Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45431 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

* * * * * * * 

Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5

NAAQS.

Statewide ........................... 5/11/15 7/30/15 ..............................................

[Insert Federal Register citation] .....

This action addresses CAA 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

[FR Doc. 2015–18611 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0323; FRL–9931–16– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: Grants 

Pass Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a limited 

maintenance plan submitted by the 

State of Oregon on April 22, 2015, for 

the Grants Pass area for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 10 

micrometers (PM10). The plan explains 

how this area will continue to meet the 

PM10 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for a second 10-year period 

through 2025. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 28, 2015, without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by August 31, 2015. 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–2015–0323, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: edmondson.lucy@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Lucy Edmondson, EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Lucy 

Edmondson, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015– 

0323. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Edmondson (360) 753–9082, 

edmondson.lucy@epa.gov, or by using 

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. 

Table of Contents 

I. This Action 

II. Background 

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in 

Rulemaking Process 

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

PM10 Areas 

A. Requirements for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

B. Conformity Under the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

V. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that Grants 

Pass qualifies for the limited 

maintenance plan option? 

B. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory? 

C. Does the limited Maintenance plan 

include an assurance of continued 

operation of an appropriate EPAapproved air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58? 

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

E. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

VI. Oregon Notice Provision 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

The EPA is approving the limited 

maintenance plan submitted by the 

State of Oregon (the State) on April 22, 

2015, for the Grants Pass Urban Growth 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
45432 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Boundary. The plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for a 

second 10-year period through 2025. 

II. Background 

The EPA identified the Grants Pass, 

Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary as a 

‘‘Group I’’ area of concern due to 

measured violations of the newly 

promulgated 24-hour PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

on August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383). On 

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Amendments under section 

107(d)(4)(B), designated Grants Pass 

Group I area as nonattainment for PM10

by operation of law. The EPA published 

a Federal Register document 

announcing all areas designated 

nonattainment for PM10 on March 15, 

1991 (56 FR 11101). The Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) worked with the community of 

Grants Pass to develop a plan for 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. Control 

measures focused on reducing smoke 

emissions with PM10 control measures 

for wood stoves, open forestry burning, 

as well as industrial growth controls 

and other strategies. The EPA proposed 

approval of the plan on March 10, 1993 

(58 FR 13230), and approved it on 

December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65934). On 

November 5, 1999, Oregon submitted a 

complete rule renumbering and 

relabeling package to the EPA for 

approval into the SIP. On January 22, 

2003, the EPA approved the recodified 

version of Oregon’s rules to remove and 

replace the outdated numbering system 

(68 FR 2891). The EPA approved 

ODEQ’s maintenance plan to ensure 

continued compliance with the PM10

NAAQS for ten years on October 27, 

2003 (68 FR 61111). 

In addition to approving ODEQ’s 

maintenance plan for the area, the EPA 

also approved ODEQ’s request to 

redesignate the Grants Pass 

nonattainment area to attainment on 

October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61111). The 

purpose of the submitted limited 

maintenance plan is to fulfill the second 

10-year planning requirement of CAA 

section 175A(b) to ensure compliance 

through 2025. 

III. Public and Stakeholder 

Involvement in Rulemaking Process 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP revision offer a reasonable 

opportunity for notice and public 

hearing. This must occur prior to the 

revision being submitted by the State to 

the EPA. The State provided notice and 

an opportunity for public comment from 

December 16, 2014 until January 26, 

2015 with no comments received. ODEQ 

also held a public hearing on January 

22, 2015 in Grants Pass. This SIP 

revision was submitted by the 

Governor’s designee and was received 

by the EPA on April 22, 2015. The EPA 

evaluated ODEQ’s submittal and 

determined that the State met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. 

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for PM10 Areas 

A. Requirements for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued 

guidance on streamlined maintenance 

plan provisions for certain moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas (Memo from 

Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality 

Standards and Strategies Division, 

entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Moderate PM10

Nonattainment Areas’’ (limited 

maintenance plan option memo). The 

limited maintenance plan option memo 

contains a statistical demonstration that 

areas meeting certain air quality criteria 

will, with a high degree of probability, 

maintain the standard ten years into the 

future. Thus, the EPA provided the 

maintenance demonstration for areas 

meeting the criteria outlined in the 

memo. It follows that future year 

emission inventories for these areas, and 

some of the standard analyses to 

determine transportation conformity 

with the SIP, are no longer necessary. 

To qualify for the limited 

maintenance plan option, the State must 

demonstrate the area meets the criteria 

described below. First, the area should 

have attained the PM10 NAAQS. 

Second, the most recent five years of air 

quality data at all monitors in the area, 

called the 24-hour average design value, 

should be at or below 98 mg/m3. Third, 

the State should expect only limited 

growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10

emissions (including fugitive dust) and 

should have passed a motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, 

the memo identifies core provisions that 

must be included in all limited 

maintenance plans. These provisions 

include an attainment year emissions 

inventory, assurance of continued 

operation of an EPA-approved air 

quality monitoring network, and 

contingency provisions. 

B. Conformity Under the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

The transportation conformity rule 

and the general conformity rule (40 CFR 

parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 

areas and areas covered by an approved 

maintenance plan. Under either 

conformity rule, an acceptable method 

of demonstrating a Federal action 

conforms to the applicable SIP is to 

demonstrate that expected emissions 

from the planned action are consistent 

with the emissions budget for the area. 

While qualification for the limited 

maintenance plan option does not 

exempt an area from the need to affirm 

conformity, conformity may be 

demonstrated without submitting an 

emissions budget. Under the limited 

maintenance plan option, emissions 

budgets are treated as essentially not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to expect that the 

qualifying areas would experience so 

much growth in the period that a 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS would 

result. For transportation conformity 

purposes, the EPA would conclude that 

emissions in these areas need not be 

capped for the maintenance period and 

therefore a regional emissions analysis 

would not be required. Similarly, 

Federal actions subject to the general 

conformity rule could be considered to 

satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40 

CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same 

reasons that the budgets are essentially 

considered to be unlimited. 

V. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that 

Grants Pass qualifies for the limited 

maintenance plan option? 

As discussed above, the limited 

maintenance plan option memo outlines 

the requirements for an area to qualify. 

First, the area should be attaining the 

NAAQS. The EPA determined the 

Grants Pass area attained the PM10

NAAQS based on monitoring data from 

1988 through 1990 and approved the 

State’s maintenance plan and request to 

redesignate the area from nonattainment 

to attainment on October 27, 2003 (68 

FR 61111). The area has been in 

continued compliance with the PM10

NAAQS since that time. 

Second, the average design value for 

the past five years of monitoring data 

must be at or below the critical design 

value of 98 mg/m3 for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. The critical design value is a 

margin of safety in which an area has a 

one in ten probability of exceeding the 

NAAQS. Using the most recently 

available Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) monitoring data for the years 

2004–2008, the State’s analysis 

demonstrated that Grants Pass average 

design value was 49 mg/m3, well below 

the 98 mg/m3 threshold. An FRM 

monitor is one that has been approved 

by the EPA under 40 CFR part 58 to 

measure compliance with the NAAQS. 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45433 

As discussed later in this proposal, 

ODEQ also calculated average design 

values using a linear regression analysis 

technique for the period 2009 to 2013. 

This more recent monitoring data shows 

that PM10 levels continue to be well 

below the standard with an average 

design value of 49 mg/m3. The EPA 

reviewed the data provided by ODEQ 

and finds that Grants Pass meets the 

design value criteria outlined in the 

limited maintenance plan option memo. 

Third, the area must meet the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test 

described in attachment B of the limited 

maintenance plan option memo. ODEQ 

submitted an analysis showing that 

growth in on-road mobile PM10

emissions sources was minimal and 

would not threaten the assumption of 

maintenance that underlies the limited 

maintenance plan policy. Using the 

EPA’s methodology, ODEQ calculated a 

regional emissions analysis margin of 

safety of 52 mg/m3, easily meeting the 

threshold of 98 mg/m3. The EPA 

reviewed the calculations in the State’s 

limited maintenance plan submittal and 

concurs with this conclusion. 

Lastly, the limited maintenance plan 

option memo requires all controls relied 

on to demonstrate attainment remain in 

place for the area to qualify. The area’s 

first 10-year maintenance plan relied on 

measures addressing residential wood 

combustion, open burning, road dust 

from motor vehicles and a major new 

source review program for industry. 

EPA approved the rules into the SIP on 

October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61111). 

As described above, Grants Pass meets 

the qualification criteria set forth in the 

limited maintenance plan option memo. 

Under the limited maintenance plan 

option, the State will be expected to 

determine on an annual basis that the 

criteria are still being met. If the State 

determines that the limited maintenance 

plan criteria are not being met, it should 

take action to reduce PM10

concentrations enough to requalify. One 

possible approach the State could take 

is to implement contingency measures. 

Section V. I. provides a description of 

contingency provisions included as part 

of the limited maintenance plan 

submittal. 

B. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory? 

Pursuant to the limited maintenance 

plan option memo, the State’s approved 

attainment plan should include an 

emissions inventory which can be used 

to demonstrate attainment of the 

NAAQS. The inventory should 

represent emissions during the same 

five-year period associated with air 

quality data used to determine whether 

the area meets the applicability 

requirements of the limited 

maintenance plan option. 

ODEQ’s Grants Pass limited 

maintenance plan submittal includes an 

emissions inventory based on EPA’s 

2011 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) data for Josephine County. The 

2011 base year represents the most 

recent emissions inventory data 

available and is consistent with the data 

used to determine applicability of the 

limited maintenance plan option. This 

approach is also consistent with the 

1993 emission inventory developed for 

the first maintenance plan. Historically, 

exceedances of the 24-hr PM10 standard 

in Grants Pass have occurred during the 

winter months, between November 1 

and the end of February. As such, in 

addition to annual emissions, typical 

season day and worst-case season day 

emissions are included in the inventory. 

The term ‘‘worst-case day’’ describes the 

maximum activity/emissions that have 

occurred or could occur on a season 

day, for each emissions source. Worstcase day emissions are summed for all 

sources/categories, i.e. assumed to occur 

on the same day. This assumption is the 

basis for what would be needed to cause 

an exceedance of the 24-hr standard. 

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). 

In addition, the county-wide emissions 

inventory data was spatially allocated to 

the Grants Pass Urban Growth 

Boundary, and to buffers around the 

boundary or monitor, depending on 

emissions category. 

The submitted emissions inventory 

included the following categories: 

permitted point sources, area sources 

(including open burning, small 

stationary fossil fuel combustion, 

residential wood combustion, wildfires 

and prescribed burning, fugitive dust), 

nonroad (aircraft and airport related, 

locomotives, marine vessels, nonroad 

vehicles and equipment), and onroad 

mobile (exhaust/brake/tire, re-entrained 

road dust). The EPA has reviewed the 

emissions inventory data and 

methodology and finds that the data 

support ODEQ’s conclusion that the 

control measures contained in the 

original attainment plan will continue 

to protect and maintain the PM10

NAAQS. 

C. Does the limited maintenance plan 

include an assurance of continued 

operation of an appropriate EPAapproved air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR 

Part 58? 

The state of Oregon began monitoring 

in the Grants Pass area in 1987, with 

many changes to the monitoring 

technology and requirements since. 

From 2006 through 2008, the State 

collocated a PM2.5 monitor with the 

existing PM10 Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) monitor to establish correlation 

data and confirm that PM10 levels could 

be accurately predicted using PM2.5

concentrations for the areas. Due to the 

high level of correlation between the 

PM2.5 and PM10 monitors, ODEQ 

developed a report on their findings and 

asserted that PM2.5 monitoring was an 

accurate predictor of PM10 levels for 

purposes of determining continued 

maintenance of the PM10 standard in 

Grants Pass, and asked to discontinue 

the PM10 monitor. EPA approved this 

request in the Annual Network Plan 

Approval letter, dated January 6, 2012. 

Both the ODEQ report and the EPA 

approval letter are included in the 

materials of this docket. 

A full description of the correlation 

data and the estimation model is 

included in the State’s submittal. The 

EPA is approving the use of PM2.5

monitoring data to estimate PM10

concentrations for the second 10-year 

maintenance plan period in Grants Pass 

and finds that it meets the relevant 

requirements at 40 CFR 58.14(c). This 

estimation method is a reproducible 

approach to representing air quality in 

the area, and the area continues to meet 

the applicable Appendix D 

requirements evaluated as part of the 

annual network approval process. 

In order to continue to qualify for the 

limited maintenance plan option, the 

State must calculate the PM10 design 

value estimate annually from PM2.5

monitoring data to confirm the area 

continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. 

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

CAA section 175A states that a 

maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violation of the NAAQS which may 

occur after redesignation of the area to 

attainment. The first Grants Pass 

maintenance plan contained 

contingency measures that would be 

implemented under two scenarios—if 

the official PM10 monitor registers a 

value of 120 mg/m3 or higher, or if a 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
45434 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

violation of the 24-hr PM10 standard 

were to occur. These two contingency 

scenarios are continued under the 

limited maintenance plan. 

E. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

(1) Transportation Conformity 

Under the limited maintenance plan 

option, emissions budgets are treated as 

essentially not constraining for the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to expect that qualifying 

areas would experience so much growth 

in that period that a NAAQS violation 

would result. While areas with 

maintenance plans approved under the 

limited maintenance plan option are not 

subject to the budget test, the areas 

remain subject to the other 

transportation conformity requirements 

of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) in the area or the State must 

document and ensure that: 

(a) Transportation plans and projects 

provide for timely implementation of 

SIP transportation control measures 

(TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.113; 

(b) transportation plans and projects 

comply with the fiscal constraint 

element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108; 

(c) the MPO’s interagency 

consultation procedures meet the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

93.105; 

(d) conformity of transportation plans 

is determined no less frequently than 

every three years, and conformity of 

plan amendments and transportation 

projects is demonstrated in accordance 

with the timing requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 93.104; 

(e) the latest planning assumptions 

and emissions model are used as set 

forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 

93.111; 

(f) projects do not cause or contribute 

to any new localized carbon monoxide 

or particulate matter violations, in 

accordance with procedures specified in 

40 CFR 93.123; and 

(g) project sponsors and/or operators 

provide written commitments as 

specified in 40 CFR 93.125. 

In the June 24, 2015 adequacy finding 

for the Grants Pass PM10 limited 

maintenance plan, EPA determined that 

Grants Pass met the criteria to be 

exempt from regional emissions analysis 

for PM10. However, other transportation 

conformity requirements such as 

consultation, transportation control 

measures, and project level conformity 

requirements would continue to apply 

to the area. With approval of the LMP, 

the area continues to be exempt from 

performing a regional emissions 

analysis but must meet project-level 

conformity analyses as well as the 

transportation conformity criteria 

mentioned above. 

Upon approval of the Grants Pass 

PM10 limited maintenance plan, the area 

is exempt from performing a regional 

emissions analysis, but must meet 

project-level conformity analyses as 

well as the transportation conformity 

criteria mentioned above. 

(2) General Conformity 

For Federal actions required to 

address the specific requirements of the 

general conformity rule, one set of 

requirements applies particularly to 

ensuring that emissions from the action 

will not cause or contribute to new 

violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate 

current violations, or delay timely 

attainment. One way that this 

requirement can be met is to 

demonstrate that the total of direct and 

indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and 

documented by the state agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable 

SIP to result in a level of emissions 

which, together with all other emissions 

in the nonattainment area, would not 

exceed the emissions budgets specified 

in the applicable SIP (see 40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)). 

The decision about whether to 

include specific allocations of allowable 

emissions increases to sources is one 

made by the State air quality agencies. 

These emissions budgets are different 

than those used in transportation 

conformity. Emissions budgets in 

transportation conformity are required 

to limit and restrain emissions. 

Emissions budgets in general conformity 

allow increases in emissions up to 

specified levels. The State has not 

chosen to include specific emissions 

allocations for Federal projects that 

would be subject to the provisions of 

general conformity. 

VI. Oregon Notice Provision 

Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, 

prohibits ODEQ from imposing a 

penalty for violation of an air, water or 

solid waste permit, unless the source 

has been provided five days advanced 

written notice of the violation, and has 

not come into compliance or submitted 

a compliance schedule within that fiveday period. By its terms, the statute does 

not apply to Oregon’s Title V program, 

or to any program if application of the 

notice provision would disqualify the 

program from Federal delegation. 

Oregon has previously confirmed that, 

because application of the notice 

provision would preclude EPA approval 

of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is 

required for violation of SIP 

requirements. 

VII. 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 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45435 

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 28, 2015. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 8, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

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. In § 52.1970, paragraph (e), the 

table entitled ‘‘State of Oregon Air 

Quality Control Program’’ is amended 

by adding a new entry for ‘‘Section 4’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

SIP citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Section 4 ...................................... Grants Pass Second 10-Year 

PM10 Limited Maintenance 

Plan.

4/16/2015 7/30/2015 .....................................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–18354 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0889; FRL–9929–74] 

Zeta-Cypermethrin; Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the 

tolerances for residues of zetacypermethrin in or on corn, field, 

forage; corn, field, stover; and corn, pop, 

stover. FMC Corporation requested 

these tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

30, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 28, 2015, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0889, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES