Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 12849 

1Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air 

Division Directors, Regions I–X, October 14, 2011. 

2Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0050; FRL–9943–59– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Interstate Transport of Lead and 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

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 October 20, 2015, the 

State of Oregon made a submittal to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the submittal as 

meeting the requirements that each SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2016–0050, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from http://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at 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, 

Washington 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. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised 

the level of the primary and secondary 

Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 

FR 66964, published November 12, 

2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA 

established a primary NO2 NAAQS at 

100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged 

over one hour, supplementing the 

existing annual standard (75 FR 6474, 

published February 9, 2010). 

The CAA requires states to submit 

SIPs meeting sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised standard. CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) address basic SIP 

requirements, including but not limited 

to emissions inventories, monitoring, 

and modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards—so-called 

infrastructure requirements. To help 

states meet this statutory requirement, 

the EPA issued infrastructure guidance 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.1 Subsequently, 

on September 13, 2013, the EPA issued 

updated infrastructure guidance for 

multiple standards, including the 2010 

one hour NO2 NAAQS.2

One of the 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. 

II. State Submittal 

On October 20, 2015, Oregon made a 

submittal to address the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for multiple NAAQS, 

including the 2008 Pb and 2010 one 

hour NO2 NAAQS. We note that this 

action addresses the CAA section 

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

requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 

one hour NO2 NAAQS only. We intend 

to address the remainder of the Oregon 

submittal, including requirements 

related to the 2010 one hour sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS and the 2012 annual 

fine particulate matter NAAQS in 

separate, future actions. 

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. The 

Oregon submittal included public 

process documentation, including a 

duly-noticed public hearing held on 

August 18, 2015. We find that the 

process followed by Oregon in adopting 

the SIP submittal complies with the 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

the EPA’s implementing regulations. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

A. 2008 Pb NAAQS 

The EPA believes, as noted in the 

October 14, 2011 infrastructure 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12850 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/

2011inventory.html. 4http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 5http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

guidance, that the physical properties of 

Pb prevent Pb emissions from 

experiencing the same travel or 

formation phenomena as fine particulate 

matter or ozone. More specifically, there 

is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, 

at least in the coarse fraction, as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. 

Accordingly, while it may be possible 

for a source in a state to emit Pb in a 

location and in quantities that may 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the standard in another 

state, the EPA anticipates that this 

would be a rare situation, e.g., where 

large sources are in close proximity to 

state boundaries. The EPA’s experience 

with initial Pb designations suggests 

that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons 

per year or that are located more than 

two miles from a state border generally 

appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in 

another state. 

As recommended by the EPA’s 

guidance, Oregon evaluated whether 

large sources of Pb are located in close 

proximity to the border that have 

emissions such that they contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

Pb NAAQS in neighboring states. The 

state identified no sources of Pb 

emissions in Oregon greater than 0.5 

tons per year that are also located 

within two miles of the border. The 

submittal also included a review of data 

from Pb monitors in bordering states 

and trends in monitored values in 

Oregon and bordering states. 

Compliance with the Pb NAAQS is 

measured by comparing the maximum 

rolling three-month average, over a 

three-year period, to the level of the 

NAAQS. This statistic represents the 

design value at a specific monitor. 

Oregon found that, for the design value 

period of 2011 through 2013, the only 

monitors violating the Pb NAAQS in a 

state bordering Oregon were those 

monitors located in Los Angeles, San 

Diego, and San Mateo, California. 

Oregon concluded that it is unlikely that 

sources in Oregon will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS in any other state. 

We reviewed the Oregon submittal 

with respect to Pb and we agree with the 

state’s conclusion. 2011 national 

emissions inventory data confirm that 

there are no Oregon sources identified 

that emit 0.5 tons per year or more of 

Pb that are also located within two 

miles of the Oregon border.3 We also 

reviewed the most recent data on 

ambient Pb levels in neighboring 

states—that became available after 

Oregon conducted its analysis. 

For the 2012 through 2014 design 

value period we found that, for the 

purposes of evaluating significant 

contribution to nonattainment, there are 

only two violating monitors in states 

that border Oregon.4 These monitors are 

located in San Mateo and San Diego, 

California, and are approximately 300 

and 600 miles from the Oregon border, 

respectively. We also reviewed data for 

the previous two design value periods— 

2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 

2013—for purposes of evaluating 

interference with maintenance. We 

identified one monitor in a bordering 

state that violated the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

in these previous periods, but attained 

the standard in the most recent period 

of 2012 through 2014. This monitor is 

located in Los Angeles, California— 

approximately 500 miles from the 

Oregon border. In all instances, none of 

these monitors are within sufficient 

proximity to Oregon to suggest that Pb 

emissions from Oregon will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

Pb NAAQS in any other state. 

With respect to potential new sources 

of Pb, we reviewed provisions in the 

Federally-approved Oregon SIP 

designed to control emissions of Pb. 

Oregon generally regulates new sources 

of Pb through its pre-construction and 

operating permit regulations for 

stationary sources. Oregon’s preconstruction permitting rules are found 

at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 

340, Division 224—New Source Review. 

Oregon’s Federally-enforceable state 

operating permit program is found at 

Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 

340, Division 216—Air Contaminant 

Discharge Permits. These rules are 

designed to ensure that new or modified 

stationary sources will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the 

applicable NAAQS. 

Based on the Oregon submittal and 

our review of more recent monitoring 

data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, 

we believe it is reasonable to conclude 

that Oregon emissions will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in 

any other state. We are proposing to 

approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

B. 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

In the submittal, Oregon reviewed 

monitoring data and trends to evaluate 

whether emissions in Oregon 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2

NAAQS in other states. Compliance 

with the one hour NO2 NAAQS is 

determined by comparing the annual 

98th percentile of the daily maximum 

one hour concentration values, averaged 

over three consecutive years to the level 

of the NAAQS. This statistic represents 

the design value at a specific monitor. 

Oregon found no violations of the one 

hour NO2 NAAQS at any established 

monitoring sites in the United States— 

for the design value period 2011 

through 2013. Oregon also reviewed 

monitoring data from bordering states. 

The highest design value was 73 ppb at 

the San Diego, California, monitor—well 

below the 100 ppb level of the standard. 

Oregon asserted that a review of daily 

maximum one hour NO2 concentrations 

at monitors in Washington, California, 

Idaho and Nevada also indicate trends 

well below the standard. 

With respect to potential new 

emissions, Oregon cited provisions in 

the Oregon SIP that require review of 

new and modified stationary sources 

prior to construction. Planned new and 

modified major sources in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas must conduct 

air quality analyses to demonstrate that 

new emissions, along with emissions 

from existing sources, will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any 

applicable standard. Based on ambient 

air monitoring data and provisions in 

the Oregon SIP that regulate new 

sources, Oregon determined that it is 

reasonable to conclude that emissions 

from sources in Oregon will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2

NAAQS. 

We reviewed the Oregon submittal 

with respect to NO2 and we agree with 

the state’s conclusion. We also reviewed 

the most recent data on ambient NO2

levels in neighboring states—that 

became available after Oregon 

conducted its analysis. 

For the purpose of evaluating 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment, we reviewed design 

values for the period 2012 through 2014 

and found no monitors violating the one 

hour NO2 NAAQS in the United States.5

We also reviewed data for the previous 

two design value periods—2010 through 

2012 and 2011 through 2013—to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 12851 

evaluate interference with maintenance. 

We found no monitors violating the one 

hour NO2 NAAQS in these previous 

periods, as well. Further, monitored 

values are well below 100 ppb in states 

bordering Oregon—63 ppb was the 

highest design value for 2012 through 

2014, at the Los Angeles, California, 

monitor. 

We also reviewed provisions in the 

Federally-approved Oregon SIP 

designed to control emissions of NOX— 

of which NO2 is a subset. Oregon 

generally regulates emissions of NOX

through its pre-construction permitting 

and operating permit regulations. 

Oregon’s pre-construction permitting 

rules are found at Oregon 

Administrative Rules Chapter 340, 

Division 224—New Source Review. 

Oregon’s Federally-enforceable state 

operating permit program is found at 

Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 

340, Division 216—Air Contaminant 

Discharge Permits. These rules are 

designed ensure that new or modified 

stationary sources will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the 

applicable NAAQS. 

Based on the Oregon submittal and 

our review of more recent monitoring 

data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, 

we believe it is reasonable to conclude 

that Oregon emissions will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2

NAAQS in any other state. We are 

proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 

one hour NO2 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

Oregon submittal for the purposes of 

meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2

NAAQS. We intend to address the 

remainder of the submittal with respect 

to the 2010 one hour sulfur dioxide and 

2012 annual fine particulate matter 

NAAQS in separate, future actions. 

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: 

• 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, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 2, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–05557 Filed 3–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Indian Health Service 

42 CFR Part 136 

[RIN 0905AC97] 

Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund 

AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice; extension of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for the Catastrophic 

Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) notice 

of proposed rulemaking which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 26, 2016. The comment period 

for the notice, which would have ended 

on March 11, 2016, is extended by 60 

days. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

notice published in the January 26, 2016 

Federal Register (81 FR 4239) is 

extended to May 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Because of staff and 

resource limitations, we cannot accept 

comments by facsimile transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

written comments on this regulation to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Betty Gould, Regulations 

Officer, Indian Health Service, Office of 

Management Services, Division of 

Regulatory Affairs, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 

20857. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

above address. 

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments before the close 

of the comment period to the address 

above. If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Rockville address, 

please call telephone number (301) 443– 

1116 in advance to schedule your 

arrival with a staff member. 

Comments will be made available for 

public inspection at the Rockville 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS