81 FR 12849 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Interstate Transport of Lead and Nitrogen Dioxide
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 48 (March 11, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 48 (March 11, 2016)
| Page Range | 12849-12851 | |
| FR Document | 2016-05557 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 12849-12851] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-05557] [[Page 12849]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0050; FRL-9943-59-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Interstate Transport of Lead and Nitrogen Dioxide AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submittal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirements that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in any other state. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10- OAR-2016-0050, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from http://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, [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. Table of Contents I. Background II. State Submittal III. EPA Evaluation IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964, published November 12, 2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour, supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR 6474, published February 9, 2010). The CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) address basic SIP requirements, including but not limited to emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards--so-called infrastructure requirements. To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued infrastructure guidance for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\1\ Subsequently, on September 13, 2013, the EPA issued updated infrastructure guidance for multiple standards, including the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14, 2011. \2\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September 13, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain good neighbor provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These 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. II. State Submittal On October 20, 2015, Oregon made a submittal to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for multiple NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS. We note that this action addresses the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS only. We intend to address the remainder of the Oregon submittal, including requirements related to the 2010 one hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS and the 2012 annual fine particulate matter NAAQS in separate, future actions. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing. The Oregon submittal included public process documentation, including a duly-noticed public hearing held on August 18, 2015. We find that the process followed by Oregon in adopting the SIP submittal complies with the procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA's implementing regulations. III. EPA Evaluation A. 2008 Pb NAAQS The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011 infrastructure [[Page 12850]] guidance, that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as fine particulate matter or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in another state, the EPA anticipates that this would be a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries. The EPA's experience with initial Pb designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per year or that are located more than two miles from a state border generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state. As recommended by the EPA's guidance, Oregon evaluated whether large sources of Pb are located in close proximity to the border that have emissions such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in neighboring states. The state identified no sources of Pb emissions in Oregon greater than 0.5 tons per year that are also located within two miles of the border. The submittal also included a review of data from Pb monitors in bordering states and trends in monitored values in Oregon and bordering states. Compliance with the Pb NAAQS is measured by comparing the maximum rolling three-month average, over a three-year period, to the level of the NAAQS. This statistic represents the design value at a specific monitor. Oregon found that, for the design value period of 2011 through 2013, the only monitors violating the Pb NAAQS in a state bordering Oregon were those monitors located in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Mateo, California. Oregon concluded that it is unlikely that sources in Oregon will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state. We reviewed the Oregon submittal with respect to Pb and we agree with the state's conclusion. 2011 national emissions inventory data confirm that there are no Oregon sources identified that emit 0.5 tons per year or more of Pb that are also located within two miles of the Oregon border.\3\ We also reviewed the most recent data on ambient Pb levels in neighboring states--that became available after Oregon conducted its analysis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the 2012 through 2014 design value period we found that, for the purposes of evaluating significant contribution to nonattainment, there are only two violating monitors in states that border Oregon.\4\ These monitors are located in San Mateo and San Diego, California, and are approximately 300 and 600 miles from the Oregon border, respectively. We also reviewed data for the previous two design value periods--2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 2013--for purposes of evaluating interference with maintenance. We identified one monitor in a bordering state that violated the 2008 Pb NAAQS in these previous periods, but attained the standard in the most recent period of 2012 through 2014. This monitor is located in Los Angeles, California-- approximately 500 miles from the Oregon border. In all instances, none of these monitors are within sufficient proximity to Oregon to suggest that Pb emissions from Oregon will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to potential new sources of Pb, we reviewed provisions in the Federally-approved Oregon SIP designed to control emissions of Pb. Oregon generally regulates new sources of Pb through its pre- construction and operating permit regulations for stationary sources. Oregon's pre-construction permitting rules are found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 224--New Source Review. Oregon's Federally-enforceable state operating permit program is found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 216--Air Contaminant Discharge Permits. These rules are designed to ensure that new or modified stationary sources will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable NAAQS. Based on the Oregon submittal and our review of more recent monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that Oregon emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. B. 2010 NO2 NAAQS In the submittal, Oregon reviewed monitoring data and trends to evaluate whether emissions in Oregon significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS in other states. Compliance with the one hour NO2 NAAQS is determined by comparing the annual 98th percentile of the daily maximum one hour concentration values, averaged over three consecutive years to the level of the NAAQS. This statistic represents the design value at a specific monitor. Oregon found no violations of the one hour NO2 NAAQS at any established monitoring sites in the United States--for the design value period 2011 through 2013. Oregon also reviewed monitoring data from bordering states. The highest design value was 73 ppb at the San Diego, California, monitor--well below the 100 ppb level of the standard. Oregon asserted that a review of daily maximum one hour NO2 concentrations at monitors in Washington, California, Idaho and Nevada also indicate trends well below the standard. With respect to potential new emissions, Oregon cited provisions in the Oregon SIP that require review of new and modified stationary sources prior to construction. Planned new and modified major sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas must conduct air quality analyses to demonstrate that new emissions, along with emissions from existing sources, will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable standard. Based on ambient air monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP that regulate new sources, Oregon determined that it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from sources in Oregon will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS. We reviewed the Oregon submittal with respect to NO2 and we agree with the state's conclusion. We also reviewed the most recent data on ambient NO2 levels in neighboring states--that became available after Oregon conducted its analysis. For the purpose of evaluating significant contribution to nonattainment, we reviewed design values for the period 2012 through 2014 and found no monitors violating the one hour NO2 NAAQS in the United States.\5\ We also reviewed data for the previous two design value periods--2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 2013--to [[Page 12851]] evaluate interference with maintenance. We found no monitors violating the one hour NO2 NAAQS in these previous periods, as well. Further, monitored values are well below 100 ppb in states bordering Oregon--63 ppb was the highest design value for 2012 through 2014, at the Los Angeles, California, monitor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also reviewed provisions in the Federally-approved Oregon SIP designed to control emissions of NOX --of which NO2 is a subset. Oregon generally regulates emissions of NOX through its pre-construction permitting and operating permit regulations. Oregon's pre-construction permitting rules are found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 224--New Source Review. Oregon's Federally-enforceable state operating permit program is found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 216--Air Contaminant Discharge Permits. These rules are designed ensure that new or modified stationary sources will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable NAAQS. Based on the Oregon submittal and our review of more recent monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that Oregon emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS. IV. Proposed Action We are proposing to approve the Oregon submittal for the purposes of meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS. We intend to address the remainder of the submittal with respect to the 2010 one hour sulfur dioxide and 2012 annual fine particulate matter NAAQS in separate, future actions. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 2, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2016-05557 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 12849
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION http://www.regulations.gov index. One of the infrastructure elements,
AGENCY Although listed in the index, some CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires
information is not publicly available, SIPs to contain good neighbor
40 CFR Part 52 i.e., CBI or other information the provisions to prohibit certain adverse
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0050; FRL–9943–59– disclosure of which is restricted by air quality effects on neighboring states
Region 10] statute. Certain other material, such as due to interstate transport of pollution.
copyrighted material, is not placed on There are four sub-elements within CAA
Approval and Promulgation of the Internet and will be publicly section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action
Implementation Plans; Oregon: available only in hard copy form. addresses the first two sub-elements of
Interstate Transport of Lead and Publicly available docket materials are the good neighbor provisions, at CAA
Nitrogen Dioxide available either electronically at http:// section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy elements require that each SIP for a new
AGENCY: Environmental Protection during normal business hours at the or revised standard contain adequate
Agency (EPA). Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA provisions to prohibit any source or
ACTION: Proposed rule. Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, other type of emissions activity within
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) Washington 98101. the state from emitting air pollutants
requires each State Implementation Plan FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: that will contribute significantly to
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, nonattainment or interfere with
prohibiting air emissions that will have hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, maintenance of the applicable air
certain adverse air quality effects in Region 10 address. quality standard in any other state.
other states. On October 20, 2015, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. State Submittal
State of Oregon made a submittal to the Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is On October 20, 2015, Oregon made a
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
intended to refer to the EPA. submittal to address the interstate
to address these requirements. The EPA
transport requirements of CAA section
is proposing to approve the submittal as Table of Contents 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for multiple NAAQS,
meeting the requirements that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit I. Background including the 2008 Pb and 2010 one
emissions that will contribute II. State Submittal hour NO2 NAAQS. We note that this
significantly to nonattainment or III. EPA Evaluation action addresses the CAA section
IV. Proposed Action 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen dioxide requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010
(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality I. Background one hour NO2 NAAQS only. We intend
Standards (NAAQS) in any other state. to address the remainder of the Oregon
On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised submittal, including requirements
DATES: Written comments must be the level of the primary and secondary related to the 2010 one hour sulfur
received on or before April 11, 2016. Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per
dioxide NAAQS and the 2012 annual
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3 (73
fine particulate matter NAAQS in
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– FR 66964, published November 12,
separate, future actions.
OAR–2016–0050, at http:// 2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online established a primary NO2 NAAQS at section 110(l) require that revisions to a
instructions for submitting comments. 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged SIP be adopted by the state after
Once submitted, comments cannot be over one hour, supplementing the reasonable notice and public hearing.
edited or removed from http:// existing annual standard (75 FR 6474, The EPA has promulgated specific
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may published February 9, 2010).
procedural requirements for SIP
publish any comment received to its The CAA requires states to submit
revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
public docket. Do not submit SIPs meeting sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
within three years after promulgation of These requirements include publication
electronically any information you of notices by prominent advertisement
consider to be Confidential Business a new or revised standard. CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) address basic SIP in the relevant geographic area, a public
Information (CBI) or other information comment period of at least 30 days, and
the disclosure of which is restricted by requirements, including but not limited
to emissions inventories, monitoring, an opportunity for a public hearing. The
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, Oregon submittal included public
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards—so-called process documentation, including a
written comment. The written comment duly-noticed public hearing held on
is considered the official comment and infrastructure requirements. To help
states meet this statutory requirement, August 18, 2015. We find that the
should include discussion of all points process followed by Oregon in adopting
you wish to make. The EPA will the EPA issued infrastructure guidance
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.1 Subsequently, the SIP submittal complies with the
generally not consider comments or procedural requirements for SIP
comment contents located outside of the on September 13, 2013, the EPA issued
updated infrastructure guidance for revisions under CAA section 110 and
primary submission (i.e. on the web, the EPA’s implementing regulations.
cloud, or other file sharing system). For multiple standards, including the 2010
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
additional submission methods, the full one hour NO2 NAAQS.2 III. EPA Evaluation
EPA public comment policy, 1 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality A. 2008 Pb NAAQS
information about CBI or multimedia Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on
submissions, and general guidance on The EPA believes, as noted in the
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
making effective comments, please visit Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) October 14, 2011 infrastructure
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
commenting-epa-dockets. Division Directors, Regions I–X, October 14, 2011. Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
Docket: All documents in the 2 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality and 110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division
electronic docket are listed in the Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on Directors, Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Mar 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_12897/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 12851
evaluate interference with maintenance. beyond those imposed by state law. For Dated: March 2, 2016.
We found no monitors violating the one that reason, this action: Dennis J. McLerran,
hour NO2 NAAQS in these previous • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Regional Administrator, Region 10.
periods, as well. Further, monitored action’’ subject to review by the Office [FR Doc. 2016–05557 Filed 3–10–16; 8:45 am]
values are well below 100 ppb in states of Management and Budget under BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
bordering Oregon—63 ppb was the Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
highest design value for 2012 through October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
2014, at the Los Angeles, California, January 21, 2011); DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
monitor.
We also reviewed provisions in the • does not impose an information HUMAN SERVICES
Federally-approved Oregon SIP collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Indian Health Service
designed to control emissions of NOX—
of which NO2 is a subset. Oregon U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
42 CFR Part 136
generally regulates emissions of NOX • is certified as not having a
through its pre-construction permitting significant economic impact on a [RIN 0905AC97]
and operating permit regulations. substantial number of small entities
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund
Oregon’s pre-construction permitting under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
rules are found at Oregon U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Indian Health Service, HHS.
AGENCY:
Administrative Rules Chapter 340, • does not contain any unfunded Notice; extension of the
ACTION:
Division 224—New Source Review. mandate or significantly or uniquely comment period.
Oregon’s Federally-enforceable state affect small governments, as described
operating permit program is found at SUMMARY: This document extends the
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter comment period for the Catastrophic
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
340, Division 216—Air Contaminant Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) notice
Discharge Permits. These rules are • does not have Federalism of proposed rulemaking which was
designed ensure that new or modified implications as specified in Executive published in the Federal Register on
stationary sources will not cause or Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, January 26, 2016. The comment period
contribute to a violation of the 1999); for the notice, which would have ended
applicable NAAQS. • is not an economically significant on March 11, 2016, is extended by 60
Based on the Oregon submittal and regulatory action based on health or days.
our review of more recent monitoring safety risks subject to Executive Order DATES: The comment period for the
data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); notice published in the January 26, 2016
we believe it is reasonable to conclude • is not a significant regulatory action Federal Register (81 FR 4239) is
that Oregon emissions will not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR extended to May 10, 2016.
significantly contribute to 28355, May 22, 2001); ADDRESSES: Because of staff and
nonattainment or interfere with • is not subject to requirements of resource limitations, we cannot accept
maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2 Section 12(d) of the National comments by facsimile transmission.
NAAQS in any other state. We are Technology Transfer and Advancement You may submit comments in one of
proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because four ways (please choose only one of the
meeting the requirements of CAA it does not involve technical standards; ways listed):
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 and 1. Electronically. You may submit
one hour NO2 NAAQS. written comments on this regulation to
• does not provide the EPA with the http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
IV. Proposed Action discretionary authority to address, as ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ instructions.
We are proposing to approve the appropriate, disproportionate human 2. By regular mail. You may mail
Oregon submittal for the purposes of health or environmental effects, using written comments to the following
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) practicable and legally permissible address ONLY: Betty Gould, Regulations
interstate transport requirements for the methods, under Executive Order 12898 Officer, Indian Health Service, Office of
2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Management Services, Division of
NAAQS. We intend to address the In addition, the SIP is not approved to Regulatory Affairs, 5600 Fishers Lane,
remainder of the submittal with respect apply on any Indian reservation land or Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland
to the 2010 one hour sulfur dioxide and in any other area where the EPA or an 20857.
2012 annual fine particulate matter Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Please allow sufficient time for mailed
NAAQS in separate, future actions. tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of comments to be received before the
V. Statutory and Executive Order Indian country, the rule does not have close of the comment period.
tribal implications as specified by 3. By express or overnight mail. You
Reviews
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, may send written comments to the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is above address.
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
required to approve a SIP submission 4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
substantial direct costs on tribal
that complies with the provisions of the you may deliver (by hand or courier)
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
governments or preempt tribal law.
CAA and applicable Federal regulations. your written comments before the close
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 of the comment period to the address
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the above. If you intend to deliver your
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Environmental protection, Air comments to the Rockville address,
provided that they meet the criteria of pollution control, Incorporation by please call telephone number (301) 443–
the CAA. Accordingly, this action reference, Intergovernmental relations, 1116 in advance to schedule your
merely proposes to approve state law as Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and arrival with a staff member.
meeting Federal requirements and does recordkeeping requirements. Comments will be made available for
not impose additional requirements Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. public inspection at the Rockville
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Mar 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_12897/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-11 01:51:24
Document Modified: 2016-03-11 01:51:24
| 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 April 11, 2016. | |
| Contact | Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 12849 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR