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2313).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submission, ODEQ reviewed air quality monitoring data for 
several surrounding western states to identify potential downwind 
receptors that may have problems attaining or maintaining the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. ODEQ then reviewed geographical distance, 
topography, meteorology (local stagnation events), air monitoring 
trends, industrial source emissions near the state border, and Western 
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) modeling to determine if emissions from 
Oregon may impact these specific areas. From this analysis and 
consultation with neighboring state air agencies, ODEQ concluded that 
Oregon does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    As discussed in the TSD for this action, we came to the same 
conclusion as the state. In our evaluation, potential downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors were identified in other 
states. The EPA evaluated these potential receptors to determine first 
if, based on review of relevant data and other information, there would 
be downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems, and if so, whether 
Oregon contributes to such problems in these areas. After reviewing air 
quality reports, modeling results, designation letters, designation 
technical support documents, attainment plans and other information for 
these areas, we find there is no contribution sufficient to warrant 
additional SIP measures. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 
Oregon SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate transport 
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve ODEQ's October 20, 2015, submission 
certifying that the Oregon SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically 
prongs one and two, as set forth above. The EPA is requesting comments 
on the proposed approval.

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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-15353 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.