6044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposed rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise paragraph § 117.237(d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.237 Christina River 

* * * * * 

(d) The following drawbridges at 

Wilmington shall operate as follows: 

(1) The Norfolk Southern Railroad 

Bridge, mile 4.1, shall be maintained in 

the closed-to-navigation position; 

(2) The Norfolk Southern Railroad 

Bridge, mile 4.2, shall be maintained in 

the open-to-navigation position. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 12, 2012. 

William D. Lee, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2789 Filed 2–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0716, FRL–9628–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from the State of Oregon to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. EPA is proposing to find that 

the current Oregon SIP meets the 

following 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 8, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0716, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10– 

Public_Comments@epa.gov 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin 

Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT—107. 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–2011– 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6045 

1William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, October 2, 2007. 

0716. 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 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 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 coment, 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 EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, 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: 

Kristin Hall at telephone number: (206) 

553–6357, email address: 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for the action that 

EPA is proposing? 

III. What infrastructure elements are required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. What is the scope of action on 

infrastructure submittals? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Oregon’s 

submittal? 

VI. Scope of Proposed Action 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from the State of Oregon to demonstrate 

that the SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. 

EPA is proposing to find that the current 

Oregon SIP meets the following 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

that each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 

SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

elements of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of Oregon submitted a certification to 

EPA on September 25, 2008, certifying 

that Oregon’s SIP meets the 

infrastructure obligations for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The certification included an analysis of 

Oregon’s SIP as it relates to each section 

of the infrastructure requirements with 

regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

At this time, EPA is acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 

110(a)(2) required elements as they 

relate to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

This action does not address 

infrastructure requirements with respect 

to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS which EPA 

intends to act on at a later time. This 

action also does not address the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which were 

previously approved by EPA in three 

separate actions on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 

33650), July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38997), and 

November 9, 2011 (76 FR 80747). 

II. What is the background for the 

action that EPA is proposing? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the 

ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour 

averaging period which replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and 

the level of the NAAQS was changed 

from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

The CAA requires SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) be submitted by states within 3 years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

standard. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2000. However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

created uncertainty about how to 

proceed, and many states did not 

provide the required infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the newly promulgated 

standard. 

To help states meet this statutory 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA issued guidance to 

address infrastructure SIP elements 

under section 110(a)(1) and (2).1 This 

guidance provides that to the extent an 

existing SIP already meets the section 

110(a)(2) requirements, states need only 

to certify that fact via a letter to EPA. 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s federally approved SIP already 

contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, states typically have met 

the basic program elements required in 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone standards. 

III. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. These 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements, with their corresponding 

CAA subsection, are listed below: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

EPA’s October 2, 2007 guidance 

clarified that two elements identified in 

section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the 

3 year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area 

controls are not due within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

are due pursuant to CAA section 172. 

These requirements are: (i) Submissions 

required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit 

program as required in part D, Title I of 

the CAA, and (ii) submissions required 

by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

or 110(a)(2)(I). 

This action also does not address the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which have 

been addressed by three separate actions 

issued by EPA. On June 9, 2011, EPA 

approved the SIP revision submitted by 

the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to 

address specific provisions of Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS including two of 

the four prongs of 110(a)(2)(D)(i): 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment of these NAAQS in any 

other state (prong 1) and interference 

with maintenance of these NAAQS by 

any other state (prong 2) (76 FR 33650). 

Subsequently, on July 5, 2011, EPA 

approved portions of a SIP revision 

submitted by ODEQ as meeting the 

requirements of the fourth prong of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as 

it applies to visibility for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (prong 4) (76 FR 

38997). Finally, on November 9, 2011, 

EPA approved an Oregon SIP revision 

that addressed among other things, 

interference with any other state’s 

required measures to prevent significant 

deterioration (PSD) of its air quality 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (prong 3) (76 FR 80747). 

Furthermore, EPA interprets the 

section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C are not changed 

by a new NAAQS. 

IV. What is the scope of action on 

infrastructure submittals? 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.2 The commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources 

that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’) and (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’). EPA notes that there are 

two other substantive issues for which 

EPA likewise stated in other proposals 

that it would address the issues 

separately: (i) Existing provisions for 

minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’) and (ii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that 

may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80,186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32,526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

submittal from Oregon. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational, and 

to provide general notice of the 

potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that 

might require future corrective action. 

EPA did not want states, regulated 

entities, or members of the public to be 

under the misconception that the 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure 

SIP submission of a given state should 

be interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit reapproval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on the 1997 

8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP for 

Oregon. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6047 

3For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

4For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘Rule 

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25,162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

5See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

6EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

7For example, implementation of the 1997PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPS are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, new source review permitting 

program submissions required to 

address the requirements of part D, and 

a host of other specific types of SIP 

submissions that address other specific 

matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.3 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.4

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).5 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.6 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s SIP. Finally, EPA 

notes that not every element of section 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.7

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

9 Id., at page 2. 

10 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

11 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

12See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.8 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 9 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements. ’’ 10 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 11 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.12 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, 

neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 

Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, 

or NSR Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP 

for Oregon. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6049 

13EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21,639 

(April 18, 2011). 

14EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82,536 (Dec. 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove 

numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency 

determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 

FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34,641 (June 

27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 

(November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); 

and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections 

to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

15EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42,342 at 

42,344 (July 21,2010) (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 (Jan. 

26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.13 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.14

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.15

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Oregon’s 

submittal? 

The Oregon SIP submittal lists 

specific provisions of the Oregon 

Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 468 

Environmental Quality, Public Health 

and Safety, General Administration; 

ORS Chapter 468A Air Quality, Public 

Health and Safety, Air Quality Control; 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 

Chapter 340, and the Oregon SIP. The 

specific sections are listed below, with 

an analysis of how the Oregon submittal 

by ODEQ meets the requirements. 

110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures: 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emission limits and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques, schedules for compliance 

and other related matters. EPA notes 

that the specific nonattainment area 

plan requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

are subject to the timing requirement of 

Section 172, not the timing requirement 

of Section 110(a)(1). 

Oregon’s submittal: The Oregon SIP 

submittal cites multiple Oregon air 

quality laws and regulations to address 

this element. ORS 468A.035 ‘‘General 

Comprehensive Plan’’ provides 

authority to ODEQ to develop a general 

comprehensive plan for the control or 

abatement of air pollution. ORS 

468A.020 ‘‘Rules and Standards’’ gives 

the Environmental Quality Commission 

(EQC) authority to adopt rules and 

standards to perform function vested by 

law. ORS 468A.025 ‘‘Air Purity 

Standards’’ provides the EQC with 

authority to set air quality standards, 

emission standards, and emission 

treatment and control provisions. The 

Oregon submittal goes on to cite the 

following listing of Oregon laws and 

regulations that establish emission 

limits and pollution controls. For a 

detailed description, please refer to the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) in 

the docket for this action: 

• ORS 468A.085 Residential Open 

Burning of Vegetative Debris 

• ORS 468A.350–.455 Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control 

• ORS 468A.460–.520 Woodstove 

Emissions Control 

• ORS 468A.550–.620 Field Burning 

and Propane Flaming 

• ORS 468A.625–.645 

Chlorofluorocarbons and Halon 

Control 

• ORS 468A.650–.660 Aerosol Spray 

Control 

• OAR 340–202 Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and PSD Increments 

• OAR 340–204 Designation of Air 

Quality Areas 

• OAR 340–222 Stationary Source Plant 

Site Emission Limits 

• OAR 340–256 Motor Vehicles 

• OAR 340–226 General Emission 

Standards 

• OAR 340–228 Requirements for Fuel 

Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur 

Content 

• OAR 340–232 Emission Standards for 

VOC Point Sources 

• OAR 340–234 Emission Standards for 

Wood Products Industries 

• OAR 340–236 Emission Standards for 

Specific Industries 

• OAR 340–240 Rules for Areas with 

Unique Air Quality Needs 

• OAR 340–242 Rules Applicable to the 

Portland Area 

• OAR 340–258 Motor Vehicle Fuel 

Specifications 

• OAR 340–262 Residential 

Woodheating 

• OAR 340–266 Field Burning Rules 

(Willamette Valley) 

EPA analysis: EPA finds that Oregon’s 

rules define and reference emissions 

limits and significant emissions rates for 

air pollutants including NOX and VOCs, 

as precursors to ozone. Oregon has no 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Some of the rules listed above were 

approved into the SIP under part D 

because certain areas in Oregon were 

historically nonattainment under the 1- 

hour ozone standard and required 

maintenance plans to ensure on-going 

compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. As a result, Oregon regulates 

ozone and its precursors through its SIPapproved major and minor source 

permitting programs and ozone 

maintenance plans. EPA does not 

consider SIP requirements triggered by 

the nonattainment area mandates in part 

D of Title I of the CAA to be governed 

by the submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Oregon has 

referenced some SIP provisions 

originally submitted in response to part 

D in its submittal documenting its 

compliance with the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and 

(2). Oregon has over time continually 

updated the elements of its SIP 

addressing the ozone NAAQS, and the 

provisions reviewed here are a weave of 

SIP revisions submitted in response to 

the infrastructure requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) and the nonattainment 

requirements of part D. 

For the purposes of this action, EPA 

is reviewing any rules originally 

submitted in response to part D solely 

for the purposes of determining whether 

they support a finding that the state has 

met the basic infrastructure 

requirements under section 110(a)(2). 

EPA is proposing to approve Oregon’s 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction (SSM) of operations at a 

facility. EPA believes that a number of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ 

Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 

August 11, 1999. 

states may have SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the Clean Air Act and 

existing EPA guidance 16 and the 

Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

rules relating to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. EPA believes that a 

number of states may have such 

provisions that are contrary to the Clean 

Air Act and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109), November 24, 1987, and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision that is contrary to the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance to take 

steps to correct the deficiency as soon 

as possible. 

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system: 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to 

include provisions to provide for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to EPA 

upon request. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon references 

ORS 468.035(a–e, m) ‘‘Functions of the 

Department’’ which provide authority to 

conduct and supervise inquiries and 

programs to assess and communicate air 

conditions and to obtain necessary 

resources (assistance, materials, 

supplies, etc) to meet these 

responsibilities. 

EPA analysis: A comprehensive air 

quality monitoring plan, intended to 

meet requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

was submitted by Oregon to EPA on 

December 27, 1979 (40 CFR 52.1970) 

and approved by EPA on March 4, 1981 

(46 FR 15136). This air quality 

monitoring plan has been subsequently 

updated, with the most recent submittal 

dated July 1, 2011. EPA approved the 

plan on January 6, 2012. This plan 

includes, among other things, the 

locations for the ozone monitoring 

network. Oregon provides an annual air 

quality data report to the public on the 

ODEQ Web site at http:// 

www.deq.state.or.us/aq/forms/ 

annrpt.htm. In addition, Oregon sends 

real time air monitoring information for 

ozone, particulate matter, and carbon 

monoxide to EPA’s AIRNow Web page 

at http://www.airnow.gov and also 

provides the information on the ODEQ 

Air Quality Index (AQI) Web site at 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/aqi. Based 

on the foregoing, EPA proposes to 

approve the Oregon’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement 

of control measures: 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to 

include a program providing for 

enforcement of all SIP measures and the 

regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, including a 

program to meet PSD and 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to ORS 468.090–.140 

‘‘Enforcement’’ which provides ODEQ 

with authority to investigate complaints, 

investigate and inspect sources for 

compliance, access records, commence 

enforcement procedures, and impose 

civil penalties. In addition, ORS 468.035 

(j, k) ‘‘Functions of the Department’’ 

provides ODEQ with the authority to 

enforce state air pollution laws and 

compel compliance with any rule, 

standard, order, permit or condition. 

The Oregon submittal goes on to cite the 

following listing of Oregon laws and 

regulations related to enforcement and 

permitting. For a detailed description, 

please refer to the TSD in the docket for 

this action: 

• ORS 468.920–.963 Environmental 

Crimes 

• ORS 468.996–.997 Civil Penalties 

• ORS 468.065 Issuance of Permits; 

Content: Fees: Use 

• ORS 468.070 Denial, Modification, 

Suspension or Revocation of Permits 

• ORS 468A.040 Permits; Rules 

• ORS 468A.045 Activities Prohibited 

without Permit 

• ORS 468A.055 Notice Prior to 

Construction of New Sources 

• ORS 468A.990 Penalties for air 

pollution offenses 

• OAR 340–012 Enforcement Procedure 

and Civil Penalties 

• OAR 340–216 Air Contaminant 

Discharge Permits (ADCP) 

• OAR 340–210 Stationary Source 

Notification Requirements 

• OAR 340–214 Stationary Source 

Reporting Requirements 

• OAR 340–224 Major New Source 

Review 

EPA analysis: To generally meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the 

state is required to have PSD, 

nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As explained above, in this 

action EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the CAA. In 

addition, Oregon has no nonattainment 

areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA believes Oregon code provides 

ODEQ with the authority to enforce the 

air quality laws, regulations, permits, 

and orders promulgated pursuant to 

ORS Chapters 468 and 468A. ODEQ 

staffs and maintains an enforcement 

program to ensure compliance with SIP 

requirements. The ODEQ Director, at the 

direction of the Governor, may enter a 

cease and desist order for polluting 

activities that present an imminent and 

substantial danger to public health (ORS 

468–115). Enforcement cases may be 

referred to the state Attorney General’s 

Office for civil or criminal enforcement. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the Oregon SIP as meeting the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) related to 

enforcement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve Oregon’s 

SIP as generally meeting the 

requirements related to PSD under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. EPA most recently 

approved revisions to Oregon’s major 

NSR rules (which encompass PSD and 

Part D NSR) to include NOX as a 

precursor for ozone for PSD purposes 

and PSD permitting of GHGs on 

November 9, 2011 (76 FR 80747). 

EPA is proposing to approve Oregon’s 

infrastructure certification for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to 

the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA most recently approved 

revisions to Oregon’s NSR program, 

including NSR Reform on November 9, 

2011 (76 FR 80747). EPA has 

determined that Oregon’s minor NSR 

program adopted pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates 

emissions of ozone and its’ precursors. 

Oregon’s NSR program includes 

requirements for major source 

permitting in nonattainment areas, 

maintenance areas, and attainment and 

unclassifiable areas (OAR 340–224). 

Oregon’s federally-enforceable state 

operating permit program is found at 

OAR 340–216 ‘‘Air Contaminant 

Discharge Permits’’ and is also the 

administrative permit mechanism used 

to implement the notice of construction 

and major new source review programs. 

ODEQ delegates authority to Lane 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6051 

Regional Air Protection Agency 

(LRAPA) to implement the source 

permitting programs within its area of 

jurisdiction. The requirements and 

procedures contained in OAR 340–216, 

OAR 340–222 and OAR 340–224 are 

used by LRAPA to implement its 

permitting programs until it adopts 

rules which are at least as restrictive as 

state rules. In this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

state rules with regard to NSR reform 

requirements for major sources. 

In addition, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the state’s 

existing minor NSR program in this 

action; we are not evaluating this 

program for consistency with EPA’s 

regulations governing minor NSR 

herein. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have minor NSR provisions 

that are contrary to the existing EPA 

regulations for this program. EPA 

intends to work with states to reconcile 

state minor NSR programs with EPA’s 

regulatory provisions for the program. 

The statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state, or from 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility in another 

state. 

As noted above, this action does not 

address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS which have been addressed by 

three separate actions issued by EPA. 

On June 9, 2011, EPA approved the 

ODEQ SIP submittal to address specific 

provisions of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS including two of the four 

prongs of 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Significant 

contribution to nonattainment of these 

NAAQS in any other state (prong 1); and 

interference with maintenance of these 

NAAQS by any other state (prong 2) (76 

FR 33650). Subsequently, on July 5, 

2011, EPA approved portions of a SIP 

revision submitted by ODEQ as meeting 

the requirements of the fourth prong of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as 

it applies to visibility for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (prong 4) (76 FR 

38997). Finally, on November 9, 2011, 

EPA approved an Oregon SIP revision 

that addressed among other things, 

interference with any other state’s 

required measures to prevent significant 

deterioration (PSD) of its air quality 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (prong 3) (76 FR 80747). 

Interstate and International transport 

provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions ensuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). Specifically, 

section 126(a) requires new or modified 

major sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. 

EPA analysis: EPA most recently 

approved revisions to Oregon’s NSR 

regulations on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 

80747). Oregon’s public notice 

requirements at OAR 340–209–0060 

require that for major NSR actions 

ODEQ will provide notice to 

neighboring states, among other officials 

and agencies. The state has no pending 

obligations under section 115 or 126(b) 

of the Act. EPA is proposing to approve 

the Oregon SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources: 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out the SIP (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of Federal 

or state law from carrying out the SIP or 

portion thereof), (ii) requires that the 

state comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under section 

128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, 

where the state has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the state has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such SIP provision. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon cites ORS 

468.035 which provides ODEQ 

authority to employ personnel, purchase 

supplies, enter into contracts, and to 

receive appropriate and expend federal 

and other funds for purposes of air 

pollution research and control. In 

addition, ORS 468.045 provides the 

ODEQ director with the power to hire, 

assign, reassign, and coordinate 

personnel of the department; authority 

to administer and enforce the laws of 

the state concerning environmental 

quality. ORS 468.035(c) provides 

authority to advise, consult, and 

cooperate with other states, state and 

federal agencies, or political 

subdivisions on all air quality control 

matters. ORS 468A.010 calls for a 

coordinated statewide program of air 

quality control with responsibility 

allocated between the state and the 

units of local government and ORS 

468A.100–180 describes the 

establishment, role and function of 

regional air quality control authorities 

and includes the provision that regional 

rules may not be less strict than state 

rules. The statute also provides the state 

Environmental Quality Commission 

with authority to require corrective 

measures by the regional agency or to 

remove the regional agency’s 

administrative and enforcement 

functions if they fail to meet the 

specified requirements of state law. 

Oregon regulations at OAR 340–200 

specify Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) has authority in Lane 

County and defines the term ‘‘Regional 

Agency.’’ 

EPA analysis: Regarding adequate 

personnel, funding and authority, EPA 

believes the Oregon SIP meets the 

requirements of this element. Oregon 

receives sections 103 and 105 grant 

funds from EPA and provides state 

matching funds necessary to carry out 

SIP requirements. Regarding the state 

board requirements under section 128, 

EPA approved OAR 340–200–0100 

through OAR 340–200–0120 as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 128 on 

January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891). Finally, 

regarding state responsibility and 

oversight of local and regional entities, 

Oregon law and regulation listed above 

provide ODEQ with adequate authority 

to carry out SIP obligations with respect 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore EPA is proposing to approve 

the Oregon SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system: 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the CAA, which 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to statute and regulation 

which provides authority and 

requirements for source emissions 

monitoring, reporting, and correlation 

with emission limits or standards. For a 

detailed description, please refer to the 

TSD in the docket for this action: 

• ORS 468.035 (b, d) Functions of 

Department 

• ORS 468A.025(4) Air Purity 

Standards; Air Quality Standards; 

Treatment and Control of Emissions; 

Rules 

• ORS 468A.070 Measurement and 

Testing of Contamination Sources; 

Rules 

• ORS 468A.365 Certification of Motor 

Vehicle Pollution Control Systems 

and Inspection of Motor Vehicles; 

Rules 

• OAR 340–212 Stationary Source 

Testing and Monitoring 

• OAR 340–214 Stationary Source 

Reporting Requirements 

• OAR 340–222 Stationary Source Plant 

Site Emission Limits 

• OAR 340–225 Air Quality Analysis 

Requirements 

• OAR 340–234 Emission Standards for 

Wood Products Industries: Monitoring 

and Reporting 

• OAR 340–236 Emission Standards for 

Specific Industries: Emissions 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• OAR 340–240 Rules for Areas with 

Unique Air Quality Needs 

EPA analysis: The provisions cited by 

the Oregon SIP submittal provide for 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for sources 

subject to major and minor source 

permitting. EPA proposes to approve the 

Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes: 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to 

provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

Oregon’s submittal: The Oregon 

submittal cites ORS 468–115 

‘‘Enforcement in Cases of Emergency’’ 

which authorizes the ODEQ Director, at 

the direction of the Governor, to enter 

a cease and desist order for polluting 

activities that present an imminent and 

substantial danger to public health. In 

addition, OAR 340–206 ‘‘Air Pollution 

Emergencies’’ authorizes the ODEQ 

Director to declare an air pollution alert 

or warning or to issue an ozone advisory 

to notify the public. OAR 340–214 

‘‘Stationary Source Reporting 

Requirements’’ requires reporting of 

emergencies and excess emissions and 

reporting requirements. 

EPA analysis: As noted in EPA’s 

October 2, 2007 guidance, the 

significant harm level for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS shall remain unchanged 

at 0.60 ppm ozone, 2 hour average, as 

indicated in 40 CFR 51.151. EPA 

believes that the existing ozone-related 

provisions of 40 CFR part 51 subpart H 

remain appropriate. Oregon’s 

regulations discussed above, which 

have previously been approved by EPA 

into the SIP on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 

2891) continue to be consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.151. 

Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that 

the Oregon SIP is adequate for purposes 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs 

provide for revision of such plan (i) 

from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii) 

except as provided in paragraph 

110(a)(3)(C), whenever the 

Administrator finds on the basis of 

information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under the CAA. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to OAR 340–200 

‘‘General Air Pollution Procedures and 

Definitions: -0040 State of Oregon Clean 

Air Act Implementation Plan’’ which 

provides for revisions to Oregon’s SIP 

and submittal of revisions to the EPA, 

including standards submitted by a 

regional authority and adopted verbatim 

in ODEQ rules. 

EPA analysis: Oregon regularly 

submits SIP revisions to EPA. On 

November, 9, 2011, EPA most recently 

approved a number of Oregon SIP 

revisions, including updates to Oregon’s 

rules to reflect federal changes to the 

NAAQS for PM2.5, ozone and lead (76 

FR 80747). EPA proposes to approve the 

Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area plan 

revision under part D: 

EPA analysis: There are two elements 

identified in section 110(a)(2) not 

governed by the 3 year submission 

deadline of section 110(a)(1) because 

SIPs incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within 3 years after promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS, but rather due 

at the time of the nonattainment area 

plan requirements pursuant to section 

172. These requirements are: (i) 

Submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection 

refers to a permit program as required in 

part D Title I of the CAA, and (ii) 

submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, Title I of the CAA. As a result, 

this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

nonattainment NSR or section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials: 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments and Federal Land 

Managers carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to Section 121 relating to consultation. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to 

meet applicable requirements of Part C 

related to prevention of significant 

deterioration and visibility protection. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to a number of laws and 

regulations relating to consultation, 

public notification, and PSD and 

visibility protection. For a detailed 

description, please refer to the TSD in 

the docket for this action: 

• ORS 468.020 Rules and Standards 

• ORS 468.035 (a, c, f–g) Functions of 

Department 

• ORS 468A.010 Policy (1) (b, c) 

• ORS 468A.025 Air Purity Standards; 

Air Quality Standards; Treatment and 

Control of Emissions; Rules (c) 

• OAR 340–202 Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and PSD Increments 

• OAR 340–204 Designation of Air 

Quality Areas 

• OAR 340–206 Air Pollution 

Emergencies 

• OAR 340–209 Public Participation 

• OAR 340–224 Major New Source 

Review 

• OAR 340–225 Air Quality Analysis 

Requirements 

EPA analysis: EPA finds that Oregon’s 

SIP includes specific provisions for 

consulting with local governments and 

Federal Land Managers relating to CAA 

section 121. ODEQ routinely 

coordinates with local governments, 

states, federal land managers and other 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6053 

stakeholders on air quality issues and 

provides notice to appropriate agencies 

related to permitting actions. Oregon 

regularly participates in regional 

planning processes including the 

Western Regional Air Partnership which 

is a voluntary partnership of states, 

tribes, federal land managers, local air 

agencies and the U.S. EPA whose 

purpose is to understand current and 

evolving regional air quality issues in 

the West. Therefore EPA proposes to 

approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with 

government officials. 

Oregon sends real time air monitoring 

information for ozone, particulate 

matter, and carbon monoxide to EPA’s 

AIRNow Web page at http:// 

www.airnow.gov and also provides the 

information on the ODEQ Air Quality 

Index (AQI) Web site at http:// 

www.deq.state.or.us/aqi including 

measures that can be taken to improve 

air quality. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) for public notification. 

Turning to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA, EPA has evaluated this 

requirement in the context of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. 

EPA most recently approved revisions 

to Oregon’s PSD program on November 

9, 2011 (76 FR 80747). Oregon’s PSD 

program regulates NOX as a precursor 

for ozone. Oregon has no nonattainment 

areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve Oregon’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the CAA. 

In the event of the establishment of a 

new NAAQS, however, the visibility 

and regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation triggered under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. 

110(a)(2)(K): Air quality and 

modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs 

provide for (i) the performance of such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a national 

ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to ORS 468.035 

‘‘Functions of Department’’ (b) which 

provides ODEQ authority to conduct 

studies and investigations to determine 

air quality. Oregon’s SIP submittal also 

refers to OAR 340–225 ‘‘Air Quality 

Analysis Requirements’’ which includes 

modeling requirements for analysis and 

demonstration of compliance with 

standards and increments in specified 

areas. 

EPA analysis: EPA previously 

approved Oregon’s regulations on air 

quality modeling into the SIP on 

January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891). Oregon’s 

rules above require all modeled 

estimates of ambient concentrations be 

based on 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W 

(Guidelines on Air Quality Models). 

Any change or substitution from models 

specified in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 

W is subject to notice and opportunity 

for public comment and must receive 

prior written approval from ODEQ and 

the EPA. While Oregon has no 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, Oregon has submitted a 

recent SIP revision supported by 

modeling for ozone. The Portland and 

Salem areas were historically 

nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone 

standard and require maintenance plans 

that ensure on-going compliance with 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On 

May 22, 2007, Oregon submitted these 

maintenance plans to EPA, supported 

by extensive modeling. EPA approved 

the SIP revision on December 19, 2011 

(76 FR 78571). Based on the foregoing, 

EPA is proposing to approve Oregon’s 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees: 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to 

require each major stationary source to 

pay permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing 

and enforcing a permit, until such time 

as the SIP fee requirement is superseded 

by EPA’s approval of the state’s title V 

operating permit program. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to ORS 468.065 

‘‘Issuance of Permits: Content; Fees; 

Use’’ which provides the EQC authority 

to establish a schedule of fees for 

permits based upon the costs of filing 

and investigating applications, issuing 

or denying permits, carrying out Title V 

requirements and determining 

compliance. Oregon’s submittal also 

refers to OAR 340–216 ‘‘Air 

Contaminant Discharge Permits’’ which 

requires payment of permit fees based 

on a specified table of sources and fee 

schedule. 

EPA analysis: On September 28, 1995, 

EPA fully approved Oregon’s Title V 

program (60 FR 50106) (effective 

November 27, 1995). While Oregon’s 

operating permit program is not 

formally approved into the state’s SIP, it 

is a legal mechanism the state can use 

to ensure that ODEQ has sufficient 

resources to support the air program, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

SIP. Before EPA can grant full approval, 

a state must demonstrate the ability to 

collect adequate fees. Oregon’s title V 

program included a demonstration the 

state will collect a fee from title V 

sources above the presumptive 

minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 

70.9(b)(2)(i). Oregon collects sufficient 

fees to administer the title V permit 

program. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

conclude that Oregon’s SIP 

demonstrates the state has satisfied the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to 

provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

Oregon’s submittal: Oregon’s SIP 

submittal refers to the following laws 

and regulations. For a detailed 

description, please refer to the TSD that 

can be found in the docket for this 

proposed action: 

• ORS 468.035 (a, c, f–g) Functions of 

Department 

• ORS 468A.010 Policy (1) (b, c) 

• ORS 468A.100–180 Regional Air 

Quality Control Authorities 

• OAR 340–200 General Air Pollution 

Procedures and Definitions 

• OAR 340–204 Designation of Air 

Quality Areas 

• OAR 340–216 Air Contaminant 

Discharge Permits 

EPA analysis: The regulations cited by 

Oregon’s submittal were previously 

approved on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 

80747) and provide for authority and 

procedures for local and regional 

authorities to participate and consult in 

the SIP development process. Therefore 

EPA proposes to find that Oregon’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

VI. Scope of Proposed Action 

Oregon has not demonstrated 

authority to implement and enforce the 

Oregon Administrative Rules within 

‘‘Indian Country’’ as defined in 18 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined under 18 U.S.C. 

1151 as: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the United 

States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of 

any patent, and including rights-of-way running 

through the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian 

communities within the borders of the United 

States, whether within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 

without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats 

as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the 

use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 

formally designated as a reservation. 

U.S.C. 1151.17 Therefore, this SIP 

approval does not extend to ‘‘Indian 

Country’’ in Oregon. See CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include 

enforceable emission limits), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate 

authority under State law to carry out 

SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs 

shall include enforceable emission 

limits). This is consistent with EPA’s 

previous approval of Oregon’s PSD 

program, in which EPA specifically 

disapproved the program for sources 

within Indian Reservations in Oregon 

because the State had not shown it had 

authority to regulate such sources. See 

40 CFR 52.1987(c). It is also consistent 

with EPA’s approval of Oregon’s title V 

operating permits program. See 59 FR 

61820, 61827 (December 2, 1994) 

(interim approval does not extend to 

Indian Country); 60 FR 50106, 50106 

(September 28, 1995) (full approval does 

not extend to Indian Country). 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

submittal from the State of Oregon to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated 

for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is 

proposing to approve in full the 

following section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for Oregon for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), (M). 

EPA is taking no action on 

infrastructure elements (D)(i) and (I) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Oregon, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 27, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2779 Filed 2–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS