[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30200-30202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12662]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0329, FRL-9928-32-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: 
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Lead and 2010 Nitrogen 
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a submittal by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) 
demonstrating that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead 
(Pb) on October 15, 2008, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 
January 22, 2010. Specifically, Ecology conducted an emissions 
inventory analysis and reviewed monitoring data to show that sources 
within Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or 
interfere with maintenance, of the Pb and NO2 NAAQS in any 
other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0329, by any of the following methods:
     Email: [email protected].
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, 
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-
2015-0329. 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 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which 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 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 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 
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 
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: Jeff Hunt at: (206) 553-0256, 
[email protected], 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. Analysis of the State's Submittal
    A. 2008 Pb NAAQS
    B. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008 (73 FR 66964) and January 22, 2010 (75 FR 
6474), the EPA revised the Pb and NO2 NAAQS, respectively. 
Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, 
states must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 
110(a)(1) and (2), often referred to as ``infrastructure'' 
requirements. On May 11, 2015, Ecology submitted a SIP revision 
including an emissions inventory and monitoring data analysis to 
demonstrate that sources within Washington do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the Pb 
and NO2 NAAQS in any other state to address the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for those pollutants.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Washington's May 11, 2015 submittal also included an 
interstate transport analysis for the ozone standard promulgated by 
the EPA in 2008. The EPA is not acting on the ozone interstate 
transport analysis at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity within a state from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 
other state.

A. 2008 Pb NAAQS

    State submittal: Washington's submittal cites the EPA's guidance to 
address Pb infrastructure SIP elements under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2).\2\

[[Page 30201]]

The EPA's Pb infrastructure guidance states, ``[t]he physical 
properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from experiencing the same travel 
or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. More specifically, 
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse 
fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, 
while it may be possible for a source in a state to emit Pb in a 
location and in quantities that may contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state, 
EPA anticipates that this would be a rare situation, e.g., where large 
sources are in close proximity to state boundaries.'' The Pb 
infrastructure guidance also notes, ``EPA's experience with initial 
lead designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tpy 
[tons per year] or that are located more than 2 miles from a state 
border generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in another state.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. 1.) ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for 
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' 
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14, 
2011, and 2.) ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, 
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to evaluate possible emissions impacts in neighboring 
states, Ecology reviewed the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 
for facilities located in all Washington counties within 2 miles of the 
state border reporting lead emissions. As shown in table A1 of 
Washington's submittal, all of these facilities had Pb emissions of 
0.16 tpy or less. Based on this information, Ecology determined that 
these sources are unlikely to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in another state.
    Similarly, Ecology reviewed the 2011 National Emissions Inventory 
(NEI) for all facilities in the State reporting Pb emissions above 0.5 
tpy. These facilities were Auburn Municipal Airport (0.61 tpy), Saint-
Gobain Containers, Inc. (0.54 tpy), and Harvey Field Airport (0.54 
tpy). All three of these sources with Pb emissions above 0.5 tpy are 
located over 100 miles from the neighboring Idaho and Oregon borders. 
Because of the considerable distance to state borders, Ecology also 
determined that these sources are unlikely to contribute significantly 
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in another state.
    EPA analysis: In addition to reviewing Ecology's analysis, the EPA 
also reviewed current monitoring data for the Pb NAAQS.\3\ To identify 
nonattainment receptors for the purpose of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA reviewed the most recent monitoring data 
available (2011-2013) and found that the closest monitor violating the 
Pb NAAQS was San Mateo, California, located approximately 600 miles 
from the Washington border. For the purpose of evaluating 
``interference with maintenance'' for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
the EPA identified maintenance receptors as any monitor that violated 
the Pb NAAQS in either of the prior two monitoring cycles (2009-2011 
and 2010-2012), but attained in the most recent monitoring cycle (2011-
2013). The EPA reviewed the 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 Pb 
monitoring data and found no areas that would be considered a 
maintenance receptor. The EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude 
that emissions from Washington sources do not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in 
any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    State submittal: Ecology's submittal noted there is no EPA guidance 
suggesting how to approach a technical analysis for NO2 
interstate transport. Based on a review of other state submittals, 
Ecology examined ambient air quality data for NO2 monitors 
in states bordering Washington (Idaho, Oregon), and identified monitors 
within a 50 kilometer radius of the border, the standard distance for 
modeling analysis (see 79 FR 25066, May 2, 2014, for the EPA's 
NO2 interstate transport analysis for New York). Using this 
methodology, Ecology identified one monitor meeting the criteria. This 
monitor is located in Multnomah County, Oregon with design values in 
2009-2011 = 36 parts per billion (ppb), 2010-2012 = 34 ppb, and 2011-
2013 = 34 ppb, all well below the 2010 NO2 1-hour NAAQS of 
100 ppb. The next closest NO2 monitor is located in Ada 
County, Idaho, outside the 50 kilometer radius of the Washington 
border, with 98th percentile highest daily maximum 1-hour averages of 
44 ppb in 2012 and 39 ppb in 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Because the Ada County monitor was recently established it 
does not yet have three years of complete data to calculate a design 
value for comparison to the NAAQS, however the annual values to date 
are well below the 100 ppb 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. For 
more information on this monitor please see http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/1118299/annual-ambient-aq-monitoring-network-plan-1114.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology also supplemented the monitoring data with an emissions 
inventory analysis showing on-road mobile sources comprising 57% of 
total emissions, with the next two largest source categories being non-
road mobile sources = 11% and point sources = 9% of emissions in 
Washington State in 2011. Finally, Ecology used the Motor Vehicle 
Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) to demonstrate that the model predicts 
dramatic reductions in on-road and non-road mobile source 
NO2 emissions from 2000 through 2020 in Washington.
    EPA analysis: In addition to reviewing Ecology's analysis, the EPA 
also reviewed monitoring data for all NO2 monitors in the 
United States.\5\ During the monitoring periods of 2009-2011, 2010-
2012, and 2011-2013, the EPA found no monitors violating the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS. Similar to the methodology described above for 
determining Pb maintenance receptors, the EPA identified NO2 
maintenance receptors as any monitor that violated the NO2 
NAAQS in either of the prior two monitoring cycles (2009-2011 and 2010-
2012), but attained in the most recent monitoring cycle (2011-2013). 
Using this methodology, the EPA found no receptors meeting the criteria 
as a maintenance receptor. Based on this monitoring data, the EPA 
believes it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Washington 
sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere 
with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA has reviewed the May 11, 2015 submittal from Ecology 
demonstrating that sources in Washington do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the Pb 
and NO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA is proposing to find 
that the Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS.

IV. 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 
proposed action merely approves the state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by the state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

[[Page 30202]]

     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 the requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide 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).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and 
is also not approved to apply 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. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust 
land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, 
also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians 
Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided 
state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on 
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA 
policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup 
Tribe in a letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a 
request for consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-12662 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P