Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 46514-46516 [2013-18314]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46514
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: July 12, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0884, FRL–9841–1]
40 CFR Part 52
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
AGENCY:
■
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.245 is added to read as
follows:
■
§52.245
New Source Review rules.
(a) Approval of the New Source
Review rules for the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
Rules 2020 and 2201 as approved on
May 17, 2004 in
§ 52.220(c)(311)(i)(B)(1), and in effect for
Federal purposes from June 16, 2004
through June 10, 2010, is limited, as it
relates to agricultural sources, to the
extent that the permit requirements
apply:
(1) To agricultural sources with
potential emissions at or above a major
source applicability threshold; and
(2) To agricultural sources with actual
emissions at or above 50 percent of a
major source applicability threshold.
(b) Approval of the New Source
Review rules for the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
Rules 2020 and 2201 as approved on
May 17, 2004 in
§ 52.220(c)(311)(i)(B)(1), and in effect for
Federal purposes from June 16, 2004
through June 10, 2010, is limited, as it
relates to agricultural sources, to the
extent that the emission offset
requirements apply to major agricultural
sources and major modifications of such
sources.
[FR Doc. 2013–18413 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 31, 2013
The EPA is approving the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Oregon to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
promulgated for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, and October
17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12,
2008. The EPA is finding that the
Federally-approved provisions currently
in the Oregon SIP meet the CAA
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA is also finding that
the Federally-approved provisions
currently in the Oregon SIP meet the
interstate transport requirements of the
CAA related to prevention of significant
deterioration for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and related to visibility for the
2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
This action does not approve any
additional provisions into the Oregon
SIP but is a finding that the current
provisions of the Oregon SIP are
adequate to satisfy the above-mentioned
infrastructure elements required by the
CAA.
DATES: This action is effective on
September 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0884. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue,
SUMMARY:
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA
requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 21, 2013, the EPA proposed
to approve the September 25, 2008,
December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011,
and December 19, 2011 SIP submittals
from the State of Oregon to demonstrate
that the SIP meets the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
NAAQS promulgated for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, and
October 17, 2006, and for ozone on
March 12, 2008 (78 FR 17304). In our
March 21, 2013, notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR), we proposed to
approve the SIP submittals and to find
that the Federally-approved provisions
currently in the Oregon SIP meet the
following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We also
proposed to find that the Federallyapproved provisions currently in the
Oregon SIP meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it
applies to prevention of significant
deterioration for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008
ozone NAAQS. An explanation of the
CAA requirements and implementing
regulations that are met by these SIP
submittals, a detailed explanation of the
submittals, and the EPA’s reasons for
approving the submittals and making
the above-described findings were
provided in the NPR, and will not be
restated here. The public comment
period for this proposed rule ended on
April 22, 2013. The EPA received one
comment on the NPR.
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
II. Response to Comment
Comment: The commenter stated that
‘‘the Oregon SIP does not currently
contain emission limits and other
provisions which ensure that Oregon
will attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,’’ and should be disapproved.
In support of this conclusion, the
commenter described the potential
impact of future PM2.5 emissions from
Coyote Island Terminal, LLC’s proposed
Morrow Pacific Project in Oregon. The
commenter included an air quality
modeling analysis of the Morrow Pacific
Project’s potential future ambient PM2.5
impacts, commissioned by the
commenter’s client. The analysis
predicted that the Morrow Pacific
Project will emit PM2.5 in quantities that
will cause violations of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter concluded that
‘‘if the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality issues an air
pollution permit to the Coyote Island
terminal, it will demonstrate that the
Oregon SIP currently lacks emission
limits and other measures to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ The commenter further
stated that ‘‘[s]hould the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
deny the air pollution permit for the
Coyote Island coal terminal, then these
comments would no longer be
applicable.’’ The commenter did not
identify any particular regulatory
deficiencies in the Oregon SIP. The
commenter’s conclusion that the Oregon
SIP should be disapproved is contingent
upon the outcome of a future permitting
decision.
Response: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires that a SIP ‘‘include enforceable
emission limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques . . . as
well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of this chapter.’’ The EPA
notes that the commenter did not
identify a specific absence of
‘‘enforceable emission limitations or
other control measures’’ necessary to
ensure attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Rather, the commenter’s conclusion that
the Oregon infrastructure SIP for PM2.5
is deficient is contingent upon a
particular decision being made under
the existing SIP-approved regulations
that the commenter anticipates will be
applied in the case of the proposed
Morrow Pacific Project, if that project is
issued an air quality permit in the
future.
The EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s conclusion that the Oregon
SIP must, or can be disapproved
contingent upon a particular, potential,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
future permitting decision. Rather, our
analysis of the Oregon SIP as discussed
in the NPR, set forth the EPA’s basis for
concluding that the current Federallyapproved Oregon SIP meets the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In our analysis we stated
that the State of Oregon generally
regulates emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors through its SIP-approved
New Source Review (NSR) permitting
programs, in addition to other rules and
control programs. The EPA most
recently approved revisions to the
State’s major and minor NSR permitting
programs on December 27, 2011 (76 FR
80747), to regulate direct PM2.5
emissions, in addition to nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
as precursors to PM2.5. In addition to the
State’s NSR permitting regulations, the
State’s approved SIP contains rules that
establish various controls on emissions
of particulate matter, NOX, and SO2.
These regulations address operational
and work practice standards, fuel
burning equipment and fuel sulfur
content, grain loading, specific industry
sectors, motor vehicle pollution,
industrial emission management,
residential wood heating, field burning,
and banking of emission reduction
credits.
As described above, the comment
focused on the Coyote Island Terminal,
LLC’s proposed Morrow Pacific Project,
asserting that if permitted, the source
would, in the future, emit PM2.5 in
quantities that would violate the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the source in
question is a new source which has not
yet been permitted and is not currently
operating, the comment does not
provide a basis for finding that the SIP
lacks emission limitations and other
control measures necessary to support a
disapproval of the State’s infrastructure
SIP submission.
The EPA finds that Oregon’s SIP
contains ‘‘emission limits and other
control measures’’ that are appropriate
to ensure attainment of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Under the provisions of
Oregon’s Federally-approved SIP,
owners and operators of new and
modified major sources must satisfy the
requirements of Oregon’s Federallyapproved major NSR program set forth
at Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
340–224 ‘‘Major New Source Review.’’
Oregon’s major NSR program includes
requirements for new and modified
major sources located in attainment and
unclassifiable areas (OAR 340–224–
0070) and nonattainment areas (OAR
340–224–0050). Oregon’s minor NSR
program set forth at OAR 340–216 ‘‘Air
Contaminant Discharge Permits’’
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46515
includes requirements for minor sources
located in attainment, unclassifiable,
and nonattainment areas and requires
that increases in emissions from any
new or modified source not cause or
contribute to violations of ambient
standards or applicable PSD increments.
Oregon’s Federally-approved major and
minor NSR permitting programs
regulate and control emissions from
new and modified sources of regulated
pollutants, including PM2.5 and NOX
and SO2 as precursors.
The commenter’s conclusion that ‘‘if
the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality issues an air
pollution permit to the Coyote Island
terminal, it will demonstrate that the
Oregon SIP currently lacks emission
limits and other measures to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS’’ fails to account for the
State’s Federally-approved NSR
permitting programs and the
requirements that owners and operators
must satisfy prior to obtaining a permit.
A finding related to the legal adequacy
of this SIP cannot be based solely on the
outcome of this particular potential
permitting action, as the commenter
proffers.
The EPA believes the current,
Federally-approved Oregon SIP includes
enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or
techniques to attain and maintain the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and therefore, is
taking final action to find that the
Oregon SIP meets the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Action
The EPA has determined that the
September 25, 2008, December 23, 2010,
August 17, 2011, and December 19,
2011, SIP submittals from the State of
Oregon are consistent with the
requirements of section 110 of the CAA.
Therefore, the EPA is approving the SIP
submittals from the State of Oregon to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements of the CAA
for the NAAQS promulgated for PM2.5
on July 18, 1997, and October 17, 2006,
and for ozone on March 12, 2008. The
EPA is finding that the Federallyapproved provisions currently in the
Oregon SIP meet the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements
for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and the
2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
The EPA is also finding that the
Federally-approved provisions currently
in the Oregon SIP meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it
applies to prevention of significant
deterioration for the 2008 ozone
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
46516
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
NAAQS, and CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008
ozone NAAQS. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act 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 proposed
action merely approves the state’s law
as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
the state’s law. For that reason, this
proposed 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);
• 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in Oregon, and the EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by September 30,
2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 19, 2013.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Subpart MM—Oregon
2. Section 52.1991 is amended by
redesignating the undesignated text as
paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1991 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) On September 25, 2008, December
23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and
December 19, 2011, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
submitted SIP revisions to address the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA
approves the submittals as meeting the
following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA also
approves the submittals as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
prevention of significant deterioration
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008
ozone NAAQS.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–18314 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA200–4204; FRL–9811–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Update to Materials
Incorporated by Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; administrative
change.
AGENCY:
EPA is updating the materials
that are incorporated by reference (IBR)
into the Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
regulations affected by this update have
been previously submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) and
approved by EPA. This update affects
the SIP materials that are available for
public inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center located at EPA
Headquarters in Washington, DC, and
the EPA Regional Office.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46514-46516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18314]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884, FRL-9841-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate
Matter and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets
the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, and October 17,
2006, and for ozone on March 12, 2008. The EPA is finding that the
Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet the CAA
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also finding
that the Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet
the interstate transport requirements of the CAA related to prevention
of significant deterioration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and related to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This
action does not approve any additional provisions into the Oregon SIP
but is a finding that the current provisions of the Oregon SIP are
adequate to satisfy the above-mentioned infrastructure elements
required by the CAA.
DATES: This action is effective on September 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 21, 2013, the EPA proposed to approve the September 25,
2008, December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and December 19, 2011 SIP
submittals from the State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets
the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the NAAQS
promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18,
1997, and October 17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12, 2008 (78 FR
17304). In our March 21, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), we
proposed to approve the SIP submittals and to find that the Federally-
approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A),
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We also
proposed to find that the Federally-approved provisions currently in
the Oregon SIP meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
as it applies to prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. An
explanation of the CAA requirements and implementing regulations that
are met by these SIP submittals, a detailed explanation of the
submittals, and the EPA's reasons for approving the submittals and
making the above-described findings were provided in the NPR, and will
not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule
ended on April 22, 2013. The EPA received one comment on the NPR.
[[Page 46515]]
II. Response to Comment
Comment: The commenter stated that ``the Oregon SIP does not
currently contain emission limits and other provisions which ensure
that Oregon will attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,''
and should be disapproved. In support of this conclusion, the commenter
described the potential impact of future PM2.5 emissions
from Coyote Island Terminal, LLC's proposed Morrow Pacific Project in
Oregon. The commenter included an air quality modeling analysis of the
Morrow Pacific Project's potential future ambient PM2.5
impacts, commissioned by the commenter's client. The analysis predicted
that the Morrow Pacific Project will emit PM2.5 in
quantities that will cause violations of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter concluded that ``if the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality issues an air pollution permit to the Coyote
Island terminal, it will demonstrate that the Oregon SIP currently
lacks emission limits and other measures to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The commenter further
stated that ``[s]hould the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
deny the air pollution permit for the Coyote Island coal terminal, then
these comments would no longer be applicable.'' The commenter did not
identify any particular regulatory deficiencies in the Oregon SIP. The
commenter's conclusion that the Oregon SIP should be disapproved is
contingent upon the outcome of a future permitting decision.
Response: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that a SIP ``include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of
this chapter.'' The EPA notes that the commenter did not identify a
specific absence of ``enforceable emission limitations or other control
measures'' necessary to ensure attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS. Rather, the commenter's conclusion that the Oregon
infrastructure SIP for PM2.5 is deficient is contingent upon
a particular decision being made under the existing SIP-approved
regulations that the commenter anticipates will be applied in the case
of the proposed Morrow Pacific Project, if that project is issued an
air quality permit in the future.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that the Oregon
SIP must, or can be disapproved contingent upon a particular,
potential, future permitting decision. Rather, our analysis of the
Oregon SIP as discussed in the NPR, set forth the EPA's basis for
concluding that the current Federally-approved Oregon SIP meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In our analysis we stated that the State of
Oregon generally regulates emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors through its SIP-approved New Source Review
(NSR) permitting programs, in addition to other rules and control
programs. The EPA most recently approved revisions to the State's major
and minor NSR permitting programs on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747),
to regulate direct PM2.5 emissions, in addition to nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as
precursors to PM2.5. In addition to the State's NSR
permitting regulations, the State's approved SIP contains rules that
establish various controls on emissions of particulate matter,
NOX, and SO2. These regulations address
operational and work practice standards, fuel burning equipment and
fuel sulfur content, grain loading, specific industry sectors, motor
vehicle pollution, industrial emission management, residential wood
heating, field burning, and banking of emission reduction credits.
As described above, the comment focused on the Coyote Island
Terminal, LLC's proposed Morrow Pacific Project, asserting that if
permitted, the source would, in the future, emit PM2.5 in
quantities that would violate the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because
the source in question is a new source which has not yet been permitted
and is not currently operating, the comment does not provide a basis
for finding that the SIP lacks emission limitations and other control
measures necessary to support a disapproval of the State's
infrastructure SIP submission.
The EPA finds that Oregon's SIP contains ``emission limits and
other control measures'' that are appropriate to ensure attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the provisions of Oregon's
Federally-approved SIP, owners and operators of new and modified major
sources must satisfy the requirements of Oregon's Federally-approved
major NSR program set forth at Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-
224 ``Major New Source Review.'' Oregon's major NSR program includes
requirements for new and modified major sources located in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (OAR 340-224-0070) and nonattainment areas
(OAR 340-224-0050). Oregon's minor NSR program set forth at OAR 340-216
``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits'' includes requirements for minor
sources located in attainment, unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas
and requires that increases in emissions from any new or modified
source not cause or contribute to violations of ambient standards or
applicable PSD increments. Oregon's Federally-approved major and minor
NSR permitting programs regulate and control emissions from new and
modified sources of regulated pollutants, including PM2.5
and NOX and SO2 as precursors.
The commenter's conclusion that ``if the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality issues an air pollution permit to the Coyote
Island terminal, it will demonstrate that the Oregon SIP currently
lacks emission limits and other measures to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' fails to account for
the State's Federally-approved NSR permitting programs and the
requirements that owners and operators must satisfy prior to obtaining
a permit. A finding related to the legal adequacy of this SIP cannot be
based solely on the outcome of this particular potential permitting
action, as the commenter proffers.
The EPA believes the current, Federally-approved Oregon SIP
includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques to attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and therefore, is taking final action to find that the Oregon
SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Action
The EPA has determined that the September 25, 2008, December 23,
2010, August 17, 2011, and December 19, 2011, SIP submittals from the
State of Oregon are consistent with the requirements of section 110 of
the CAA. Therefore, the EPA is approving the SIP submittals from the
State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure
requirements of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated for PM2.5
on July 18, 1997, and October 17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12,
2008. The EPA is finding that the Federally-approved provisions
currently in the Oregon SIP meet the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA is also finding
that the Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 ozone
[[Page 46516]]
NAAQS, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility
for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed 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);
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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
Oregon, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 19, 2013.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart MM--Oregon
0
2. Section 52.1991 is amended by redesignating the undesignated text as
paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1991 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(b) On September 25, 2008, December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and
December 19, 2011, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
submitted SIP revisions to address the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approves the submittals as meeting the
following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A),
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA
also approves the submittals as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to prevention of significant
deterioration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 2006
PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18314 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
