[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:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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,
[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. 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