30200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Washington’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. 

2Stephen 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, 

(2) First in time request. 

(3) An eligible person’s clinical need. 

(4) An eligible person’s inability to 

transport him or herself (e.g., visual 

impairment, immobility, etc.). 

(5) An eligible person’s eligibility for 

other transportation services or benefits. 

(6) The availability of other 

transportation services (e.g., common 

carriers, veterans’ service organizations, 

etc.). 

(7) The VA facility’s ability to 

maximize the use of available resources. 

(The Office of Management and Budget 

has approved the information collection 

requirements in this section under 

control number XXXX–XXXX.) 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111A, 501) 

[FR Doc. 2015–12724 Filed 5–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

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: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• 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, hunt.jeff@

epa.gov, 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

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


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30201 

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. 

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

4Because 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-monitoringnetwork-plan-1114.pdf. 5http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

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.’’ 

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. 

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

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. 

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: 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 25 and 52 

[FAR Case 2014–018; Docket No. 2014– 

0018; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AN07 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

Contractors Performing Private 

Security Functions 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to remove 

the distinction between DoD and nonDoD agency areas of operation 

applicable for the use of FAR clause 

‘‘Contractors Performing Private 

Security Functions Outside the United 

States’’ and provide a definition of ‘‘full 

cooperation’’ within the clause. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at one of the 

addresses shown below on or before 

July 27, 2015 to be considered in the 

formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2014–018 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2014–018’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2014– 

018’’. Follow the instructions on the 

screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 

2014–018’’ on your attached document. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 

1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20405–0001. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2014–018’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael O. Jackson, Procurement 

Analyst, at 202–208–4949 for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite 

FAR Case 2014–018. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 862 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2008 (Pub. L. 110–181) (as 

amended by other NDAAs, see 10 U.S.C. 

2302 Note), is implemented at FAR 

section 25.302 and the clause at 52.225– 

26, both entitled ‘‘Contractors 

Performing Private Security Functions 

Outside the United States,’’ in FAC 

2005–67, issued June 21, 2013. These 

FAR changes regarding private security 

contractors were effective on July 22, 

2013 (see 78 FR 37670) and are 

applicable to distinct operational areas 

for DoD contracts versus non-DoD 

contracts. 

Pursuant to section 862, DoD issued 

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 3020.50, 

‘‘Private Security Contractors (PSCs) 

Operating in Contingency Operations, 

Humanitarian or Peace Operations, or 

Other Military Operations or Exercises,’’ 

which establishes policy, assigns 

responsibilities, and provides 

procedures for the regulation of the 

selection, accountability, and conduct of 

personnel performing private security 

functions under a covered DoD contract. 

This DoDI was amended on August 1, 

2011 to expand applicability of DoD’s 

policies regarding private security 

contracts to peace operations or other 

military operations or exercises, when 

designated by the Combatant 

Commander. 

Instead of amending FAR 25.302 and 

52.225–6 to expand the applicability for 

DoD contracts, this rule proposes to 

remove the distinction between DoD 

and non-DoD applicable areas of 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS