80 FR 65672 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Interstate Transport of Ozone
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)
| Page Range | 65672-65675 | |
| FR Document | 2015-27153 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 65672-65675] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-27153] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0334; FRL-9936-17-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Interstate Transport of Ozone 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 emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On May 11, 2015, the State of Washington 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 27, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10- OAR-2015-0334, by any of the following methods:http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Email: [email protected] epa.gov. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries 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- 2015-0334. 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 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 [[Page 65673]] Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, epa.gov">[email protected]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 sub-elements 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 Cross-State 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ NO X 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. \3\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 one-percent 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010). \5\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, Appendix F; Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. \6\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011). \7\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 one-percent 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 used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Id. \9\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. State Submittal CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing. On May 11, 2015, Washington submitted a SIP to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Washington submittal [[Page 65674]] included documentation of a public comment period from March 9, 2015 through April 10, 2015, and opportunity for public hearing. We find that the process followed by Washington in adopting the 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 Washington submittal referred to applicable rules in the Washington SIP, 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data, and modeling conducted by the State using the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014, database version 20141021). Washington noted that efforts by the EPA and states to address ozone transport have historically been focused on reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOX ), a precursor to ozone formation, and provided 2011 NEI data for the major NOX emissions categories in the State. Washington found that on-road mobile sources comprise 57 percent of total NOX emissions, non-road mobile sources represent 11 percent, and the third largest group, point sources, comprises 9 percent of all Washington NOX emissions in 2011. Washington then performed MOVES2014 modeling to look specifically at past and future trends in on-road and non-road mobile sources, the two largest source categories in Washington, for the years 2000 through 2020. The MOVES2014 modeling showed sustained, continuous reductions in NOX emissions from approximately 800 tons per day in 2000 to approximately 250 tons per day projected in 2020. Based on this evidence, and the EPA's draft photochemical air quality modeling data available at the time of Washington's submission, the State concluded that emissions of ozone precursors from Washington sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled ``Information of the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' January 22, 2015, available at: http://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/GoodNeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington submittal provided further information to support this conclusion by citing the stationary source permitting regulations approved into the Washington SIP that require new sources and modifications to protect the ambient air quality standards, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to new or modified major stationary sources, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program in the Washington SIP requires an owner or operator to demonstrate that the source will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. 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.\11\ 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 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See 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)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The modeling data released in the NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For purposes of evaluating Washington'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 Washington's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.22 ppb and Washington's largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.09 ppb.\12\ These values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages between Washington 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 80 FR 46271 at page 46277, Table 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Proposed Action As discussed in Section II, Washington concluded 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 provided in Washington's May 11, 2015 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: Washington 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: [[Page 65675]]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. 2015-27153 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![65672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules
include rule amendments related to effect. The EPA will address all public 150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
control measures for volatile organic comments in a subsequent final rule Seattle, WA 98101.
compounds from gasoline dispensing based on this proposed rule. The EPA • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region
facilities in the Portland-Vancouver, will not institute a second comment 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth
Medford-Ashland, and Salem-Keizer period on this action. Any parties Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
Area Transportation Study air quality interested in commenting on this action Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste
management areas, as well as all of should do so at this time. Please note and Toxics, AWT–150. Such deliveries
Clackamas, Multnomah, and that if we receive adverse comment on are only accepted during normal hours
Washington counties. The EPA received an amendment, paragraph, or section of of operation, and special arrangements
the SIP submittals from the ODEQ on this rule and if that provision may be should be made for deliveries of boxed
February 5, 2009, November 1, 2010, severed from the remainder of the rule, information.
May 25, 2011, and April 20, 2015, and the EPA may adopt as final those Instructions: Direct your comments to
the supplementary letter on September provisions of the rule that are not the Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–
18, 2015. The EPA is proposing to subject of an adverse comment. 0334. The EPA’s policy is that all
approve the SIP submittals because they Dated: September 25, 2015. comments received will be included in
are consistent with the requirements of Michelle Pirzadeh, the public docket without change and
the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). may be made available online at
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
DATES: Comments must be received on http://www.regulations.gov, including
[FR Doc. 2015–27169 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am]
or before November 27, 2015. any personal information provided,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, unless the comment includes
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– information claimed to be Confidential
OAR–2011–0799, by any of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Business Information (CBI) or other
following methods: AGENCY information whose disclosure is
• Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// restricted by statute. Do not submit
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 40 CFR Part 52 information that you consider to be CBI
instructions for submitting comments. or otherwise protected through http://
• Email: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. [EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0334; FRL–9936–17– www.regulations.gov or email. The
• Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Region 10] http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
and Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth Approval and Promulgation of means the EPA will not know your
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Implementation Plans; Washington: identity or contact information unless
• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Interstate Transport of Ozone you provide it in the body of your
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite comment. If you send an email
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: comment directly to the EPA without
Agency (EPA).
Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Office of Air, going through http://
ACTION: Proposed rule. www.regulations.gov your email address
Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. Such
deliveries are only accepted during will be automatically captured and
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA)
normal hours of operation, and special included as part of the comment that is
requires each State Implementation Plan
arrangements should be made for placed in the public docket and made
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
deliveries of boxed information. available on the Internet. If you submit
prohibiting emissions that will have
an electronic comment, the EPA
Please see the direct final rule which is certain adverse air quality effects in
recommends that you include your
located in the Rules section of this other states. On May 11, 2015, the State
name and other contact information in
Federal Register for detailed of Washington made a submittal to the
the body of your comment and with any
instructions on how to submit Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
comments. to address these requirements. The EPA
cannot read your comment due to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
is proposing to approve the submittal as
technical difficulties and cannot contact
Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at (206) 553– meeting the requirement that each SIP
you for clarification, the EPA may not
6121, vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or the contain adequate provisions to prohibit
be able to consider your comment.
above EPA, Region 10 address. emissions that will contribute
Electronic files should avoid the use of
significantly to nonattainment or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For special characters, any form of
interfere with maintenance of the 2008
further information, please see the encryption, and be free of any defects or
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
direct final action, of the same title, viruses.
Standard (NAAQS) in any other state.
which is located in the Rules section of Docket: All documents in the docket
DATES: Written comments must be
this Federal Register. The EPA is are listed in the http://
approving the State’s SIP revisions as a received on or before November 27, www.regulations.gov index. Although
direct final rule without prior proposal 2015. listed in the index, some information is
because the EPA views this as a ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
noncontroversial SIP action and identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– information the disclosure of which is
anticipates no adverse comments. A OAR–2015–0334, by any of the restricted by statute. Certain other
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
detailed rationale for the approval is set following methods: material, such as copyrighted material,
forth in the preamble to the direct final • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow is not placed on the Internet and will be
rule. If the EPA receives no adverse the on-line instructions for submitting publicly available only in hard copy.
comments, the EPA will not take further comments. Publicly available docket materials are
action on this proposed rule. • Email: R10-Public_Comments@ available either electronically in http://
If the EPA receives adverse epa.gov. www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
comments, the EPA will withdraw the • Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, during normal business hours at the
direct final rule and it will not take Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_65879/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65675
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION made available online at
action’’ subject to review by the Office AGENCY www.regulations.gov, including any
of Management and Budget under personal information provided, unless
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 40 CFR Part 52 the comment includes information
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, [EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0592; FRL–9936–14– claimed to be Confidential Business
January 21, 2011); Region 5] Information (CBI) or other information
• does not impose an information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
collection burden under the provisions Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Do not submit information that you
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Revision to Visibility Federal consider to be CBI or otherwise
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Implementation Plan protected through www.regulations.gov
• is certified as not having a or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
significant economic impact on a AGENCY: Environmental Protection site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
substantial number of small entities Agency (EPA). which means EPA will not know your
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 ACTION: Proposed rule. identity or contact information unless
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); you provide it in the body of your
• does not contain any unfunded SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
comment. If you send an email
mandate or significantly or uniquely Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the
comment directly to EPA without going
affect small governments, as described Minnesota Federal implementation plan
through www.regulations.gov your email
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (FIP) for visibility, to establish emission
address will be automatically captured
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); limits for Northern States Power and included as part of the comment
• does not have Federalism Company’s (NSP’s) Sherburne County that is placed in the public docket and
implications as specified in Executive Generating Station (Sherco), pursuant to made available on the Internet. If you
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, a settlement agreement. The settlement submit an electronic comment, EPA
1999); agreement, signed by representatives of recommends that you include your
• is not an economically significant EPA, NSP, and three environmental name and other contact information in
regulatory action based on health or groups, was for resolution of a lawsuit the body of your comment and with any
safety risks subject to Executive Order filed by the environmental groups for disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); EPA to address any contribution from cannot read your comment due to
• is not a significant regulatory action Sherco to reasonably attributable technical difficulties and cannot contact
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR visibility impairment (RAVI) that the you for clarification, EPA may not be
28355, May 22, 2001); Department of Interior (DOI) certified able to consider your comment.
• is not subject to requirements of was occurring at Voyageurs and Isle Electronic files should avoid the use of
Section 12(d) of the National Royale National Parks. special characters, any form of
Technology Transfer and Advancement DATES: Comments must be received on encryption, and be free of any defects or
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because or before November 27, 2015. viruses.
it does not involve technical standards; ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Docket: All documents in the docket
and identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– are listed in the www.regulations.gov
• does not provide the EPA with the OAR–2015–0592, by one of the index. Although listed in the index,
discretionary authority to address, as following methods: some information is not publicly
appropriate, disproportionate human 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the available, e.g., CBI or other information
health or environmental effects, using on-line instructions for submitting whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
practicable and legally permissible comments. Certain other material, such as
methods, under Executive Order 12898 2. Email: Aburano.douglas@epa.gov. copyrighted material, will be publicly
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. available only in hard copy. Publicly
In addition, the SIP is not approved 4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, available docket materials are available
to apply on any Indian reservation land Attainment Planning and Maintenance in www.regulations.gov or at the
or in any other area where the EPA or Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency,
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Indian country, the rule does not have Illinois 60604. Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
tribal implications as specified by 5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Chief, Attainment Planning and Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose Maintenance Section, Air Programs recommend that you telephone John
substantial direct costs on tribal Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Summerhays, Environmental Scientist,
governments or preempt tribal law. Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson at (312) 886–6067 before visiting the
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Region 5 office.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Such deliveries are only accepted
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Environmental protection, Air during the Regional Office normal hours
pollution control, Incorporation by Summerhays, Environmental Scientist,
of operation, and special arrangements
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Attainment Planning and Maintenance
should be made for deliveries of boxed
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
information. The Regional Office official
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements. Environmental Protection Agency,
hours of business are Monday through
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067,
Federal holidays.
Dated: October 15, 2015. Instructions: Direct your comments to summerhays.john@epa.gov.
Dennis J. McLerran, Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Regional Administrator, Region 10. 0592. EPA’s policy is that all comments supplementary information section is
[FR Doc. 2015–27153 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] received will be included in the public arranged as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P docket without change and may be I. What regulations apply to RAVI?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 26, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM 27OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_65879/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:36:06
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:36:06
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 2015. | |
| Contact | Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 65672 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR