Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Medford Area Carbon Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, 47029-47034 [2016-17060]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety
zone, during daylight hours, lasting less
than 13 hours per day for 21 days that
will prohibit entry into or transit within
MM 23 to 23.5 of the Houma Navigation
Canal. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2–1 of the Commandant
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination
and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this rule.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T08–0650 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T08–0650 Safety zone; Houma
Navigation Canal between mile 23 to 23.5,
Dulac, LA.
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: All waters of the
Houma Navigation Canal, surface to
bottom, between mile 23 and mile 23.5,
Dulac, LA.
(b) Enforcement period. This safety
zone will be enforced from 7:00 a.m.
until 7:00 p.m. daily from July 7 through
July 27, 2016.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23, entry
into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port Morgan City (COTP) or
designated personnel. Persons or vessels
desiring to enter into or pass through
the zone must request permission from
the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted
on VHF–FM radio channel 13 and 16 or
phone at 504–343–7928.
(2) Persons and vessels permitted to
deviate from this safety zone regulation
and enter the restricted area must transit
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47029
at the slowest safe speed and comply
with all lawful directions issued by the
COTP or the designated representative.
(d) Informational broadcasts. The
COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through
broadcast notices to mariners of the
enforcement period for the temporary
safety zone as well as any changes in the
planned schedule.
Dated: July 1, 2016.
B.E. Welborn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Morgan City.
[FR Doc. 2016–17035 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0854; FRL–9949–00–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Medford
Area Carbon Monoxide Second 10Year Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a second 10-year
carbon monoxide (CO) limited
maintenance plan (LMP) for the
Medford area in Oregon, submitted by
the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (tODEQ) on
December 11, 2015, along with a
supplementary submittal on December
30, 2015, as a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). In
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is
approving this SIP revision because it
demonstrates that the Medford area will
continue to meet the CO National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for a second 10-year period
beyond redesignation, through 2025.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 19, 2016, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse
comment by August 19, 2016. If the EPA
receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2015–0854 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Chi.John@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
47030
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, 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 whose disclosure 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, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and
Waste (OAW–150), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:
206–553–1185; email address:
Chi.John@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
I. This Action
The EPA is approving the carbon
monoxide limited maintenance plan
(CO LMP) submitted by the ODEQ, on
December 11, 2015, along with a
supplementary submittal on December
30, 2015, (the submittal) for the Medford
area. A LMP is a means of meeting
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for
formerly designated nonattainment
areas that meet certain qualification
criteria. This CO LMP is designed to
II. Background
Under section 107(d)(1)(c) of the
CAA, each CO area designated
nonattainment prior to enactment of the
1990 Amendments, such as Medford,
was designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment of the
1990 Amendments. Under section
186(a) of the CAA, each CO area
designated nonattainment under section
107(d) was also classified by operation
of law as either ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘serious’’
depending on the severity of the area’s
air quality problem. CO areas with
design values between 9.1 and 16.4
parts per million (ppm), such as
Medford, were classified as moderate.
These nonattainment designations and
classifications were codified in 40 CFR
part 81 on November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56695).
On July 24, 2002, the EPA approved
the ODEQ’s request to redesignate the
Medford area to attainment of the CO
standard (67 FR 48388). In that action,
the EPA also approved the maintenance
plan required under CAA section
175A(a) to provide for 10 years of
maintenance of the CO standard in the
Medford area through the year 2015 (67
FR 48388).
As required by the CAA section
175A(b), the SIP submittal provides a
second 10-year plan for maintaining the
CO standard in the Medford area until
2025. For the second 10-year
maintenance plan, the ODEQ chose the
option as described in an EPA October
6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph
Paisie, the Group Leader of the
Integrated Policy and Strategies Group,
titled, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas’’ (LMP Option).
To qualify for the LMP Option, the CO
design value for an area, based on the
eight consecutive quarters (two years of
data) used to demonstrate attainment,
must be at or below 7.65 ppm (85
percent of the CO NAAQS). In addition,
the control measures from the first CO
maintenance plan must remain in place.
The EPA has determined that the LMP
Option for CO is also available to all
states as part of the CAA 175A(b) update
to the maintenance plans, regardless of
the original nonattainment
classification, or lack thereof. Thus, the
EPA finds that although the Medford
area was designated as a moderate
nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS,
1 MOVES2010b was the most current model
available at the time that ODEQ was performing its
redesignation to attainment status in
conjunction with meeting all
requirements of the October 6, 1995,
memorandum, allows the ODEQ to be
eligible to submit a LMP as the update
to its original maintenance plan per
section 175A(b) of the CAA.
analysis. The EPA released MOVES2014 on October
7, 2014 (79 FR 60343).
Table of Contents
I. This Action
II. Background
III. Evaluation of Oregon’s Submittal
A. Base Year Emission Inventory
B. Demonstration of Maintenance
C. Control Measures
D. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
E. Contingency Plan
F. Transportation and General Conformity
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
keep the Medford area in attainment
with the CO standard for a second 10year period beyond redesignation,
through 2025.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
III. Evaluation of Oregon’s Submittal
The requirements of the LMP Option
and the EPA’s evaluation of how each
requirement has been met by the
ODEQ’s submittal is summarized below.
A. Base Year Emission Inventory
The LMP must contain an attainment
year emissions inventory to identify a
level of CO emissions in the area that is
sufficiently low enough to attain the CO
NAAQS. The submittal contains a
summary of the CO emissions inventory
for the Medford area for the base year
2008. The emission inventory lists CO
emissions by general source category—
stationary point sources, stationary area
sources, on-road mobile sources and
non-road mobile sources. On-road
mobile sources emissions for the 2008
base year inventory were estimated with
the EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) 2010b.1 The
methods used to determine the Medford
area CO emission inventory are
consistent with the EPA’s most recent
guidance on developing emission
inventories.
Historically, exceedances of the CO
standard in the Medford area have
occurred during the winter months,
when cooler temperatures contribute to
incomplete combustion, and when CO
emissions are trapped near the ground
by atmospheric inversions. Sources of
carbon monoxide include industry,
motor vehicles, non-road mobile
sources, (e.g., construction equipment,
recreational vehicles, lawn and garden
equipment, and area sources (e.g.,
outdoor burning, woodstoves,
fireplaces, and wildfires). The three
consecutive months—December through
February define the typical CO season.
As such, season day emissions in
addition to annual emissions are
included in the inventory. The unit of
measure for annual emissions is in tons
per year (tpy), while the unit of measure
for season day emissions is in pounds
per day (lb/day). The county-wide
emissions inventory data is spatially
allocated to the Medford urban growth
boundary (UGB), and to buffers around
the UGB, depending on emissions
category.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
47031
2008 EMISSIONS INVENTORY, MAIN SOURCE CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
Annual
emissions
tons per year
Main source category
CO emissions
pounds per
winter day
Stationary Point Sources .........................................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile Sources ..........................................................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile Sources ........................................................................................................................................
Stationary Area Sources ..........................................................................................................................................
2.367.1
5,730.0
4,488.2
3,333.1
13,159
28,731
10,061
30,399
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
15,927.4
82,350
B. Demonstration of Maintenance
The CO NAAQS is attained when the
annual second highest 8-hour average
CO concentration for an area does not
exceed a concentration of 9.0 ppm. The
last monitored violation of the CO
NAAQS in the Medford area occurred in
1991, and CO levels have been steadily
in decline. The second highest 8-hour
CO concentration in 2009 was 2.4 ppm,
which is in attainment with the CO
NAAQS.
For areas that meet the criteria to use
the LMP Option, the maintenance plan
demonstration requirement is
considered to be satisfied. The EPA
believes that if the area begins the
maintenance period at, or below, 85
percent of the level of the CO 8-hour
NAAQS (at or below 7.65 ppm), the
applicability of prevention of significant
deterioration requirements, the control
measures already in the SIP, and
Federal control measures already in
place will provide adequate assurance
of maintenance over the maintenance
period. Thus, there is no requirement to
project emissions of air quality over the
upcoming maintenance period. The
second highest 8-hour CO concentration
for Medford based on the two most
recent years of data (2008–2009) is 2.4
ppm, which is significantly below the
LMP Option requirement of 7.65 ppm.2
Therefore, the EPA finds that the ODEQ
has demonstrated that the Medford area
qualifies for the LMP Option and has
satisfied the maintenance demonstration
requirement.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Control Measures
The submittal retains the control
measures from the first CO maintenance
plan (67 FR 48388). The primary control
measure has been the emission
standards for new motor vehicles under
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program. Other control measures have
been the Major New Source Review
2 The years 2008–2009 are the most recent two
years for available monitoring data because
monitoring was discontinued after 2009. The ODEQ
has developed an alternate method to verify
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS, discussed
in the next section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
Program with Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), Motor Vehicle
Inspection Program, and a woodsmoke
curtailment program. As stated above,
the EPA believes that the Medford area
will continue to maintain the standard
with the continued implementation of
these control measures along with
meeting the other requirements to
qualify for the LMP option.
D. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
Monitored CO levels in the Medford
area have declined progressively since
1991. CO levels have declined
significantly across the nation through
motor vehicle emissions controls and
fleet turnover to newer, cleaner vehicle
models. Once CO levels declined and
continued to stay well below the
NAAQS, the ODEQ requested to remove
the Medford CO monitor in 2009 and
the EPA approved the request on
October 14, 2010. The ODEQ now has
been using an alternate method of
verifying continued attainment with the
CO standard based on the regional
emissions analysis conducted by the
Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization and by using the Portland
CO monitor to track trends in general
CO levels. Both the ODEQ report and
the EPA network approval letter are
included in the materials of this docket.
Under the Medford CO LMP, the
ODEQ will verify continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS by conducting a
review of CO emissions inventory data
for the Medford area. The ODEQ will
calculate CO emissions every three
years as part of the Statewide Emissions
Inventory, which is submitted to the
EPA for inclusion in the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI). The ODEQ
commits to review the NEI estimates to
identify any increases over the 2008
emission levels (see the base year
emissions inventory in this section) and
report on them in the annual monitoring
network plan for the applicable year.
Because on-road mobile sources and
stationary area sources are the
predominant sources of CO in Medford,
these source categories will be the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
primary focus of the ODEQ’s review.
The ODEQ will evaluate any increase in
CO emissions to confirm it is not due to
a change in emission calculation
methodology, an exceptional event, or
other factor not representative of an
actual emissions increase.
E. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions necessary to
ensure prompt correction of any
violations of the standard that may
occur. The ODEQ has submitted a
revised contingency plan that has three
phase of action. The initial contingency
plan trigger is a ‘‘significant increase’’ in
the emissions inventory, which is
defined as ten percent above the 2008
emissions inventory levels. The three
phases of actions are as follows:
Phase 1. If the three-year review of CO
emissions shows a significant increase
in emissions, the ODEQ will reestablish
ambient CO monitoring in Medford.
Phase 2. If the monitoring data
indicates that the LMP eligibility level
of 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hr
standard) is exceeded, the ODEQ will
evaluate the cause of the CO increase,
and investigate corrective strategies.
Phase 3. If a validated violation of the
CO standard occurs, in addition to
Phase 2 above, the ODEQ will replace
the BACT requirement for new and
expanding industry with Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER);
reinstate CO emissions offset
requirements for new and expanding
industry; and consider other CO
emission reduction measures.
F. Transportation and General
Conformity
Federal transportation conformity
rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and
general conformity rules (58 FR 63214)
continue to apply under a LMP.
However, as noted in the LMP Option
memo, these requirements are greatly
simplified. An area under a LMP can
demonstrate conformity without
submitting an emissions budget, and as
a result, emissions do not need to be
capped nor does a regional emissions
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
47032
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
analysis (including modeling) need to
be conducted.
On April 28, 2016, the EPA found the
Medford CO LMP to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes (81
FR 25394). Although regional emissions
are no longer required as part of the
transportation conformity
determinations for CO for the Medford
area, other transportation conformity
requirements continue to apply to the
area, such as consultation,
transportation control measures, and
project level conformity requirements.
The Medford area will continue to be
exempt from performing a regional
emission analysis, but must meet
project-level conformity analyses as
well as transportation conformity areas.
IV. Final Action
In accordance with the requirements
of the CAA, the EPA is approving the
Medford CO LMP submitted by the
ODEQ on December 11, 2015, and
supplemented on December 30, 2015.
The ODEQ has adequately demonstrated
that the Medford area qualifies for the
LMP option and will maintain the CO
NAAQS through the second 10-year
maintenance period through 2025.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 approves 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 Orders 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
this action 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).
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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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. The 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by September 19, 2016. 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of the Federal Register, rather than file
an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
the EPA can withdraw this direct final
rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Michelle L. 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:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart MM—Oregon
2. Amend § 52.1970, paragraph (e),
table titled ‘‘State of Oregon Air Quality
Control Program’’ by revising ‘‘Section
4’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1970
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
47033
STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
State
effective date
EPA
approval date
*
*
4.1, 12/19/1980 ......................
*
4.1, 4/12/1982, 47 FR 15587
4.2, 7/16/1982 ........................
4.2, 10/7/1982, 47 FR 44261
4.3, 7/16/1982 ........................
4.3, 10/7/1982, 47 FR 44261
4.4, 6/20/1979 ........................
4.4, 6/24/1980, 45 FR 42265
4.5, 9/19/1980 ........................
4.5, 4/12/1982, 47 FR 15587
4.6, 1/30/1981 ........................
4.6, 4/12/1982, 47 FR 15587
4.7, 6/20/1979 ........................
4.7, 6/24/1980, 45 FR 42265
4.7, 12/9/1988 ........................
4.7, 12/6/1993, 58 FR 64161
4.8, 1/25/85 ............................
4.8, 6/4/1986, 51 FR 20285 ..
4.9, 10/15/1982 ......................
4.9, 2/13/1987, 52 FR 4620 ..
4.10, 4/1983 ...........................
4.10, 8/15/1984, 49 FR 32574
4.11, 10/24/1986 ....................
4.11, 1/15/1988, 53 FR 1020
4.12, 8/18/1995 ......................
4.12, 4/14/1997, 62 FR 18047
4.13, 11/13/1991 ....................
4.14, 9/9/2005 ........................
4.13, 12/17/1993, 58 FR
65934.
4.14, 6/19/2006, 71 FR 35163
4.15, 11/8/1991 ......................
4.15, 2/15/1995, 60 FR 8563
4.16, 1/31/1991 ......................
4.16, 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483
4.17, 11/20/2000, (submittal
date).
4.18, 11/4/1996 ......................
SIP citation
4.17, 9/20/2001, 66 FR 48340
Title/subject
*
Section 4 ........
*
Control Strategies for Nonattainment Areas.
4.19, 6/1/1995, (submittal
date).
4.50, 8/14/1996 ......................
Explanation
4.18, 3/15/1999, 64 FR 12751
4.19, 9/21/1999, 64 FR 51051
4.50, 5/19/1997, 62 FR 27204
4.50, 4/12/2007 ......................
4.50, 12/19/2011, 76 FR
78571.
4.51, 7/12/1996 ......................
4.51, 9/2/1997, 62 FR 46208
4.52, 3/9/2001 ........................
4.52, 7/24/2002, 67 FR 48388
4.53, 9/10/1999 ......................
4.53, 8/31/2000, 65 FR 52932
4.55, 10/4/2002 ......................
4.58, 12/15/2004 ....................
4.55, 10/27/2003, 68 FR
61111.
4.56, 10/21/2003, 68 FR
60036.
4.57, 12/30/2008, 73 FR
79655.
4.58, 1/24/2006, 71 FR 3768
4.58, 12/11/2013 ....................
4.58, 5/22/2014, 79 FR 29360
4.59, 9/9/2005 ........................
4.59, 6/19/2006, 71 FR 35161
4.56, 10/4/2002 ......................
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4.57, 6/28/2007 ......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
*
*
4.1 Portland-Vancouver TSP
Attainment Plan.
4.2 Portland-Vancouver CO
Attainment Plan.
4.3 Portland-Vancouver
Ozone Attainment Plan.
4.4 Salem CO Attainment
Plan.
4.5 Salem Ozone Attainment
Plan.
4.6 Eugene-Springfield TSP
Attainment Plan.
4.7 Eugene-Springfield CO
Attainment Plan.
4.7 Eugene-Springfield CO
Maintenance Plan.
4.8 Medford-Ashland Ozone,
Maintenance Plan.
4.9 Medford-Ashland CO Attainment Plan.
4.10 Medford-Ashland TSP,
Attainment Plan.
4.11 Grants Pass CO, Attainment Plan.
4.12 Klamath Falls PM–10 Attainment Plan.
4.13 Grants Pass PM–10 Attainment Plan.
4.14 Medford PM–10 Attainment and Maintenance
Plan.
4.15 La Grande PM–10 Attainment Plan.
4.16 Eugene-Springfield PM–
10 Attainment Plan.
4.17 Klamath Falls CO Maintenance Plan.
4.18 Oakridge PM–10 Attainment Plan.
4.19 Lakeview PM–10 Attainment Plan.
4.50 Portland/Vancouver
Ozone Maintenance Plan.
4.50 Portland-Vancouver
AQMA (Oregon portion) &
Salem Kaizer Area 8-hour
Ozone (110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.
4.51 Portland CO Maintenance Plan.
4.52 Medford CO Maintenance Plan.
4.53 Grants Pass CO Maintenance Plan.
4.55 Grants Pass PM–10
Maintenance Plan.
4.56 Klamath Falls PM–10
Maintenance Plan.
4.57 Salem-Keizer Area CO,
Limited Maintenance Plan.
4.58 Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan 2nd 10-year.
4.58 Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan 2nd 10-year;
TCM substitution update
4.58.3.2.2.
4.59 La Grande PM10 Maintenance Plan.
47034
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM—Continued
4.60, 6/19/2006, 71 FR 35159
4.61, 4/11/2013, 78 FR 21547
4.62, 6/6/2016, 81 FR 36178
4.63, 4/16/2015 ......................
4.63, 7/28/2015, 80 FR 44867
4.64, 4/16/2015 ......................
4.64, 7/30/2015 80 FR 45435
4.65, 12/11/2015 ....................
4.65 7/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].
4.60 Lakeview PM10 Maintenance Plan.
4.61 Eugene-Springfield PM10
Limited Maintenance Plan.
4.62, Klamath Falls PM2.5 Attainment Plan.
4.63 Grants Pass Second 10Year Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance Plan.
4.64 Grants Pass Second 10Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan.
4.65 Medford Second 10Year Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance Plan.
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708; FRL 9949–13–
Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas; 2015 Kansas State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
*
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure 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 through www.regulations.gov
or please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Kansas. This final action will approve
Kansas’ SIP for the lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area of Salina, Saline
County, Kansas, received by EPA on
February 25, 2015. EPA proposed
approval of this plan on February 29,
2016. The applicable standard
addressed in this action is the lead
NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008.
EPA believes that the SIP submitted by
the state satisfies the applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
identified in EPA’s Final Rule published
in the Federal Register on October 15,
2008, and will bring the designated
portions of Salina, Kansas, into
attainment of the 0.15 microgram per
cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 19, 2016.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2016–17060 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Explanation
4.62, 12/12/2012 ....................
*
EPA
approval date
4.61, 9/26/2011 ......................
*
State
effective date
4.60, 9/9/2005 ........................
SIP citation
Jkt 238001
Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7719, or by email at
doolan.stephanie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of
a SIP revision been met?
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this
document?
In this document, EPA is granting
final approval of Kansas’ attainment
demonstration SIP for the lead NAAQS
nonattainment area in portions of
Salina, Saline County, Kansas. The
applicable standard addressed in this
action is the lead NAAQS promulgated
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the
SIP submitted by the state satisfies the
applicable requirements of the CAA
identified in EPA’s Final Rule (73 FR
66964, October 15, 2008), and will bring
the area into attainment of the 0.15
microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead
NAAQS. EPA’s proposal containing the
background information for this action
can be found at 81 FR 10162, February
29, 2016.
II. Have the requirements for the
approval of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, the revision
meets the substantive SIP requirements
of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA’s
proposed rule opened February 29,
2016, the date of its publication in the
Federal Register, and closed on March
30, 2016. During this period, EPA
received one comment letter from Exide
Technologies, dated March 23, 2016.
The comment letter contained one
comment regarding EPA’s process
description in section V.A.1 of the
proposal which states:
‘‘The Exide facility in Salina, Kansas,
manufactures lead acid batteries for
automobiles, trucks, and watercraft. Lead
emissions result from breaking open used
batteries, re-melting the lead and
reformulating new batteries.’’
Exide commented that EPA is in error
regarding the description of the facility’s
processes; the Exide Salina, Kansas,
facility does not break open used
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47029-47034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17060]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0854; FRL-9949-00-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Medford Area Carbon Monoxide Second
10-Year Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) limited
maintenance plan (LMP) for the Medford area in Oregon, submitted by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (tODEQ) on December 11,
2015, along with a supplementary submittal on December 30, 2015, as a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is approving this SIP
revision because it demonstrates that the Medford area will continue to
meet the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a second
10-year period beyond redesignation, through 2025.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 19, 2016, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 19, 2016. If
the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0854 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Chi.John@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
[[Page 47030]]
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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 whose disclosure 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, please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of
Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-1185; email
address: Chi.John@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. This Action
II. Background
III. Evaluation of Oregon's Submittal
A. Base Year Emission Inventory
B. Demonstration of Maintenance
C. Control Measures
D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
E. Contingency Plan
F. Transportation and General Conformity
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. This Action
The EPA is approving the carbon monoxide limited maintenance plan
(CO LMP) submitted by the ODEQ, on December 11, 2015, along with a
supplementary submittal on December 30, 2015, (the submittal) for the
Medford area. A LMP is a means of meeting Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas that meet
certain qualification criteria. This CO LMP is designed to keep the
Medford area in attainment with the CO standard for a second 10-year
period beyond redesignation, through 2025.
II. Background
Under section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, each CO area designated
nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, such as
Medford, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the CAA, each
CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also
classified by operation of law as either ``moderate'' or ``serious''
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas
with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such
as Medford, were classified as moderate. These nonattainment
designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 on
November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56695).
On July 24, 2002, the EPA approved the ODEQ's request to
redesignate the Medford area to attainment of the CO standard (67 FR
48388). In that action, the EPA also approved the maintenance plan
required under CAA section 175A(a) to provide for 10 years of
maintenance of the CO standard in the Medford area through the year
2015 (67 FR 48388).
As required by the CAA section 175A(b), the SIP submittal provides
a second 10-year plan for maintaining the CO standard in the Medford
area until 2025. For the second 10-year maintenance plan, the ODEQ
chose the option as described in an EPA October 6, 1995 memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, the Group Leader of the Integrated Policy and Strategies
Group, titled, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option). To qualify for the LMP Option, the
CO design value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters
(two years of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below
7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS). In addition, the control
measures from the first CO maintenance plan must remain in place.
The EPA has determined that the LMP Option for CO is also available
to all states as part of the CAA 175A(b) update to the maintenance
plans, regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or lack
thereof. Thus, the EPA finds that although the Medford area was
designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS,
redesignation to attainment status in conjunction with meeting all
requirements of the October 6, 1995, memorandum, allows the ODEQ to be
eligible to submit a LMP as the update to its original maintenance plan
per section 175A(b) of the CAA.
III. Evaluation of Oregon's Submittal
The requirements of the LMP Option and the EPA's evaluation of how
each requirement has been met by the ODEQ's submittal is summarized
below.
A. Base Year Emission Inventory
The LMP must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to
identify a level of CO emissions in the area that is sufficiently low
enough to attain the CO NAAQS. The submittal contains a summary of the
CO emissions inventory for the Medford area for the base year 2008. The
emission inventory lists CO emissions by general source category--
stationary point sources, stationary area sources, on-road mobile
sources and non-road mobile sources. On-road mobile sources emissions
for the 2008 base year inventory were estimated with the EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010b.\1\ The methods used to
determine the Medford area CO emission inventory are consistent with
the EPA's most recent guidance on developing emission inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MOVES2010b was the most current model available at the time
that ODEQ was performing its analysis. The EPA released MOVES2014 on
October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60343).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, exceedances of the CO standard in the Medford area
have occurred during the winter months, when cooler temperatures
contribute to incomplete combustion, and when CO emissions are trapped
near the ground by atmospheric inversions. Sources of carbon monoxide
include industry, motor vehicles, non-road mobile sources, (e.g.,
construction equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn and garden
equipment, and area sources (e.g., outdoor burning, woodstoves,
fireplaces, and wildfires). The three consecutive months--December
through February define the typical CO season. As such, season day
emissions in addition to annual emissions are included in the
inventory. The unit of measure for annual emissions is in tons per year
(tpy), while the unit of measure for season day emissions is in pounds
per day (lb/day). The county-wide emissions inventory data is spatially
allocated to the Medford urban growth boundary (UGB), and to buffers
around the UGB, depending on emissions category.
[[Page 47031]]
2008 Emissions Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual CO emissions
Main source category emissions tons pounds per
per year winter day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources................ 2.367.1 13,159
On-road Mobile Sources.................. 5,730.0 28,731
Non-road Mobile Sources................. 4,488.2 10,061
Stationary Area Sources................. 3,333.1 30,399
-------------------------------
Total............................... 15,927.4 82,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Demonstration of Maintenance
The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour
average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a concentration of
9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in the Medford
area occurred in 1991, and CO levels have been steadily in decline. The
second highest 8-hour CO concentration in 2009 was 2.4 ppm, which is in
attainment with the CO NAAQS.
For areas that meet the criteria to use the LMP Option, the
maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied. The EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance
period at, or below, 85 percent of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS (at
or below 7.65 ppm), the applicability of prevention of significant
deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP,
and Federal control measures already in place will provide adequate
assurance of maintenance over the maintenance period. Thus, there is no
requirement to project emissions of air quality over the upcoming
maintenance period. The second highest 8-hour CO concentration for
Medford based on the two most recent years of data (2008-2009) is 2.4
ppm, which is significantly below the LMP Option requirement of 7.65
ppm.\2\ Therefore, the EPA finds that the ODEQ has demonstrated that
the Medford area qualifies for the LMP Option and has satisfied the
maintenance demonstration requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The years 2008-2009 are the most recent two years for
available monitoring data because monitoring was discontinued after
2009. The ODEQ has developed an alternate method to verify continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS, discussed in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Control Measures
The submittal retains the control measures from the first CO
maintenance plan (67 FR 48388). The primary control measure has been
the emission standards for new motor vehicles under the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program. Other control measures have been the Major New
Source Review Program with Best Available Control Technology (BACT),
Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, and a woodsmoke curtailment program.
As stated above, the EPA believes that the Medford area will continue
to maintain the standard with the continued implementation of these
control measures along with meeting the other requirements to qualify
for the LMP option.
D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Monitored CO levels in the Medford area have declined progressively
since 1991. CO levels have declined significantly across the nation
through motor vehicle emissions controls and fleet turnover to newer,
cleaner vehicle models. Once CO levels declined and continued to stay
well below the NAAQS, the ODEQ requested to remove the Medford CO
monitor in 2009 and the EPA approved the request on October 14, 2010.
The ODEQ now has been using an alternate method of verifying continued
attainment with the CO standard based on the regional emissions
analysis conducted by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization and by using the Portland CO monitor to track trends in
general CO levels. Both the ODEQ report and the EPA network approval
letter are included in the materials of this docket.
Under the Medford CO LMP, the ODEQ will verify continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS by conducting a review of CO emissions inventory data
for the Medford area. The ODEQ will calculate CO emissions every three
years as part of the Statewide Emissions Inventory, which is submitted
to the EPA for inclusion in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The
ODEQ commits to review the NEI estimates to identify any increases over
the 2008 emission levels (see the base year emissions inventory in this
section) and report on them in the annual monitoring network plan for
the applicable year. Because on-road mobile sources and stationary area
sources are the predominant sources of CO in Medford, these source
categories will be the primary focus of the ODEQ's review. The ODEQ
will evaluate any increase in CO emissions to confirm it is not due to
a change in emission calculation methodology, an exceptional event, or
other factor not representative of an actual emissions increase.
E. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions necessary to ensure prompt correction of any
violations of the standard that may occur. The ODEQ has submitted a
revised contingency plan that has three phase of action. The initial
contingency plan trigger is a ``significant increase'' in the emissions
inventory, which is defined as ten percent above the 2008 emissions
inventory levels. The three phases of actions are as follows:
Phase 1. If the three-year review of CO emissions shows a
significant increase in emissions, the ODEQ will reestablish ambient CO
monitoring in Medford.
Phase 2. If the monitoring data indicates that the LMP eligibility
level of 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hr standard) is exceeded, the
ODEQ will evaluate the cause of the CO increase, and investigate
corrective strategies.
Phase 3. If a validated violation of the CO standard occurs, in
addition to Phase 2 above, the ODEQ will replace the BACT requirement
for new and expanding industry with Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER); reinstate CO emissions offset requirements for new and
expanding industry; and consider other CO emission reduction measures.
F. Transportation and General Conformity
Federal transportation conformity rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93)
and general conformity rules (58 FR 63214) continue to apply under a
LMP. However, as noted in the LMP Option memo, these requirements are
greatly simplified. An area under a LMP can demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget, and as a result, emissions do
not need to be capped nor does a regional emissions
[[Page 47032]]
analysis (including modeling) need to be conducted.
On April 28, 2016, the EPA found the Medford CO LMP to be adequate
for transportation conformity purposes (81 FR 25394). Although regional
emissions are no longer required as part of the transportation
conformity determinations for CO for the Medford area, other
transportation conformity requirements continue to apply to the area,
such as consultation, transportation control measures, and project
level conformity requirements. The Medford area will continue to be
exempt from performing a regional emission analysis, but must meet
project-level conformity analyses as well as transportation conformity
areas.
IV. Final Action
In accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the EPA is
approving the Medford CO LMP submitted by the ODEQ on December 11,
2015, and supplemented on December 30, 2015. The ODEQ has adequately
demonstrated that the Medford area qualifies for the LMP option and
will maintain the CO NAAQS through the second 10-year maintenance
period through 2025.
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 approves 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 Orders
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 this action 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).
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 and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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. The 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of the Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition
for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Michelle L. 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. Amend Sec. 52.1970, paragraph (e), table titled ``State of Oregon
Air Quality Control Program'' by revising ``Section 4'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1970 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 47033]]
State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 4............... Control Strategies 4.1, 12/19/1980..... 4.1, 4/12/1982, 47 4.1 Portland-
for Nonattainment FR 15587. Vancouver TSP
Areas. Attainment Plan.
4.2, 7/16/1982...... 4.2, 10/7/1982, 47 4.2 Portland-
FR 44261. Vancouver CO
Attainment Plan.
4.3, 7/16/1982...... 4.3, 10/7/1982, 47 4.3 Portland-
FR 44261. Vancouver Ozone
Attainment Plan.
4.4, 6/20/1979...... 4.4, 6/24/1980, 45 4.4 Salem CO
FR 42265. Attainment Plan.
4.5, 9/19/1980...... 4.5, 4/12/1982, 47 4.5 Salem Ozone
FR 15587. Attainment Plan.
4.6, 1/30/1981...... 4.6, 4/12/1982, 47 4.6 Eugene-
FR 15587. Springfield TSP
Attainment Plan.
4.7, 6/20/1979...... 4.7, 6/24/1980, 45 4.7 Eugene-
FR 42265. Springfield CO
Attainment Plan.
4.7, 12/9/1988...... 4.7, 12/6/1993, 58 4.7 Eugene-
FR 64161. Springfield CO
Maintenance Plan.
4.8, 1/25/85........ 4.8, 6/4/1986, 51 FR 4.8 Medford-Ashland
20285. Ozone, Maintenance
Plan.
4.9, 10/15/1982..... 4.9, 2/13/1987, 52 4.9 Medford-Ashland
FR 4620. CO Attainment Plan.
4.10, 4/1983........ 4.10, 8/15/1984, 49 4.10 Medford-Ashland
FR 32574. TSP, Attainment
Plan.
4.11, 10/24/1986.... 4.11, 1/15/1988, 53 4.11 Grants Pass CO,
FR 1020. Attainment Plan.
4.12, 8/18/1995..... 4.12, 4/14/1997, 62 4.12 Klamath Falls
FR 18047. PM-10 Attainment
Plan.
4.13, 11/13/1991.... 4.13, 12/17/1993, 58 4.13 Grants Pass PM-
FR 65934. 10 Attainment Plan.
4.14, 9/9/2005...... 4.14, 6/19/2006, 71 4.14 Medford PM-10
FR 35163. Attainment and
Maintenance Plan.
4.15, 11/8/1991..... 4.15, 2/15/1995, 60 4.15 La Grande PM-10
FR 8563. Attainment Plan.
4.16, 1/31/1991..... 4.16, 8/24/1994, 59 4.16 Eugene-
FR 43483. Springfield PM-10
Attainment Plan.
4.17, 11/20/2000, 4.17, 9/20/2001, 66 4.17 Klamath Falls
(submittal date). FR 48340. CO Maintenance
Plan.
4.18, 11/4/1996..... 4.18, 3/15/1999, 64 4.18 Oakridge PM-10
FR 12751. Attainment Plan.
4.19, 6/1/1995, 4.19, 9/21/1999, 64 4.19 Lakeview PM-10
(submittal date). FR 51051. Attainment Plan.
4.50, 8/14/1996..... 4.50, 5/19/1997, 62 4.50 Portland/
FR 27204. Vancouver Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
4.50, 4/12/2007..... 4.50, 12/19/2011, 76 4.50 Portland-
FR 78571. Vancouver AQMA
(Oregon portion) &
Salem Kaizer Area 8-
hour Ozone
(110(a)(1)
Maintenance Plan.
4.51, 7/12/1996..... 4.51, 9/2/1997, 62 4.51 Portland CO
FR 46208. Maintenance Plan.
4.52, 3/9/2001...... 4.52, 7/24/2002, 67 4.52 Medford CO
FR 48388. Maintenance Plan.
4.53, 9/10/1999..... 4.53, 8/31/2000, 65 4.53 Grants Pass CO
FR 52932. Maintenance Plan.
4.55, 10/4/2002..... 4.55, 10/27/2003, 68 4.55 Grants Pass PM-
FR 61111. 10 Maintenance
Plan.
4.56, 10/4/2002..... 4.56, 10/21/2003, 68 4.56 Klamath Falls
FR 60036. PM-10 Maintenance
Plan.
4.57, 6/28/2007..... 4.57, 12/30/2008, 73 4.57 Salem-Keizer
FR 79655. Area CO, Limited
Maintenance Plan.
4.58, 12/15/2004.... 4.58, 1/24/2006, 71 4.58 Portland Area
FR 3768. CO Maintenance Plan
2nd 10-year.
4.58, 12/11/2013.... 4.58, 5/22/2014, 79 4.58 Portland Area
FR 29360. CO Maintenance Plan
2nd 10-year; TCM
substitution update
4.58.3.2.2.
4.59, 9/9/2005...... 4.59, 6/19/2006, 71 4.59 La Grande PM10
FR 35161. Maintenance Plan.
[[Page 47034]]
4.60, 9/9/2005...... 4.60, 6/19/2006, 71 4.60 Lakeview PM10
FR 35159. Maintenance Plan.
4.61, 9/26/2011..... 4.61, 4/11/2013, 78 4.61 Eugene-
FR 21547. Springfield PM10
Limited Maintenance
Plan.
4.62, 12/12/2012.... 4.62, 6/6/2016, 81 4.62, Klamath Falls
FR 36178. PM2.5 Attainment
Plan.
4.63, 4/16/2015..... 4.63, 7/28/2015, 80 4.63 Grants Pass
FR 44867. Second 10-Year
Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance
Plan.
4.64, 4/16/2015..... 4.64, 7/30/2015 80 4.64 Grants Pass
FR 45435. Second 10-Year PM10
Limited Maintenance
Plan.
4.65, 12/11/2015.... 4.65 7/20/2016 4.65 Medford Second
[Insert Federal 10-Year Carbon
Register citation]. Monoxide Limited
Maintenance Plan.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17060 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
