44864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

proposal also includes separate fuel 

efficiency and greenhouse gas standards 

for the engines that power combination 

tractors and vocational vehicles. 

The joint proposed rules for which 

EPA and NHTSA are holding the public 

hearings were published in the Federal 

Register on July 13, 2015 (80 FR 40138), 

and are also available at the Web sites 

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. NHTSA’s Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

available on the NHTSA Web site and 

in NHTSA’s rulemaking docket, both 

referenced above. Once NHTSA and 

EPA learn how many people have 

registered to speak at each public 

hearing, we will allocate an appropriate 

amount of time to each participant, 

allowing time for necessary breaks. In 

addition, we will reserve a block of time 

for anyone else in the audience who 

wants to give testimony. For planning 

purposes, each speaker should 

anticipate speaking for approximately 

five minutes, although we may need to 

shorten that time if there is a large 

turnout. We request that you bring two 

copies of your statement or other 

material for the EPA and NHTSA 

panels. 

NHTSA and EPA will conduct the 

hearings informally, and technical rules 

of evidence will not apply. We will 

arrange for a written transcript of each 

hearing and keep the official record for 

the proposed rule open for 30 days after 

the last public hearing to allow speakers 

to submit supplementary information. 

Panel members may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral statements but 

will not respond to the statements at 

that time. You may make arrangements 

for copies of the transcripts directly 

with the court reporter. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearings. The comment period for the 

proposed rule will be extended such 

that the closing date is 30 days after the 

last public hearing. Therefore, written 

comments on the proposal must be post 

marked no later than September 17, 

2015. 

Dated: July 22, 2015. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

Dated: July 22, 2015. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Environmental Protection Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18527 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0322; FRL– 

9931–13–Region 10] Approval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plans: Oregon: Grants Pass Carbon 

Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a carbon monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for 

Grants Pass, submitted by the State of 

Oregon on April 22, 2015 as a revision 

to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

In accordance with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is 

approving this SIP revision because it 

demonstrates that Grants Pass will 

continue to meet the carbon monoxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for a second 10-year period 

beyond re-designation, through 2025. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 28, 2015, without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by August 27, 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–2015–0322, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

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– 

0322. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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 http://

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http://

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 http://

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Edmondson at (360) 753–9082, 

edmondson.lucy@epa.gov, or the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. This Action 

II. Background 

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in 

Rulemaking Process 

IV. Evaluation of Oregon’s Submittal 

V. Transportation and General Conformity 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44865 

VI. Final Action 

VII. Oregon Notice Provision 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

The EPA is taking direct final action 

to approve the carbon monoxide (CO) 

LMP for Grants Pass, Oregon. The 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) submitted this plan as 

a SIP revision, on April 22, 2015. This 

CO LMP is designed to keep Grants Pass 

in attainment with the CO standard for 

a second 10-year period beyond redesignation, through 2025. 

II. Background 

Under Section 107(d)(1)(c) of the 

CAA, each CO area designated 

nonattainment prior to enactment of the 

1990 Amendments, such as Grants Pass, 

was designated nonattainment by 

operation of law upon enactment of the 

1990 Amendments. Under section 

186(a) of the CAA, each CO area 

designated nonattainment under section 

107(d) was also classified by operation 

of law as either ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘serious’’ 

depending on the severity of the area’s 

air quality problem. CO areas with 

design values between 9.1 and 16.4 

parts per million (ppm), such as Grants 

Pass, were classified as moderate. These 

nonattainment designations and 

classifications were codified in 40 CFR 

part 81. (56 FR 56694) (November 6, 

1991). 

In August 2000, the EPA approved the 

first maintenance plan designed to 

maintain compliance with the CO 

standard in Grants Pass, OR through the 

year 2015 (see 65 FR 52932, August 31, 

2000). While the central business 

district represented the maintenance 

area, the EPA considered the Urban 

Growth Boundary (UGB) to be a more 

representative area of influence for 

carbon monoxide emissions, and the 

1993 emission inventory was prepared 

for the UGB. In addition to approving 

ODEQ’s maintenance plan for the area, 

the EPA also approved ODEQ’s request 

to redesignate the Grants Pass area to 

attainment of the CO standard (see 65 

FR 52932, August 31, 2000). On 

November 5, 1999, Oregon submitted a 

complete rule renumbering and 

relabeling package to EPA for approval 

in the SIP. On January 22, 2003, EPA 

approved the recodified version of 

Oregon’s rules to remove and replace 

the outdated numbering system (68 FR 

2891). 

Per CAA section 175A(b), Oregon’s 

current SIP submittal provides a second 

10-year CO maintenance plan for Grants 

Pass that will apply until 2025, and 

fulfill the final planning requirements 

under the CAA. In addition, the plan is 

consistent with the elements of a LMP 

as outlined in an EPA October 6, 1995 

memorandum from Joseph Paisie, the 

Group Leader of the Integrated Policy 

and Strategies Group, titled, ‘‘Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ (LMP Option). To qualify for the 

LMP Option, the CO design value for an 

area, based on the eight consecutive 

quarters (two years of data) used to 

demonstrate attainment, must be at or 

below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO 

NAAQS). In addition, the control 

measures from the first CO maintenance 

plan must remain in place and 

unchanged. The primary control 

measure has been the emission 

standards for new motor vehicles under 

the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program. Other control measures have 

been the New Source Review Program 

and several residential woodsmoke 

emission reduction efforts. The EPA has 

determined that the LMP Option for CO 

is also available to all states as part of 

the CAA 175A(b) update to the 

maintenance plans, regardless of the 

original nonattainment classification, or 

lack thereof. Thus, the EPA finds that 

Grants Pass qualifies for the LMP. 

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 

has 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. Evaluation of Oregon’s Submittal 

The EPA has reviewed Oregon’s SIP 

submittal for Grants Pass. The following 

is a summary of the requirements for a 

LMP and the EPA’s evaluation of how 

each requirement has been met by the 

SIP submittal. 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

The maintenance plan must contain 

an attainment year emissions inventory 

to identify a level of CO emissions in 

the area that is sufficient to attain the 

CO NAAQS. The April 22, 2015 SIP 

submittal contains a summary of the CO 

emissions inventory for Grants Pass for 

the base year 2005. This summary is 

based on the Grants Pass Inventory 

Preparation and Quality Assurance Plan 

for the Grants Pass Urban Growth 

Boundary Limited Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan, adopted March 2014. 

Historically, exceedances of the CO 

standard in Grants Pass have occurred 

during the winter months, when cooler 

temperatures contribute to incomplete 

combustion, and when CO emissions 

are trapped near the ground by 

atmospheric inversions. The UGB was 

used for the initial 1993 emissions 

inventory, since it was more 

representative of the area of influence 

for carbon monoxide emissions, and 

used again for the 2005 emission 

inventory in this LMP. Sources of 

carbon monoxide in Grants Pass include 

industry, motor vehicles, non-road 

mobile sources, (e.g., construction 

equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn 

and garden equipment, and area sources 

(e.g., outdoor burning, woodstoves, 

fireplaces, and wildfires). The CO 

season is defined as three consecutive 

months—December 1 through the end of 

February. As such, season day 

emissions in addition to annual 

emissions are included in the inventory. 

The unit of measure for annual 

emissions is in tons per year (tpy), while 

the unit of measure for season day 

emissions is in pounds per day (lb/day). 

In addition, the county-wide emissions 

inventory data is spatially allocated to 

the Grants Pass UGB, and to buffers 

around the UGB, depending on 

emissions category. 

Because violations of the CO NAAQS 

are most likely to occur on winter 

weekdays, the inventory prepared is for 

a ‘‘typical winter day’’. The table below 

shows the estimated tons of CO emitted 

per winter day by source category for 

the 2005 base year. 

2005 EMISSIONS INVENTORY, MAIN

SOURCE CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

Main source category 

CO emissions 

pounds per 

winter day 

Stationary Point Sources ...... 1,202 

Onroad Mobile Sources ........ 58,120 

Non-road Mobile Sources ..... 6,289 

Stationary Area Sources ...... 22,244 

Total ............................... 87,855 

B. Demonstration of Maintenance 

The CO NAAQS is attained when the 

annual second highest 8-hour average 

CO concentration for an area does not 

exceed a concentration of 9.0 ppm. The 

last monitored violation of the CO 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

NAAQS in Grants Pass occurred in 

1990, and CO levels have been steadily 

in decline. 

For areas using the LMP Option, the 

maintenance plan demonstration 

requirement is considered to be satisfied 

when the second highest 8-hour CO 

concentration is at or below 7.65 ppm 

(85 percent of the CO NAAQS) for 8 

consecutive quarters. The current 8- 

hour CO Design Value for Grants Pass is 

4.0 ppm based on the two most recent 

years of data (2004–2005), which is 

significantly below the LMP Option 

requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the 

State has demonstrated that Grants Pass 

qualifies for the LMP Option. 

With the LMP Option, there is no 

requirement to project emissions of air 

quality over the upcoming maintenance 

period. The EPA believes that if the area 

begins the maintenance period at, or 

below, 85 percent of the level of the CO 

8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements, the control measures 

already in the SIP, and Federal control 

measures already in place will provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

C. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Monitored CO levels in the Grants 

Pass UGB steadily declined since 

monitoring began in the area in 1980. 

CO levels have declined significantly 

across the nation through motor vehicle 

emissions controls and fleet turnover to 

newer, cleaner vehicle models. As CO 

levels dropped and stayed low, Oregon 

requested to remove the Grants Pass CO 

monitor in 2006, and the EPA approved 

the request on October 19, 2006. ODEQ 

now uses an alternate method of 

verifying continued attainment with the 

CO standard. 

ODEQ calculates CO emissions every 

three years as part of the Statewide 

Emissions Inventory and submits the 

data to the EPA for inclusion in the 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI). 

ODEQ commits to review the NEI 

estimates to identify any increases over 

the 2005 emission levels and source 

categories, and report on them in the 

annual network plan for the applicable 

year. Since on-road motor vehicles are 

the predominant source of carbon 

monoxide in Grants Pass (about 70%), 

this source category will be the primary 

focus of this review. ODEQ will 

annually calculate CO emissions and 

evaluate any increase in CO emissions 

to confirm it is not due to a change in 

emission calculation methodology, an 

exceptional event, or other factor not 

representative of an actual emissions 

increase. Recognizing there could be a 

minor, insignificant emissions increase, 

for the purposes of triggering the 

Contingency Plan described below, an 

increase of five percent in either the 

total annual or season day emissions, or 

in the on-road mobile source category, 

represents a ‘‘significant’’ emission 

increase. 

D. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions necessary to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violations of the standard that may 

occur. In its April 22, 2015 submittal, 

the State of Oregon included the 

following contingency measures for this 

LMP: 

1. If ODEQ’s three-year periodic 

review of CO emissions shows a 

significant increase in emissions, as 

described in Section 8 of this plan, 

ODEQ will then reestablish ambient CO 

monitoring in Grants Pass. 

2. If the highest measured 8-hour CO 

concentration in a given year in Grants 

Pass exceeds the LMP eligibility level of 

7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hr 

standard), ODEQ will evaluate the cause 

of the CO increase. Within six months 

of the validated 7.65 ppm CO 

concentration, ODEQ will determine a 

schedule of selected strategies to either 

prevent or correct any violation of the 

8-hour CO standard. The contingency 

strategies that will be considered 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Improvements to parking and traffic 

circulation 

• Aggressive signal retiming program 

• Funding for transit 

• Implementation of bicycle and 

pedestrian networks. 

ODEQ (and the advisory group if 

needed) may also conduct further 

evaluation, to determine if other 

strategies are necessary. 

3. If a violation of the CO standard 

occurs, in addition to step two above, 

ODEQ will replace the Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) 

requirement for new and modified 

stationary sources with the Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) 

technology, and reinstate the 

requirement to offset any new CO 

emissions. Additional CO emission 

reduction measures will be considered, 

as needed. 

V. Transportation and General 

Conformity 

Federal transportation conformity 

rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and 

general conformity rules (58 FR 63214, 

November 30, 1993) continue to apply 

under a LMP. However, as noted in the 

LMP Option memo, these requirements 

are greatly simplified. An area under a 

LMP can demonstrate conformity 

without submitting an emissions 

budget, and as a result, emissions do not 

need to be capped nor a regional 

emissions analysis (including modeling) 

conducted. Grants Pass is currently 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

parts 51 and 93. 

In the June 24, 2015 adequacy finding 

for the Grants Pass CO LMP, the EPA 

determined that Grants Pass has met the 

criteria to be exempt from regional 

emissions analysis for CO. 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. 

VI. Final Action 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the CAA, the EPA is approving the 

CO LMP for Grants Pass, Oregon 

submitted by the State of Oregon on 

April 22, 2015 as a revision to the 

Oregon SIP. The State has adequately 

demonstrated that Grants Pass will 

maintain the CO NAAQS and meet the 

requirements of a LMP through the 

second 10-year maintenance period 

through 2025. 

The EPA is publishing this action 

without prior proposal because the EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, the EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comments be filed. This 

rule will be effective September 28, 

2015 without further notice unless the 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 27, 2015. If the EPA receives 

such comments, then the EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this rule. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on September 28, 2015 and no further 

action will be taken on the proposed 

rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44867 

VII. 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. 

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 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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. Section 52.1970, paragraph (e), the 

table entitled ‘‘State of Oregon Air 

Quality Control Program’’ is amended 

by adding an entry after the existing 

entries under ‘‘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 Explanation 

*******

Section 4 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM—Continued 

SIP citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Grants Pass Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan.4/16/2015 7/28/2015, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–18220 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0260; FRL–9931–27– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina: 

Non-Interference Demonstration for 

Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure 

Requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the State of 

North Carolina’s April 16, 2015, 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), submitted through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, Division of Air 

Quality (DAQ), in support of the State’s 

request that EPA change the Federal 

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements 

for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. 

This RVP-related SIP revision evaluates 

whether changing the Federal RVP 

requirements in these counties would 

interfere with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). North 

Carolina’s April 16, 2015, RVP-related 

SIP revision also updates the State’s 

maintenance plan and the associated 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) related to its redesignation 

request for the North Carolina portion of 

the Charlotte-Rock Hill 2008 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area (Charlotte 

Area) to reflect the requested change in 

the Federal RVP requirements. EPA has 

determined that North Carolina’s April 

16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision is 

consistent with the applicable 

provisions of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 28, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2015–0260. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section 

(formerly the Regulatory Development 

Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, in the Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–8726 or via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

On May 21, 2012, EPA designated and 

classified areas for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on 

March 27, 2008, as unclassifiable/

attainment or nonattainment for the new 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. 

The Charlotte Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with a design value of 

0.079 ppm. On April 16, 2015, DAQ 

submitted a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the North Carolina 

portion of the Charlotte Area for EPA’s 

approval. In that submittal, the State 

included a maintenance demonstration 

that estimates emissions using a 7.8 psi 

RVP requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone redesignation request and 

maintenance plan. EPA proposed action 

on the aforementioned redesignation 

request and maintenance plan in a 

Federal Register document published 

on May 21, 2015. See 80 FR 29250. The 

final rule approving the State’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan was signed on July 17, 2015. The 

State, in conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the North Carolina portion 

of the Charlotte Area to attainment, is 

also requesting a change of the Federal 

RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. 

On April 16, 2015, to support its 

request for EPA to change the Federal 

RVP requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties, DAQ submitted 

a SIP revision that contains a 

noninterference demonstration that 

included modeling assuming 9.0 psi for 

RVP for Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties and that updates the 

maintenance plan submission and 

associated MVEBs for the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area. 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) published on May 21, 2015, EPA 

proposed to approve the State’s 

noninterference demonstration and the 

updates to its maintenance plan and the 

associated MVEBs related to the State’s 

redesignation request for the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area, 

contingent upon EPA approval of North 

Carolina’s redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the North Carolina 

portion of the Charlotte Area. See 80 FR 

29230. The details of North Carolina’s 

submittal and the rationale for EPA’s 

actions are explained in the NPR. EPA 

did not receive any comments on the 

proposed action. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

the State of North Carolina’s 

noninterference demonstration, 

submitted on April 16, 2015, in support 

of the State’s request that EPA change 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES