[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27528-27533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11075]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0446; FRL-9910-82-Region-10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27529]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a portion of the State Implementation Plan submittal from the
State of Oregon to address Clean Air Act interstate transport
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The Clean Air Act requires that each State Implementation
Plan contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will
have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is
proposing to determine that Oregon's existing State Implementation Plan
contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Oregon do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0446, by any of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Dr. Karl Pepple, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 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: Dr. Karl
Pepple, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. 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-
2011-0446. 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 whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means 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: Dr. Karl Pepple at (206) 553-1778,
[email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to mean the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS
C. Guidance
II. The State Submittal
III. The EPA Evaluation
A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising
the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).
The interstate transport provisions in Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each
state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that prohibits
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements
related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state
lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two elements of
this section, specified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state. We previously published a notice
approving the Oregon SIP for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on
August 1, 2013 (78 FR46514).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA has previously addressed the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\2\ The EPA published the
final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) to address the
first two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern
portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to
replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was
judicially
[[Page 27530]]
remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule, see EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering
the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April
29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C.
Circuit's ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in the Transport Rule.
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-1182, 572 U.S. ---- slip
op. (2014).The State of Oregon was not covered by either CAIR or the
Transport Rule, and the EPA made no determinations in either rule
regarding whether emissions from sources in Oregon significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
\3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, see
the July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Guidance
On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\4\ With respect to the
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions
that would contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
any other state, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance essentially reiterated the recommendations for western states
made by the EPA in previous guidance addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance advised states outside of the CAIR region to
include in their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs adequate technical
analyses to support their conclusions regarding interstate pollution
transport, e.g., information concerning emissions in the state,
meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted
states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not
attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling.\6\ With
respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must
address this independent requirement of the statute and provide
technical information appropriate to support the state's conclusions,
such as information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient concentrations in the state and in potentially impacted states,
and air quality modeling. See footnotes 5 and 6. In this action, the
EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to evaluating
interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
that the EPA explained in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
the EPA believes that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the
western United States are generally relatively local in nature with
only limited impacts from interstate transport. The EPA believes that
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Oregon may be
evaluated using a ``weight of the evidence'' approach that takes into
account available relevant information. Such information may include,
but is not limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to
the NAAQS in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the
distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that
are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be
probative to consider whether sources in the state may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions
can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are
available, but the EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily
required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the
presence or degree of interstate transport in a specific situation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
\5\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
\6\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance states that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR
to address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and
to provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements related
to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It also notes that states could
not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule
did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance at 4.
\7\ See ``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance,'' issued September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The 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, the State of Oregon submitted a SIP revision to
update the State's SIP for ozone and PM2.5. The State's SIP
submittal cover letter indicated the SIP revision included the ``Oregon
SIP Infrastructure for Addressing the Interstate Transport of Ozone and
Fine Particulate Matter'' to address the interstate transport SIP
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS (2010 Interstate Transport SIP). The State's
June 28, 2010 submittal included public process documentation for the
2010 Interstate Transport SIP, including documentation of a duly
noticed public hearing held on December 22, 2009. The State
subsequently notified the EPA that a clerical error was made and that
the 2010 Interstate Transport SIP had not been attached to the June 28,
2010, cover letter. The State transmitted the 2010 Interstate Transport
SIP to the EPA on December 23, 2010. The State then transmitted a
letter to the EPA on March 14, 2011, confirming that the 2010
Interstate Transport SIP was submitted for purposes of meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
2008 ozone NAAQS.
We find that the process followed by the State in adopting the 2010
Interstate Transport SIP complies with the procedural requirements for
SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA's implementing
regulations.
To address whether emissions from sources in Oregon significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006
[[Page 27531]]
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, the State stated in
the 2010 Interstate Transport SIP that meteorological and other
characteristics of any areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the surrounding states of Washington,
Idaho, Nevada, and California support a finding that emissions from
Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to violations of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. The State
explained that the closest 2006 24-hour PM2.5 designated
nonattainment areas in neighboring states are the Tacoma area (Pierce
County) in Washington; the Chico area (portions of Butte County) in
California; and the Cache Valley area in Southeast Idaho (portions of
Cache County, Utah and Franklin County, Idaho). Oregon stated that the
area of highest Oregon emission densities (Portland Metro area) is
separated from these 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas
by significant distances and major mountain ranges up to approximately
7000 feet. The State identified one exception--the Portland, Oregon-
Vancouver, Washington metro area, which shares a common air shed
between Oregon and Washington. Oregon noted however that both Portland,
Oregon and Vancouver, Washington are in attainment with the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Additionally, the State described typical wind patterns during the
winter when PM2.5 levels are the highest. It noted that the
majority of wind speeds occur at less than eight miles per hour, and a
significant portion of low winds occur at less than five miles per
hour. The State explained that these low wind speeds and air stagnation
conditions do not lend themselves to long distance air pollution
transport. The State concluded that general meteorology supports the
conclusion that high winter time PM2.5 levels in Pacific
Northwest communities are typically dominated by local emission
sources.
Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP also pointed to its CAA
section 110 infrastructure SIP to demonstrate that Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has the ability to participate as needed
in future studies on regional air pollution issues, can collaborate
with other states if air quality concerns are identified that require a
case-specific evaluation of interstate transport, and has the legal
mechanism to take action as needed to reduce emissions to help attain
compliance with Federal NAAQS. Oregon stated that that high
PM2.5 levels that threaten the NAAQS are investigated as
needed to identify contributing sources, including any potential role
of interstate transport.
Finally, the State explained that it had 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 PM2.5 concentrations
in other states caused by transport from Oregon.
Based on the information provided in its 2010 Interstate Transport
SIP, the State concluded that emissions from air pollution sources in
Oregon do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
III. The EPA Evaluation
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, the EPA must determine whether a state's emissions
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in other states. If this factual finding is in the
negative, then CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any
changes to a state's SIP. Consistent with the EPA's approach in the
1998 NOX SIP Call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 Transport
Rule, the EPA is evaluating these impacts with respect to specific
monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance
problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' See footnote 2.
This proposed approval addresses the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
several ways. The EPA notes that no single piece of information is by
itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the
evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions
to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. Our proposed approval takes
into account Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP which explains that
meteorological and other characteristics in Oregon and in the
surrounding areas reduce the likelihood that emissions from sources in
Oregon contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind
state. In addition, we are supplementing the evaluation of the State's
submittal with a review of the monitors in other states that are
appropriate ``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors''
and additional technical information to consider whether sources in
Oregon contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a more detailed
evaluation and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking,
which may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-
R10-OAR-2011-0446. Below is a summary of our analysis.
A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
The EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three
overlapping three-year periods (i.e., 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and 2010-
2012) to determine which areas were violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty
maintaining attainment. If a monitoring site measured a violation of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent three-
year period (2010-2012), then this monitor location was evaluated for
purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other hand, a monitoring
site shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during
the most recent three-year period (2010-2012) but a violation in at
least one of the previous two three-year periods (2008-2010 or 2009-
2011), then this monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the
interference with maintenance element of the statute.
The State of Oregon was not covered by the original modeling
analyses conducted for the CAIR and the Transport Rule. The approach
described above is similar to the approach utilized by the EPA in
promulgating the CAIR and the Transport Rule. By this method, the EPA
has identified those areas with monitors to be considered
``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating
whether the emissions from sources in another state could significantly
contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that
particular area.
B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
The EPA reviewed Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP and
additional technical information to evaluate the potential for
emissions from sources in Oregon to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at specified
monitoring
[[Page 27532]]
sites in the western United States.\8\ The EPA first identified as
``nonattainment receptors'' all monitoring sites in the western states
that had recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the years
2010-2012.\9\ See Section III of the TSD for more a more detailed
description of the EPA's methodology for selection of nonattainment
receptors. All of the nonattainment receptors identified in western
states are in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah. Because geographic
distance is a relevant factor in the assessment of potential pollution
transport, the EPA focused its review on information related to
potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from Oregon to
nonattainment receptors in the states bordering Oregon: Idaho and
California.\10\ \11\ As detailed in the TSD, the EPA believes that the
following factors support a finding that emissions from Oregon do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in these states: (1) Technical information
indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels at nonattainment
receptors are predominantly caused by local emission sources and (2)
air quality data indicating that regional background levels of
PM2.5 are generally low during the time periods of elevated
PM2.5 at these receptors. In addition, as detailed in the
TSD with respect to California, technical information indicating that
the dominant air flows across California are from the west to the east
additionally supports a finding that emissions from Oregon do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA has also considered potential PM2.5 transport
from Oregon to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors
located in the eastern, midwestern, and southern states covered by
the Transport Rule and believes it is reasonable to conclude that,
given the significant distance from Oregon to the nearest such
receptor (in Illinois) and the relatively insignificant amount of
emissions from Oregon that could potentially be transported such a
distance, emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same
factors also support a finding that emissions from Oregon sources
neither contribute significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any
location further east. See TSD at Section II.C.
\9\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR at this time and thus could be considered in this analysis.
\10\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Oregon emissions onnonattainment
receptors within Oregon.
\11\ Washington and Nevada have no nonattainment receptors. See
TSD at Table III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western state of Utah. The
EPA believes that the following factors support a finding that
emissions from Oregon do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) The significant
distance from Oregon to the nonattainment receptors in Utah, (2)
technical information indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels
at nonattainment receptors in Utah are predominantly caused by local
emission sources, and (3) air quality data indicating that regional
background levels of PM2.5 are generally low during the time
periods of elevated PM2.5 at Utah receptors.
Based on this evaluation of Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
and additional technical information, the EPA proposes to conclude that
emissions from sources in Oregon do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state.
C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
The EPA reviewed Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP and
additional technical information to evaluate the potential for Oregon
emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the western
United States. The EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors''
all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2008-2010 and/or
2009-2011 periods but below this standard during the 2010-2012 period.
See section III of the TSD for more information regarding the EPA's
methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the
maintenance receptors in the western states are located in California,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The EPA focused its
evaluation of the potential for transport of Oregon emissions to the
maintenance receptors located in three states bordering Oregon:
California, Nevada, and Washington.\12 13\ As detailed in the TSD, the
EPA believes that the following factors support a finding that
emissions from sources in Oregon do not interfere with maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in these border states: (1)
Technical information indicating that elevated 24-hour PM2.5
levels at these maintenance receptors are predominantly caused by local
emission sources, and (2) air quality data indicating that regional
background levels of PM2.5 are generally low during the time
periods of elevated 24-hour PM2.5 at these receptors. In
addition, with respect to California, technical information indicating
that elevated 24-hour PM2.5 levels at the maintenance
receptors are predominantly caused by local emission sources and that
the dominant air flows across California are from the west to the east
additionally supports a finding that emissions from sources in Oregon
do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As this analysis is focused on interstate transport, the
EPA did not evaluate the impact of Oregon emissions on maintenance
receptors within Oregon.
\13\ Idaho has no maintenance receptors. See TSD at Table
III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also evaluated the potential for transport of Oregon
emissions to maintenance receptors in the more distant states of
Montana and Utah. As detailed in the TSD, the EPA believes that the
following factors support a finding that emissions from sources in
Oregon do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in these more distant states: (1) The
significant distance from the Oregon to the maintenance receptors in
these states, (2) technical information indicating that elevated 24-
hour PM2.5 levels at these maintenance receptors are
predominantly caused by local emission sources, and (3) air quality
data indicating that regional background levels of PM2.5 are
generally low during the time periods of elevated 24-hour
PM2.5 at these receptors.
Based on this evaluation of Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
and additional technical information, the EPA proposes to conclude that
emissions from sources in Oregon do not interfere with maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the SIP revision
submitted by the State of Oregon on June 28, 2010 that addresses the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to
determine that Oregon's existing State Implementation Plan contains
adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Oregon do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard in any other state. This action
[[Page 27533]]
is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
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 Act 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);
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 Clean Air Act; 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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not 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, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-11075 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P