80_FR_65887 80 FR 65680 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Interstate Transport of Ozone

80 FR 65680 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Interstate Transport of Ozone

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 207 (October 27, 2015)

Page Range65680-65683
FR Document2015-27165

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 June 28, 2010, 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 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.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65680-65683]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27165]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0259; FRL-9936-16-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: 
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 air emissions 
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
June 28, 2010, 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 
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-2015-0259, by any of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     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-
2015-0259. 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 Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, 
[email protected], 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

[[Page 65681]]

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\ NOX 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 June 28, 2010, Oregon made a submittal to address the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone 
NAAQS. The Oregon submittal included public process documentation on 
the interstate transport submittal, including a duly noticed public 
hearing held on December 22, 2009. Oregon subsequently notified the EPA 
that a clerical error was made and that all interstate transport SIP 
documents had not been attached to the June 28, 2010 cover letter. The 
State transmitted the remaining documents to the EPA on December 23, 
2010. 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.
    With respect to the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
the Oregon submittal stated that the area of highest Oregon emission 
densities (Portland metropolitan area) is separated from the nearest 
ozone nonattainment areas (in Nevada and California) by significant 
distances and major mountain ranges up to approximately 7,000 feet. The 
submittal noted that the Portland metropolitan area shares a common 
airshed with Vancouver, Washington metropolitan area. This bi-state 
airshed historically violated the one-hour ozone standard and emissions 
in the area have been managed under the Portland-Vancouver ozone 
maintenance plan. The Portland-Vancouver area is in attainment with the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The Oregon submittal stated that meteorology and prevailing wind 
direction, the effect of significant topography on transport of 
pollutants, and characteristics of emissions sources

[[Page 65682]]

in states bordering Oregon that are experiencing ozone attainment 
problems (California and Nevada) support a finding that emissions from 
Oregon sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or 
interfere with maintenance of, the 2008 ozone NAAQS in these nearby 
states. The Oregon submittal also asserted that the Oregon SIP provides 
authority to participate in regional air planning, collaborate with 
other states as necessary to address regional ozone issues should they 
arise, and control emissions from Oregon sources if necessary.
    The Oregon submittal also stated that Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality 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 ozone 
concentrations in other states caused by transport from Oregon, and the 
submittal stated that this provided additional support for Oregon's 
assertion that emissions from Oregon sources do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in any other states.

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 nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and volatile organic 
compound (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 support documents have been included in the docket for this 
SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 Oregon's interstate transport SIP 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 Oregon's largest contribution to any projected downwind 
nonattainment site is 0.65 ppb and Oregon's largest contribution to any 
projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.65 ppb.\11\ These values 
are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and 
therefore there are no identified linkages between Oregon and 2017 
downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites. Note that the 
EPA has not done an assessment to determine the applicability 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 80 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section II, Oregon 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 Oregon'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: Oregon 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:
     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 se.);
     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 se.);
     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).

[[Page 65683]]

    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. 2015-27165 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                  65680                 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                  Industrial Boulevard in Becker,                         SUMMARY:    The Clean Air Act (CAA)                   included as part of the comment that is
                                                  Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not                  requires each State Implementation Plan               placed in the public docket and made
                                                  cause or permit the emission of SO2                     (SIP) to contain adequate provisions                  available on the Internet. If you submit
                                                  from stack SV001 (serving Units 1 and                   prohibiting air emissions that will have              an electronic comment, the EPA
                                                  2) to exceed 0.050 lbs/MMBTU as a 30-                   certain adverse air quality effects in                recommends that you include your
                                                  day rolling average.                                    other states. On June 28, 2010, the State             name and other contact information in
                                                     (2) On and after the 30-boiler-                      of Oregon made a submittal to the                     the body of your comment and with any
                                                  operating-day period ending on May 31,                  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)                 disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
                                                  2017, the owners and operators of the                   to address these requirements. The EPA                cannot read your comment due to
                                                  facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in               is proposing to approve the submittal as              technical difficulties and cannot contact
                                                  Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota,                    meeting the requirement that each SIP                 you for clarification, the EPA may not
                                                  shall not cause or permit the emission                  contain adequate provisions to prohibit               be able to consider your comment.
                                                  of SO2 from Unit 3 to exceed 0.29 lbs/                  emissions that will contribute                        Electronic files should avoid the use of
                                                  MMBTU as a 30-day rolling average.                      significantly to nonattainment or                     special characters, any form of
                                                     (3) The owners and operators of the                  interfere with maintenance of the 2008                encryption, and be free of any defects or
                                                  facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in               ozone National Ambient Air Quality                    viruses.
                                                  Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota,                    Standard (NAAQS) in any other state.                     Docket: All documents in the docket
                                                  shall operate continuous SO2 emission                   DATES: Written comments must be                       are listed in the http://
                                                  monitoring systems in compliance with                   received on or before November 27,                    www.regulations.gov index. Although
                                                  40 CFR part 75, and the data from this                  2015.                                                 listed in the index, some information is
                                                  emission monitoring shall be used to                                                                          not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
                                                                                                          ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
                                                  determine compliance with the limits in                                                                       information the disclosure of which is
                                                                                                          identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–                  restricted by statute. Certain other
                                                  this paragraph (e).
                                                                                                          OAR–2015–0259, by any of the                          material, such as copyrighted material,
                                                     (4) For each boiler operating day,
                                                                                                          following methods:                                    is not placed on the Internet and will be
                                                  compliance with the 30-day average                         • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
                                                  limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and                                                                          publicly available only in hard copy.
                                                                                                          the on-line instructions for submitting               Publicly available docket materials are
                                                  (e)(2) of this section shall be determined              comments.
                                                  by summing total emissions in pounds                                                                          available either electronically in http://
                                                                                                             • Email: R10-Public_Comments@
                                                  for the period consisting of the day and                                                                      www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
                                                                                                          epa.gov.
                                                  the preceding 29 successive boiler                         • Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10,               during normal business hours at the
                                                  operating days, summing total heat                      Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT—                 Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
                                                  input in MMBTU for the same period,                     150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,                   Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
                                                  and computing the ratio of these sums                   Seattle, WA 98101.                                    WA 98101.
                                                  in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is                      • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  used to mean a 24-hour period between                   10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth                     Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357,
                                                  12 midnight and the following midnight                  Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.                 hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA,
                                                  during which any fuel is combusted at                   Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air,               Region 10 address.
                                                  any time in the steam-generating unit. It               Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. Such                       SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  is not necessary for fuel to be combusted               deliveries are only accepted during                   Throughout this document wherever
                                                  the entire 24-hour period. A boiler                     normal hours of operation, and special                ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
                                                  operating day with respect to the                       arrangements should be made for                       intended to refer to the EPA.
                                                  limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this                  deliveries of boxed information.                         Information is organized as follows:
                                                  section shall be a day in which fuel is                    Instructions: Direct your comments to              Table of Contents
                                                  combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2.                   Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–
                                                  Bias adjustments provided for under 40                  0259. The EPA’s policy is that all                    I. Background
                                                  CFR part 75 appendix A shall be                                                                               II. State Submittal
                                                                                                          comments received will be included in                 III. EPA Evaluation
                                                  applied. Substitute data provided for                   the public docket without change and                  IV. Proposed Action
                                                  under 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall                    may be made available online at                       V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
                                                  not be used.                                            http://www.regulations.gov, including
                                                  [FR Doc. 2015–27168 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am]            any personal information provided,                    I. Background
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P                                  unless the comment includes                              On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised
                                                                                                          information claimed to be Confidential                the levels of the primary and secondary
                                                                                                          Business Information (CBI) or other                   8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts
                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                information whose disclosure is                       per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR
                                                  AGENCY                                                  restricted by statute. Do not submit                  16436). The CAA requires states to
                                                                                                          information that you consider to be CBI               submit, within three years after
                                                  40 CFR Part 52                                          or otherwise protected through http://                promulgation of a new or revised
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov or email. The                     standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
                                                  [EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259; FRL–9936–16-                    http://www.regulations.gov Web site is                ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections
                                                  Region 10]                                              an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which                 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                          means the EPA will not know your                      applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
                                                  Approval and Promulgation of                            identity or contact information unless                section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to
                                                  Implementation Plans; Oregon:                           you provide it in the body of your                    contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to
                                                  Interstate Transport of Ozone                           comment. If you send an email                         prohibit certain adverse air quality
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                       comment directly to the EPA without                   effects on neighboring states due to
                                                  Agency.                                                 going through http://                                 interstate transport of pollution. There
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov your email address                are four sub-elements within CAA
                                                  ACTION: Proposed rule.
                                                                                                          will be automatically captured and                    section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Oct 26, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM   27OCP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                          65681

                                                  addresses the first two sub-elements of                 relatively small, contributions to                    appropriate because it provided a robust
                                                  the good neighbor provisions, at CAA                    identified nonattainment and                          metric, was consistent with the
                                                  section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-                  maintenance receptors from multiple                   approach for fine particulate matter
                                                  elements require that each SIP for a new                upwind states. In response to                         used in CSAPR, and because it took into
                                                  or revised standard contain adequate                    commenters who advocated a higher or                  account, and would be applicable to,
                                                  provisions to prohibit any source or                    lower threshold than one percent, the                 any future ozone standards below 0.08
                                                  other type of emissions activity within                 EPA compiled the contribution                         ppm.9
                                                  the state from emitting air pollutants                  modeling results for CSAPR to analyze
                                                                                                                                                                II. State Submittal
                                                  that will ‘‘contribute significantly to                 the impact of different possible
                                                  nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with                     thresholds for the eastern United States.                CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and
                                                  maintenance’’ of the applicable air                     The EPA’s analysis showed that the one-               section 110(l) require that revisions to a
                                                  quality standard in any other state. We                 percent threshold captures a high                     SIP be adopted by the state after
                                                  note that the EPA has addressed the                     percentage of the total pollution                     reasonable notice and public hearing.
                                                  interstate transport requirements of                    transport affecting downwind states,                  The EPA has promulgated specific
                                                  CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the                  while the use of higher thresholds                    procedural requirements for SIP
                                                  eastern portion of the United States in                 would exclude increasingly larger                     revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
                                                  several past regulatory actions.1 We                    percentages of total transport. For                   These requirements include publication
                                                  most recently promulgated the Cross-                    example, at a five percent threshold, the             of notices by prominent advertisement
                                                  State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),                       majority of interstate pollution transport            in the relevant geographic area, a public
                                                  which addressed CAA section                             affecting downwind receptors would be                 comment period of at least 30 days, and
                                                  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion               excluded.5 In addition, the EPA                       an opportunity for a public hearing.
                                                  of the United States.2 CSAPR addressed                  determined that it was important to use                  On June 28, 2010, Oregon made a
                                                  multiple national ambient air quality                   a relatively lower one-percent threshold              submittal to address the interstate
                                                  standards, but did not address the 2008                 because there are adverse health                      transport requirements of CAA section
                                                  8-hour ozone standard.3                                 impacts associated with ambient ozone                 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone NAAQS.
                                                     In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air                  even at low levels.6 The EPA also                     The Oregon submittal included public
                                                  quality analyses to determine whether                   determined that a lower threshold such                process documentation on the interstate
                                                  an eastern state’s contribution to                      as 0.5 percent would result in modest                 transport submittal, including a duly
                                                  downwind air quality problems was at                    increases in the overall percentages of               noticed public hearing held on
                                                  or above specific thresholds. If a state’s              fine particulate matter and ozone                     December 22, 2009. Oregon
                                                  contribution did not exceed the                         pollution transport captured relative to              subsequently notified the EPA that a
                                                  specified air quality screening                         the amounts captured at the one-percent               clerical error was made and that all
                                                  threshold, the state was not considered                 level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5                interstate transport SIP documents had
                                                  ‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind                       percent threshold could lead to                       not been attached to the June 28, 2010
                                                  nonattainment and maintenance                           emission reduction responsibilities in                cover letter. The State transmitted the
                                                  receptors and was therefore not                         additional states that individually have              remaining documents to the EPA on
                                                  considered to significantly contribute to               a very small impact on those receptors—               December 23, 2010. We find that the
                                                  or interfere with maintenance of the                    an indicator that emission controls in                process followed by Oregon in adopting
                                                  standard in those downwind areas. If a                  those states are likely to have a smaller             the SIP submittal complies with the
                                                  state exceeded that threshold, the state’s              air quality impact at the downwind                    procedural requirements for SIP
                                                  emissions were further evaluated, taking                receptor. We are not convinced that                   revisions under CAA section 110 and
                                                  into account both air quality and cost                  selecting a threshold below one percent               the EPA’s implementing regulations.
                                                  considerations, to determine what, if                   is necessary or desirable.’’ 7                           With respect to the requirements in
                                                  any, emissions reductions might be                         In the final CSAPR, the EPA                        CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the
                                                  necessary. For the reasons stated below,                determined that one percent was a                     Oregon submittal stated that the area of
                                                  we believe it is appropriate to use the                 reasonable choice considering the                     highest Oregon emission densities
                                                  same approach we used in CSAPR to                       combined downwind impact of multiple                  (Portland metropolitan area) is
                                                  establish an air quality screening                      upwind states in the eastern United                   separated from the nearest ozone
                                                  threshold for the evaluation of interstate              States, the health effects of low levels of           nonattainment areas (in Nevada and
                                                  transport requirements for the 2008                     fine particulate matter and ozone                     California) by significant distances and
                                                  ozone standard.                                         pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of              major mountain ranges up to
                                                     In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air                    a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The                  approximately 7,000 feet. The submittal
                                                  quality screening threshold of one                      EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air                 noted that the Portland metropolitan
                                                  percent of the applicable NAAQS and                     quality threshold equal to one percent of             area shares a common airshed with
                                                  requested comment on whether one                        the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08               Vancouver, Washington metropolitan
                                                  percent was appropriate.4 The EPA                       ppm.8 The projected contribution from                 area. This bi-state airshed historically
                                                  evaluated the comments received and                     each state was averaged over multiple                 violated the one-hour ozone standard
                                                  ultimately determined that one percent                  days with projected high modeled                      and emissions in the area have been
                                                  was an appropriately low threshold                      ozone, and then compared to the one-                  managed under the Portland-Vancouver
                                                  because there were important, even if                   percent threshold. We concluded that                  ozone maintenance plan. The Portland-
                                                                                                          this approach for setting and applying                Vancouver area is in attainment with
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                     1 NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
                                                          X
                                                                                                          the air quality threshold for ozone was               the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
                                                  Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May                                                               The Oregon submittal stated that
                                                  12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),        5 See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule          meteorology and prevailing wind
                                                  76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).                           Technical Support Document, Appendix F;               direction, the effect of significant
                                                     2 76 FR 48208.                                       Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.
                                                     3 CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and           6 CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8,           topography on transport of pollutants,
                                                  the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS.        2011).                                                and characteristics of emissions sources
                                                     4 CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August           7 Id.

                                                  2, 2010).                                                 8 Id.                                                 9 Id.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Oct 26, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM    27OCP1


                                                  65682                 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                  in states bordering Oregon that are                     2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA                      110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
                                                  experiencing ozone attainment                           used nationwide state-level ozone                      2008 ozone standard. The EPA’s
                                                  problems (California and Nevada)                        source apportionment modeling (CAMx                    modeling confirms the results of the
                                                  support a finding that emissions from                   Ozone Source Apportionment                             State’s analysis: Oregon does not
                                                  Oregon sources do not significantly                     Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor                     significantly contribute to
                                                  contribute to nonattainment in, or                      Culpability Analysis technique) to                     nonattainment or interfere with
                                                  interfere with maintenance of, the 2008                 quantify the contribution of 2017 base                 maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard
                                                  ozone NAAQS in these nearby states.                     case nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and volatile               in any other state.
                                                  The Oregon submittal also asserted that                 organic compound (VOC) emissions
                                                  the Oregon SIP provides authority to                    from all sources in each state to the                  V. Statutory and Executive Order
                                                  participate in regional air planning,                   2017 projected receptors. The air quality              Reviews
                                                  collaborate with other states as                        model runs were performed for a                           Under the CAA, the Administrator is
                                                  necessary to address regional ozone                     modeling domain that covers the 48                     required to approve a SIP submission
                                                  issues should they arise, and control                   contiguous United States and adjacent                  that complies with the provisions of the
                                                  emissions from Oregon sources if                        portions of Canada and Mexico. The                     CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
                                                  necessary.                                              NODA and the supporting technical                      42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
                                                     The Oregon submittal also stated that                support documents have been included                   Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
                                                  Oregon Department of Environmental                      in the docket for this SIP action.                     EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
                                                  Quality consulted with air agencies in                     The modeling data released in the                   provided that they meet the criteria of
                                                  Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and                          NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most up-                 the CAA. Accordingly, this action
                                                  California and other agencies to evaluate               to-date information the EPA has                        merely proposes to approve state law as
                                                  case-specific air quality problems that                 developed to inform our analysis of                    meeting Federal requirements and does
                                                  may involve regional transport of air                   upwind state linkages to downwind air                  not impose additional requirements
                                                  pollution. These staff-level                            quality problems. For purposes of                      beyond those imposed by state law. For
                                                  communications indicated no impacts                     evaluating Oregon’s interstate transport               that reason, this action:
                                                  on ozone concentrations in other states                 SIP with respect to the 2008 8-hour                       • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
                                                  caused by transport from Oregon, and                    ozone standard, the EPA is proposing                   action’’ subject to review by the Office
                                                  the submittal stated that this provided                 that states whose contributions are less               of Management and Budget under
                                                  additional support for Oregon’s                         than one percent to downwind                           Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
                                                  assertion that emissions from Oregon                    nonattainment and maintenance                          October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
                                                  sources do not significantly contribute                 receptors are considered non-                          January 21, 2011);
                                                  to nonattainment in or interfere with                   significant. The modeling indicates that                  • Does not impose an information
                                                  maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS                     Oregon’s largest contribution to any                   collection burden under the provisions
                                                  in any other states.                                    projected downwind nonattainment site                  of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
                                                                                                          is 0.65 ppb and Oregon’s largest                       U.S.C. 3501 et se.);
                                                  III. EPA Evaluation
                                                                                                          contribution to any projected downwind                    • Is certified as not having a
                                                     On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a                  maintenance-only site is 0.65 ppb.11                   significant economic impact on a
                                                  Notice of Data Availability (NODA)                      These values are below the one percent                 substantial number of small entities
                                                  containing air quality modeling data                    screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and                   under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
                                                  that applies the CSAPR approach to                      therefore there are no identified linkages             U.S.C. 601 et se.);
                                                  contribution projections for the year                   between Oregon and 2017 downwind                          • Does not contain any unfunded
                                                  2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone                          projected nonattainment and                            mandate or significantly or uniquely
                                                  NAAQS.10 The moderate area                              maintenance sites. Note that the EPA                   affect small governments, as described
                                                  attainment date for the 2008 ozone                      has not done an assessment to                          in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                                  standard is July 11, 2018. In order to                  determine the applicability of the one                 of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
                                                  demonstrate attainment by this                          percent screening threshold for western                   • Does not have Federalism
                                                  attainment deadline, states will use                    states that contribute above the one                   implications as specified in Executive
                                                  2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data.                   percent threshold. There may be                        Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
                                                  Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future                additional considerations that may                     1999);
                                                  year to model for the purpose of                        impact regulatory decisions regarding                     • Is not an economically significant
                                                  examining interstate transport for the                  ‘‘potential’’ linkages in the west                     regulatory action based on health or
                                                  2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used                          identified by the modeling.                            safety risks subject to Executive Order
                                                  photochemical air quality modeling to                                                                          13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
                                                  project ozone concentrations at air                     IV. Proposed Action                                       • Is not a significant regulatory action
                                                  quality monitoring sites to 2017 and                       As discussed in Section II, Oregon                  subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
                                                  estimated state-by-state ozone                          concluded based on its own technical                   28355, May 22, 2001);
                                                  contributions to those 2017                             analysis that emissions from the State                    • Is not subject to requirements of
                                                  concentrations. This modeling used the                  do not significantly contribute to                     Section 12(d) of the National
                                                  Comprehensive Air Quality Model with                    nonattainment or interfere with                        Technology Transfer and Advancement
                                                  Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to                       maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard                 Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
                                                  model the 2011 base year, and the 2017                  in any other state. The EPA’s modeling,                it does not involve technical standards;
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  future base case emissions scenarios to                 discussed in Section III, confirms this                and
                                                  identify projected nonattainment and                    finding. Based on the modeling data and                   • Does not provide the EPA with the
                                                  maintenance sites with respect to the                   the information and analysis provided                  discretionary authority to address, as
                                                                                                          in Oregon’s June 28, 2010 submittal, we                appropriate, disproportionate human
                                                    10 See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of
                                                                                                          are proposing to approve the submittal                 health or environmental effects, using
                                                  Availability of the Environmental Protection                                                                   practicable and legally permissible
                                                  Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data
                                                                                                          for purposes of meeting the CAA section
                                                  for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality                                                                methods, under Executive Order 12898
                                                  Standard (NAAQS)).                                        11 80   FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3.             (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Oct 26, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00017    Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM   27OCP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                               65683

                                                     In addition, the SIP is not approved                 public comments received will be                      of encryption, and be free of any defects
                                                  to apply on any Indian reservation land                 addressed in a subsequent final rule                  or viruses.
                                                  or in any other area where the EPA or                   based on this proposed rule. EPA will                    Docket: All documents in the
                                                  an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a                 not institute a second comment period.                electronic docket are listed in the
                                                  tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of               Any parties interested in commenting                  www.regulations.gov index. Although
                                                  Indian country, the rule does not have                  on this action should do so at this time.             listed in the index, some information is
                                                  tribal implications as specified by                     DATES: Comments must be received in                   not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
                                                  Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,                     writing by November 27, 2015.                         information whose disclosure is
                                                  November 9, 2000), nor will it impose                                                                         restricted by statute. Certain other
                                                  substantial direct costs on tribal                      ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,                      material, such as copyrighted material,
                                                  governments or preempt tribal law.                      identified by Docket ID Number EPA–                   is not placed on the Internet and will be
                                                                                                          R03–OAR–2014–0568 by one of the                       publicly available only in hard copy
                                                  List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52                      following methods:                                    form. Publicly available docket
                                                    Environmental protection, Air                            A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the                 materials are available either
                                                  pollution control, Incorporation by                     on-line instructions for submitting                   electronically in www.regulations.gov or
                                                  reference, Intergovernmental relations,                 comments.                                             in hard copy during normal business
                                                  Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping                         B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov.                   hours at the Air Protection Division,
                                                  requirements.                                              C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0568,                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                    Dave Campbell, Associate Director,                    Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
                                                                                                          Office of Permits and Air Toxics,                     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
                                                    Dated: October 15, 2015.
                                                                                                          Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental                    Copies of the State submittal are
                                                  Dennis J. McLerran,                                     Protection Agency, Region III, 1650                   available at the Maryland Department of
                                                  Regional Administrator, Region 10.                      Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania               the Environment, 1800 Washington
                                                  [FR Doc. 2015–27165 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am]            19103.                                                Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P                                     D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-               Maryland 21230.
                                                                                                          listed EPA Region III address. Such                   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                                                                          deliveries are only accepted during the               Cathleen Van Osten, (215) 814–2746, or
                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                Docket’s normal hours of operation, and               by email at vanosten.cathleen@epa.gov.
                                                  AGENCY                                                  special arrangements should be made                   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
                                                  40 CFR Part 55                                          for deliveries of boxed information.                  further information, please see the
                                                                                                             Instructions: Direct your comments to              information provided in the direct final
                                                  [EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0568; FRL–9917–70–                    Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014–                       action, with the same title, that is
                                                  Region 3]                                               0568. EPA’s policy is that all comments               located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
                                                                                                          received will be included in the public               section of this Federal Register
                                                  Outer Continental Shelf Air
                                                                                                          docket without change, and may be                     publication.
                                                  Regulations Consistency Update for
                                                                                                          made available online at
                                                  Maryland                                                                                                       Dated: March 10, 2015
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov, including any
                                                                                                          personal information provided, unless                 William C. Early,
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
                                                  Agency (EPA).                                           the comment includes information                      Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
                                                  ACTION: Proposed rule.                                  claimed to be Confidential Business                     Editorial Note: This document was
                                                                                                          Information (CBI) or other information                received for publication by the Office of the
                                                  SUMMARY:    The Environmental Protection                whose disclosure is restricted by statute.            Federal Register on October 21, 2015.
                                                  Agency (EPA) proposes to update a                       Do not submit information that you                    [FR Doc. 2015–27159 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am]
                                                  portion of the Outer Continental Shelf                  consider to be CBI or otherwise                       BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                  (OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements                     protected through www.regulations.gov
                                                  applying to OCS sources located within                  or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
                                                  25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries                  site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
                                                  must be updated periodically to remain                  which means EPA will not know your                    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                  consistent with the requirements of the                 identity or contact information unless
                                                                                                                                                                National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                  corresponding onshore area (COA), as                    you provide it in the body of your
                                                                                                                                                                Administration
                                                  mandated by the Clean Air Act, as                       comment. If you send an email
                                                  amended in 1990 (the Act). The portion                  comment directly to EPA without going
                                                                                                                                                                50 CFR Part 300
                                                  of the OCS air regulations that is being                through www.regulations.gov, your
                                                  updated pertains to the requirements for                email address will be automatically                   [Docket No. 150902807–5949–01]
                                                  OCS sources for which Maryland is the                   captured and included as part of the
                                                  designated COA. In the Final Rules                      comment that is placed in the public                  RIN 0648–BE99
                                                  section of this Federal Register, EPA is                docket and made available on the
                                                  taking this action as a direct final rule               Internet. If you submit an electronic                 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna
                                                  without prior proposal because the                      comment, EPA recommends that you                      Fisheries; Vessel Register Required
                                                  Agency views this as a noncontroversial                 include your name and other contact                   Information, International Maritime
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  submittal and anticipates no adverse                    information in the body of your                       Organization Numbering Scheme
                                                  comments. A detailed rationale for the                  comment and with any disk or CD–ROM                   AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries
                                                  approval is set forth in the direct final               you submit. If EPA cannot read your                   Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
                                                  rule. If no adverse comments are                        comment due to technical difficulties                 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
                                                  received in response to this action, no                 and cannot contact you for clarification,             Commerce.
                                                  further activity is contemplated. If EPA                EPA may not be able to consider your
                                                                                                                                                                ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
                                                  receives adverse comments, the direct                   comment. Electronic files should avoid
                                                                                                                                                                comments.
                                                  final rule will be withdrawn and all                    the use of special characters, any form


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:30 Oct 26, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM   27OCP1



Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:35:46
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:35:46
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesWritten comments must be received on or before November 27, 2015.
ContactKristin Hall at (206) 553-6357,
FR Citation80 FR 65680 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR