66862 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 210 / Friday, October 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

promote healthy lifestyles and/or 

require individuals to meet particular 

health goals, the employer must make 

reasonable accommodations to the 

extent required by the ADA; that is, the 

employer must make ‘‘modifications or 

adjustments that enable a covered 

entity’s employee with a disability to 

enjoy equal benefits and privileges of 

employment as are enjoyed by its other 

similarly situated employees without 

disabilities’’ unless ‘‘such covered entity 

can demonstrate that the 

accommodation would impose an 

undue hardship on the operation of its 

business.’’ 29 CFR 1630.2(o)(1)(iii); 29 

CFR 1630.9(a). In addition, if the 

employer’s wellness program provides 

(directly, through reimbursement, or 

otherwise) medical care (including 

genetic counseling), the program may 

constitute a group health plan and must 

comply with the special requirements 

for wellness programs that condition 

rewards on an individual satisfying a 

standard related to a health factor, 

including the requirement to provide an 

individual with a ‘‘reasonable 

alternative (or waiver of the otherwise 

applicable standard)’’ under HIPAA, 

when ‘‘it is unreasonably difficult due 

to a medical condition to satisfy’’ or 

‘‘medically inadvisable to attempt to 

satisfy’’ the otherwise applicable 

standard. See section 9802 of the 

Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 9802, 

26 CFR 54.9802–1 and 54.9802–3T), 

section 702 of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 

(29 U.S.C. 1182, 29 CFR 2590.702 and 

2590.702–1), and section 2705 of the 

PHSA (45 CFR 146.121 and 146.122), as 

amended by section 1201 of the 

Affordable Care Act. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) A covered entity does not violate 

this section when, consistent with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, it 

requests, requires, or purchases genetic 

information or information about the 

manifestation of a disease, disorder, or 

pathological condition of an 

individual’s family member who is 

receiving health or genetic services on a 

voluntary basis. For example, an 

employer does not unlawfully acquire 

genetic information about an employee 

when it asks the employee’s family 

member who is receiving health services 

from the employer if her diabetes is 

under control. Nor does an employer 

unlawfully acquire genetic information 

about an employee when it seeks 

information—through a medical 

questionnaire, a medical examination, 

or both—about the current or past 

health status of the employee’s family 

member who is covered by the 

employer’s group health plan and is 

completing a health risk assessment on 

a voluntary basis in connection with the 

family member’s receipt of health or 

genetic services (including health or 

genetic services provided as part of a 

wellness program) offered by the 

employer in compliance with paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 1635.11, revise paragraphs 

(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows: 

§ 1635.11 Construction. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Section 702(a)(1)(F) of ERISA (29 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(F)), section 2705(a)(6) 

of the Public Health Service Act 

(PHSA), as amended by section 1201 of 

the Affordable Care Act and section 

9802(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue 

Code (26 U.S.C. 9802(a)(1)(F)), which 

prohibit a group health plan or a health 

insurance issuer in the group or 

individual market from discriminating 

against individuals in eligibility and 

continued eligibility for benefits based 

on genetic information; or 

(iv) Section 702(b)(1) of ERISA (29 

U.S.C. 1182(b)(1)), section 2705(b)(1) of 

the PHSA, as amended by section 1201 

of the Affordable Care Act and section 

9802(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 

(26 U.S.C. 9802(b)(1)), as such sections 

apply with respect to genetic 

information as a health status-related 

factor, which prohibit a group health 

plan or a health insurance issuer in the 

group or individual market from 

discriminating against individuals in 

premium or contribution rates under the 

plan or coverage based on genetic 

information. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–27734 Filed 10–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0258; FRL–9936–31– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Interstate Transport of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On June 28, 2010, the State 

of Idaho made a submittal to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the submittal as 

meeting the requirement that each SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 30, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0258, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, 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: Kristin Hall, 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– 

0258. 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 http:// 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http://

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 210 / Friday, October 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 66863 

1NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

2 76 FR 48208. 

3CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

4CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 

2, 2010). 

5See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F; 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. 6CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 

2011). 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

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 http://

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@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. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements within CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 

addresses the first two sub-elements of 

the good neighbor provisions, at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These subelements require that each SIP for a new 

or revised standard contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. We 

note that the EPA has addressed the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

eastern portion of the United States in 

several past regulatory actions.1 We 

most recently promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion 

of the United States.2 CSAPR addressed 

multiple national ambient air quality 

standards, but did not address the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard.3

In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air 

quality analyses to determine whether 

an eastern state’s contribution to 

downwind air quality problems was at 

or above specific thresholds. If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the 

specified air quality screening 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was therefore not 

considered to significantly contribute to 

or interfere with maintenance of the 

standard in those downwind areas. If a 

state exceeded that threshold, the state’s 

emissions were further evaluated, taking 

into account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary. For the reasons stated below, 

we believe it is appropriate to use the 

same approach we used in CSAPR to 

establish an air quality screening 

threshold for the evaluation of interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone standard. 

In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air 

quality screening threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate.4 The EPA 

evaluated the comments received and 

ultimately determined that one percent 

was an appropriately low threshold 

because there were important, even if 

relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for CSAPR to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds for the eastern United States. 

The EPA’s analysis showed that the onepercent threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states, 

while the use of higher thresholds 

would exclude increasingly larger 

percentages of total transport. For 

example, at a five percent threshold, the 

majority of interstate pollution transport 

affecting downwind receptors would be 

excluded.5 In addition, the EPA 

determined that it was important to use 

a relatively lower one-percent threshold 

because there are adverse health 

impacts associated with ambient ozone 

even at low levels.6 The EPA also 

determined that a lower threshold such 

as 0.5 percent would result in modest 

increases in the overall percentages of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution transport captured relative to 

the amounts captured at the one-percent 

level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5 

percent threshold could lead to 

emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors— 

an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 7

In the final CSAPR, the EPA 

determined that one percent was a 

reasonable choice considering the 

combined downwind impact of multiple 

upwind states in the eastern United 

States, the health effects of low levels of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of 

a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The 

EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air 

quality threshold equal to one percent of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm.8 The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the onepercent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 210 / Friday, October 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9 Id. 

10See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of 

Availability of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS)). 11 80 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3. 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm.9

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 June 28, 2010, Idaho submitted a 

SIP to address the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone NAAQS. 

The Idaho submittal included 

documentation of a public comment 

period from May 11, 2010 through June 

10, 2010, and opportunity for public 

hearing. We find that the process 

followed by Idaho in adopting the 

submittal complies with the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

CAA section 110 and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations. 

With respect to the requirements in 

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

submittal referred to applicable rules in 

the Idaho SIP, meteorological and 

technical characteristics of areas with 

ozone nonattainment problems in 

surrounding states, data on nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from Idaho 

sources, satellite monitoring data, and 

the impacts of terrain and prevailing 

wind direction on the potential for 

transport of ozone precursors. The Idaho 

submittal concluded that given the 

relatively low amount of NOX emitted 

by Idaho sources, the general lack of 

substantial concentrations of VOCs in 

areas surrounding Idaho, the impacts of 

significant terrain features on the 

movement of pollutants, and technical 

information on the two areas in states 

bordering Idaho that are having ozone 

attainment and maintenance problems 

(Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming 

and Clark County, Nevada), it is 

reasonable to conclude that emissions of 

ozone precursors from Idaho sources 

will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

The Idaho submittal provided further 

information to support this conclusion 

by citing major source permitting 

regulations approved into the Idaho SIP 

that require new sources and 

modifications to protect the ambient air 

quality standards, including the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. With respect to existing 

sources, the Idaho submittal stated that 

stationary source operating rules in the 

Idaho SIP require an owner or operator 

to demonstrate that the source does not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any 

ambient air quality standard. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

containing air quality modeling data 

that applies the CSAPR approach to 

contribution projections for the year 

2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.10 The moderate area 

attainment date for the 2008 ozone 

standard is July 11, 2018. In order to 

demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future 

year to model for the purpose of 

examining interstate transport for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used 

photochemical air quality modeling to 

project ozone concentrations at air 

quality monitoring sites to 2017 and 

estimated state-by-state ozone 

contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 

used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (CAMx 

Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case NOX and volatile VOC emissions 

from all sources in each state to the 

2017 projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico. The 

NODA and the supporting technical 

documents have been included in the 

docket for this action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most upto-date information the EPA has 

developed to inform our analysis of 

upwind state linkages to downwind air 

quality problems. For purposes of 

evaluating Idaho’s interstate transport 

SIP submittal with respect to the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is 

proposing that states whose 

contributions are less than one percent 

to downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors are considered 

non-significant. The modeling indicates 

that Idaho’s largest contribution to any 

projected downwind nonattainment site 

is 0.23 ppb and Idaho’s largest 

contribution to any projected downwind 

maintenance-only site is 0.35 ppb.11

These values are below the one percent 

screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and 

therefore there are no identified linkages 

between Idaho and 2017 downwind 

projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites. Note that the EPA 

has not done an assessment to 

determine the applicability for the use 

of the one percent screening threshold 

for western states that contribute above 

the one percent threshold. There may be 

additional considerations that may 

impact regulatory decisions regarding 

‘‘potential’’ linkages in the west 

identified by the modeling. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Section II, Idaho 

concluded based on its own technical 

analysis that emissions from the State 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

in any other state. The EPA’s modeling, 

discussed in Section III, confirms this 

finding. Based on the modeling data and 

the information and analysis provided 

in Idaho’s June 28, 2010 submittal, we 

are proposing to approve the submittal 

for purposes of meeting the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2008 ozone standard. The EPA’s 

modeling confirms the results of the 

State’s analysis: Idaho does not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

in any other state. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 210 / Friday, October 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 66865 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 15, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27594 Filed 10–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS