27528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

avenues and mechanisms to address 

specific substantive deficiencies in 

existing SIPs. These other statutory tools 

allow EPA to take appropriately tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following elements or portions thereof 

of West Virginia’s June 25, 2013 SIP 

revision: section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) 

(enforcement and minor new source 

review), (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection), 

(D)(ii), (E)(i) and (iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M). West Virginia’s SIP 

revision provides the basic program 

elements specified in section 110(a)(2) 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This 

proposed rulemaking action does not 

include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) 

which pertains to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D, Title I 

of the CAA, because this element is not 

required to be submitted by the 3-year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 

of the CAA, and will be addressed in a 

separate process. 

Additionally, EPA will take separate 

action on the portions of CAA section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQs as they relate to West 

Virginia’s PSD program, as required by 

part C of Title I of the CAA. This 

includes portions of the following 

infrastructure elements: section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Finally, 

EPA will take later separate action on 

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

transport of emission), (D)(i)(II) 

(visibility protection), and (E)(ii) 

(section 128, ‘‘State Boards’’) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

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, 

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 proposed 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 CAA; and 

• does not provide 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, 

pertaining to West Virginia’s section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 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 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, Sulfur oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: April 30, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11085 Filed 5–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27529 

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 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). 

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). 

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: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• 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, 

pepple.karl@epa.gov, 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 (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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, see the July 30, 

2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 

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

44552). 

4See 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. 

5See 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. 

6The 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. 

7See ‘‘2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance,’’ issued September 25, 2009. 

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. lls 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. 

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

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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, OregonVancouver, 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 threeyear 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 threeyear period (2010–2012) but a violation 

in at least one of the previous two threeyear 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8EPA 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. 

9Because 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. 

10As this analysis is focused on interstate 

transport, the EPA did not evaluate the impact of 

Oregon emissions onnonattainment receptors 

within Oregon. 

11Washington and Nevada have no 

nonattainment receptors. See TSD at Table III.A.1. 

12As 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. 

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 mg/m3) 

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. 

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 mg/m3) 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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0333, FRL–9910–95– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of 

Washington (Washington or the State) 

demonstrating that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for lead on October 15, 

2008. The CAA requires that each state, 

after a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated, review their SIP to ensure 

that it meets the infrastructure 

requirements necessary to implement 

the new or revised NAAQS. On April 1, 

2014, Washington certified that the 

Washington SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for purposes of 

the 2008 lead NAAQS, except for those 

requirements related to the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting program currently operated 

under a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP). The EPA is proposing to find that 

Washington’s 2008 lead SIP is adequate 

for purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of CAA section 110, with 

the exception of the requirements 

related to PSD permitting and portions 

of the interstate transport requirements. 

The EPA finds that the SIP deficiencies 

related to PSD permitting, however, 

have been adequately addressed by the 

existing EPA FIP and, therefore, no 

further action is required by Washington 

or the EPA. The EPA will address the 

remaining interstate transport 

requirements in a separate action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0333, 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– 

107), 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–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–2014– 

0333. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS