[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12849-12851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05557]



[[Page 12849]]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0050; FRL-9943-59-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: 
Interstate Transport of Lead and Nitrogen Dioxide

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 air emissions 
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
October 20, 2015, 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 
requirements that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen 
dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0050, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from http://www.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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically at 
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, Washington 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.

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and 
secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) 
to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964, published November 12, 2008). On 
January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 NAAQS at 
100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour, supplementing the 
existing annual standard (75 FR 6474, published February 9, 2010).
    The CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised 
standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) address basic SIP 
requirements, including but not limited to emissions inventories, 
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the 
standards--so-called infrastructure requirements. To help states meet 
this statutory requirement, the EPA issued infrastructure guidance for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\1\ Subsequently, on September 13, 2013, the EPA 
issued updated infrastructure guidance for multiple standards, 
including the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. ``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.
    \2\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. ``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 1-10, 
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the 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 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.

II. State Submittal

    On October 20, 2015, Oregon made a submittal to address the 
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 
multiple NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 
NAAQS. We note that this action addresses the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb 
and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS only. We intend to address the 
remainder of the Oregon submittal, including requirements related to 
the 2010 one hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS and the 2012 annual fine 
particulate matter NAAQS in separate, future actions.
    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. The Oregon submittal 
included public process documentation, including a duly-noticed public 
hearing held on August 18, 2015. 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.

III. EPA Evaluation

A. 2008 Pb NAAQS

    The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011 infrastructure

[[Page 12850]]

guidance, that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from 
experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as fine particulate 
matter 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 or interfere with maintenance of the 
standard in another state, the EPA anticipates that this would be a 
rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to 
state boundaries. The EPA's experience with initial Pb designations 
suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per year or that are 
located more than two miles from a state border generally appear 
unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state.
    As recommended by the EPA's guidance, Oregon evaluated whether 
large sources of Pb are located in close proximity to the border that 
have emissions such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in neighboring 
states. The state identified no sources of Pb emissions in Oregon 
greater than 0.5 tons per year that are also located within two miles 
of the border. The submittal also included a review of data from Pb 
monitors in bordering states and trends in monitored values in Oregon 
and bordering states.
    Compliance with the Pb NAAQS is measured by comparing the maximum 
rolling three-month average, over a three-year period, to the level of 
the NAAQS. This statistic represents the design value at a specific 
monitor. Oregon found that, for the design value period of 2011 through 
2013, the only monitors violating the Pb NAAQS in a state bordering 
Oregon were those monitors located in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San 
Mateo, California. Oregon concluded that it is unlikely that sources in 
Oregon will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state.
    We reviewed the Oregon submittal with respect to Pb and we agree 
with the state's conclusion. 2011 national emissions inventory data 
confirm that there are no Oregon sources identified that emit 0.5 tons 
per year or more of Pb that are also located within two miles of the 
Oregon border.\3\ We also reviewed the most recent data on ambient Pb 
levels in neighboring states--that became available after Oregon 
conducted its analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2012 through 2014 design value period we found that, for 
the purposes of evaluating significant contribution to nonattainment, 
there are only two violating monitors in states that border Oregon.\4\ 
These monitors are located in San Mateo and San Diego, California, and 
are approximately 300 and 600 miles from the Oregon border, 
respectively. We also reviewed data for the previous two design value 
periods--2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 2013--for purposes of 
evaluating interference with maintenance. We identified one monitor in 
a bordering state that violated the 2008 Pb NAAQS in these previous 
periods, but attained the standard in the most recent period of 2012 
through 2014. This monitor is located in Los Angeles, California--
approximately 500 miles from the Oregon border. In all instances, none 
of these monitors are within sufficient proximity to Oregon to suggest 
that Pb emissions from Oregon will contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any 
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to potential new sources of Pb, we reviewed provisions 
in the Federally-approved Oregon SIP designed to control emissions of 
Pb. Oregon generally regulates new sources of Pb through its pre-
construction and operating permit regulations for stationary sources. 
Oregon's pre-construction permitting rules are found at Oregon 
Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 224--New Source Review. 
Oregon's Federally-enforceable state operating permit program is found 
at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 216--Air 
Contaminant Discharge Permits. These rules are designed to ensure that 
new or modified stationary sources will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of the applicable NAAQS.
    Based on the Oregon submittal and our review of more recent 
monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, we believe it is 
reasonable to conclude that Oregon emissions will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
Pb NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP 
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2008 Pb NAAQS.

B. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    In the submittal, Oregon reviewed monitoring data and trends to 
evaluate whether emissions in Oregon significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour 
NO2 NAAQS in other states. Compliance with the one hour 
NO2 NAAQS is determined by comparing the annual 98th 
percentile of the daily maximum one hour concentration values, averaged 
over three consecutive years to the level of the NAAQS. This statistic 
represents the design value at a specific monitor. Oregon found no 
violations of the one hour NO2 NAAQS at any established 
monitoring sites in the United States--for the design value period 2011 
through 2013. Oregon also reviewed monitoring data from bordering 
states. The highest design value was 73 ppb at the San Diego, 
California, monitor--well below the 100 ppb level of the standard. 
Oregon asserted that a review of daily maximum one hour NO2 
concentrations at monitors in Washington, California, Idaho and Nevada 
also indicate trends well below the standard.
    With respect to potential new emissions, Oregon cited provisions in 
the Oregon SIP that require review of new and modified stationary 
sources prior to construction. Planned new and modified major sources 
in attainment and unclassifiable areas must conduct air quality 
analyses to demonstrate that new emissions, along with emissions from 
existing sources, will not cause or contribute to a violation of any 
applicable standard. Based on ambient air monitoring data and 
provisions in the Oregon SIP that regulate new sources, Oregon 
determined that it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from 
sources in Oregon will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.
    We reviewed the Oregon submittal with respect to NO2 and 
we agree with the state's conclusion. We also reviewed the most recent 
data on ambient NO2 levels in neighboring states--that 
became available after Oregon conducted its analysis.
    For the purpose of evaluating significant contribution to 
nonattainment, we reviewed design values for the period 2012 through 
2014 and found no monitors violating the one hour NO2 NAAQS 
in the United States.\5\ We also reviewed data for the previous two 
design value periods--2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 2013--to

[[Page 12851]]

evaluate interference with maintenance. We found no monitors violating 
the one hour NO2 NAAQS in these previous periods, as well. 
Further, monitored values are well below 100 ppb in states bordering 
Oregon--63 ppb was the highest design value for 2012 through 2014, at 
the Los Angeles, California, monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We also reviewed provisions in the Federally-approved Oregon SIP 
designed to control emissions of NOX--of which 
NO2 is a subset. Oregon generally regulates emissions of 
NOX through its pre-construction permitting and operating 
permit regulations. Oregon's pre-construction permitting rules are 
found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 224--New 
Source Review. Oregon's Federally-enforceable state operating permit 
program is found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 
216--Air Contaminant Discharge Permits. These rules are designed ensure 
that new or modified stationary sources will not cause or contribute to 
a violation of the applicable NAAQS.
    Based on the Oregon submittal and our review of more recent 
monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, we believe it is 
reasonable to conclude that Oregon emissions will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 
one hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to 
approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the Oregon submittal for the purposes 
of meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 
requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS. We 
intend to address the remainder of the submittal with respect to the 
2010 one hour sulfur dioxide and 2012 annual fine particulate matter 
NAAQS in separate, future actions.

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 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 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).

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, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 2, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-05557 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P