32870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the small business entities affected by 

the amendments, the cost is neutral 

because it does not change the cost per 

year of accreditation or renewal, but in 

only potentially the year in which 

renewal takes place. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (codified 

at 2 U.S.C. 1532) does not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes 

of congressional review of agency 

rulemaking under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–121). 

Executive Order 12866 

The Department of State has reviewed 

this proposed rule to ensure its 

consistency with the regulatory 

philosophy and principles set forth in 

Executive Order 12866 and has 

determined that the benefits of this final 

regulation justify its costs. The 

Department does not consider this 

rulemaking to be an economically 

significant action under the Executive 

Order. The proposed rule will not add 

any new legal requirements to Part 96; 

it merely adds administrative flexibility 

to the work of the Departmentdesignated accrediting entity. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: 

Federalism 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Nor will it have 

federalism implications warranting the 

application of Executive Orders 12372 

and No. 13132. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department has reviewed the 

proposed rule in light of Executive 

Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, 

minimize litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Executive Order 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

The Department has considered this 

proposed rule in light of Executive 

Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, 

and affirms that it is consistent with the 

guidance therein. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

information collection requirements 

subject to the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 96 

Adoption, Child welfare, Children, 

Immigration, Foreign persons, 

Accreditation, Approval. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of State 

proposes to amend 22 CFR part 96 as 

follows: 

PART 96—INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION 

ACCREDITATION OF AGENCIES AND 

APPROVAL OF PERSONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 96 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: The Convention on Protection 

of Children and Co-operation in Respect of 

Intercountry Adoption (done at the Hague, 

May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105–51 (1998), 

1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); 

The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 42 

U.S.C. 14901–14954; The Intercountry 

Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 

2012, Pub. L. 112–276, 42 U.S.C. 14925. 

■ 2. Revise § 96.60 to read as follows: 

§ 96.60 Length of accreditation or approval 

period. 

(a) The accrediting entity will accredit 

or approve an agency or person for a 

period of four years, except as provided 

in § 96.60(b). The accreditation or 

approval period will commence on the 

date that the agency or person is granted 

accreditation or approval. 

(b) In order to stagger the renewal 

requests from agencies and persons 

applying for accreditation or approval 

and to prevent the renewal requests 

from coming due at the same time, the 

accrediting entity may extend the period 

of accreditation it has previously 

granted for no more than one year and 

such that the total period of 

accreditation does not exceed five years, 

as long as the agency or person remains 

in substantial compliance with the 

applicable standards in subpart F of this 

part. The only agencies and persons that 

may qualify for an extension are: 

(1) Those that have no pending 

Complaint Registry investigations or 

adverse actions (see § 96.70); and 

(2) Those that have not undergone a 

change in corporate or internal structure 

(such as a merger or change in chief 

executive or financial officer) during 

their current accreditation or approval 

period. For agencies and persons that 

meet these two criteria, the Secretary, in 

his or her discretion, may consider 

additional factors in deciding upon an 

extension including, but not limited to, 

the agency’s or person’s volume of 

intercountry adoption cases in the year 

preceding the application for renewal or 

extension, the agency’s or person’s state 

licensure record, and the number of 

extensions available. 

Dated: June 2, 2015. 

Michele T. Bond, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Consular 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14066 Filed 6–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0330; FRL–9928–95– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

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 May 11, 2015, the State 

of Washington submitted a SIP revision 

to the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to address these interstate 

transport requirements with respect to 

the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is 

proposing to find that Washington has 

adequately addressed certain CAA 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 10, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0330, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, 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: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, AWT—150. Such deliveries 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32871 

1This 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 addressed 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in a final action dated May 12, 2015 

(80 FR 27102). 

2See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

3CAIR 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, please see our July 

30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 

44552). 

4EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S.Ct. 1584 (2014). 

5USCA Case #11–1302, Document # 1518738, 

Filed 10/23/2014. 

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– 

0330. 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: 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 

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. State Submittal 

III. 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 

NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to the EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The EPA 

refers to these specific submittals as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were 

due on September 21, 2009. CAA 

section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan 

submission’’ must meet. 

The interstate transport provisions in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require 

each state to submit a 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. 

The first element of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS 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’’ of the 

NAAQS in another state. The second 

element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires that each SIP contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in the 

state from emitting air 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 addressed the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory 

actions.2 The EPA promulgated the final 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(Transport Rule) to address 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 

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 DC 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). The 

Court also ordered the EPA to continue 

implementing CAIR in the interim. 

However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. 

Supreme Court reversed and remanded 

the DC Circuit’s ruling and upheld the 

EPA’s approach in the Transport Rule 

for the issues that were in front of the 

Supreme Court for review.4 On October 

23, 2014, the DC Circuit lifted the stay 

on the Transport Rule.5 While our 

evaluation is consistent with the 

Transport Rule approach, the State of 

Washington was not covered by either 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

7See 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. 

8See 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. 

9The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance stated that EPA was working on a new 

rule to replace CAIR that would address issues 

raised by the Court in the North Carolina case and 

that would 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 noted 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. 

10The Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate 

Transport submittal only addressed the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 

requirements of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA 

previously addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate action 

(May 12, 2015, 80 FR 27102). In addition, we 

previously approved the Washington SIP for 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS on January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1591). Finally, 

Washington did not submit a CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which the State intends to 

address in a future action. 

CAIR or the Transport Rule, and the 

EPA made no determinations in either 

rule regarding whether emissions from 

sources in Washington significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, nor did 

it attempt to quantify Washington’s 

obligation.6

C. Guidance 

On September 25, 2009, the EPA 

issued a guidance memorandum that 

addressed 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’’).7 With respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

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.8

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.9 With respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that state SIPs contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that would interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by 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) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to Washington that the EPA 

explained in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. The 

EPA believes that the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

Washington for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS 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 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, 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 may rely on modeling 

when acceptable modeling technical 

analyses are available, but if not 

available, other available information 

can be sufficient to evaluate the 

presence or degree of interstate 

transport in a specific situation for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For further 

explanation of this approach, see the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

the docket for this action. 

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 May 11, 2015, Washington 

submitted a SIP to address the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (Washington 2006 PM2.5

Interstate Transport submittal).10 The 

Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate 

Transport submittal included 

documentation of a public comment 

period from March 9, 2015 through 

April 10, 2015, and opportunity for 

public hearing. We find that the process 

followed by Washington 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 requirement in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the 

Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate 

Transport submittal referred to the 

applicable rules in the Washington SIP, 

meteorological and other characteristics 

of areas with nonattainment problems 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

surrounding states, and Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) data from the 

regional haze program that provides 

additional information on how 

Washington sources influence 

monitored PM2.5 levels in National 

Parks and wilderness areas surrounding 

Washington to assess potential interstate 

transport. The Washington submittal 

concluded that, based on the weight of 

the evidence, the Washington SIP 

adequately addresses the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. A detailed discussion of 

the Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate 

Transport submittal can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

the docket for this action. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32873 

11The EPA has also considered potential PM2.5

transport from Washington 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 Washington to the nearest such 

receptor (in Illinois) and the relatively insignificant 

amount of emissions from Washington that could 

potentially be transported such a distance, 

emissions from Washington 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 

Washington 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. 

12Because CAIR did not cover states in the 

western United States, these data are not 

significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR at the 

time and thus could be considered in this analysis. 

13As this analysis is focused on interstate 

transport, the EPA did not evaluate the impact of 

Washington emissions on nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors within Washington. 

are satisfied, the EPA must determine 

whether a state’s emissions will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance 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. 

With respect to this proposed action, 

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 

action takes into account the 

Washington 2006 PM2.5 Interstate 

Transport submittal, a supplemental 

evaluation of monitors in other states 

that are appropriate ‘‘nonattainment 

receptors’’ or ‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ 

and a review of monitoring data 

considered representative of 

background. Based on the analysis in 

our TSD in the docket for this action, we 

believe that it is reasonable to conclude 

that emissions from sources in 

Washington do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

The EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping threeyear periods (i.e., 2009–2011, 2010– 

2012, and 2011–2013) to determine 

which areas were violating the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas 

might have difficulty maintaining the 

standard. If a monitoring site measured 

a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the most recent threeyear period (2011–2013), 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 showed 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the most recent threeyear period (2011–2013) but a violation 

in at least one of the previous two threeyear periods (2009–2011 or 2010–2012), 

then this monitor location was 

evaluated for purposes of the 

interference with maintenance element 

of the statute. 

The State of Washington was not 

covered by the modeling analyses 

available 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 the Washington 

2006 PM2.5 Interstate Transport 

submittal and additional technical 

information to evaluate the potential for 

emissions from sources in Washington 

to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring 

sites in the western United States.11 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 mg/m3) 

during the years 2011–2013.12 Please 

see the TSD in the docket for a more 

detailed description of the EPA’s 

methodology for selection of 

nonattainment receptors. All of the 

nonattainment receptors we identified 

in western states are in California, 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Utah.13

Based on the analysis in our TSD, we 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

emissions from sources in Washington 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other western 

state. We also evaluated nonattainment 

receptors in eastern states, as detailed in 

the TSD, and we believe it is reasonable 

to conclude that emissions from sources 

in Washington do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any eastern 

state. Based on the analysis in our TSD, 

we are proposing to determine that 

Washington’s SIP adequately addresses 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

The EPA reviewed the Washington 

2006 PM2.5 Interstate Transport SIP and 

additional technical information to 

evaluate the potential for Washington 

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 mg/m3) during the 

2009–2011 and/or 2010–2012 periods 

but below this standard during the 

2011–2013 period. Please see our TSD 

for more information regarding the 

EPA’s methodology for selection of 

maintenance receptors. All of the 

maintenance receptors we identified in 

western states are located in California, 

Montana, and Utah. 

As detailed in the TSD, we believe it 

is reasonable to conclude that emissions 

from sources in Washington do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in these states. 

We also evaluated maintenance 

receptors in eastern states, as detailed in 

the TSD, and we believe it is reasonable 

to conclude that emissions from sources 

in Washington do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any eastern state. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

Washington has adequately addressed 

the interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land in 

Washington except for 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 29, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14225 Filed 6–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0299; FRL–9928–91- 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision and 

2014 Five-Year Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Kansas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted to EPA by the 

State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, 

documenting that the State’s existing 

plan is making adequate progress to 

achieve visibility goals by 2018. The 

Kansas SIP revision addressed the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

to submit a report describing progress in 

achieving reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs) to improve visibility in Federally 

designated areas in nearby states that 

may be affected by emissions from 

sources in Kansas. EPA is proposing to 

approve Kansas’ determination that the 

existing RH SIP is adequate to meet the 

visibility goals and requires no 

substantive revision at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 10, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0299, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: krabbe.stephen@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Stephen 

Krabbe, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0299. 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

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 

electronic 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 whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS