Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47029 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone, during daylight hours, lasting less 

than 13 hours per day for 21 days that 

will prohibit entry into or transit within 

MM 23 to 23.5 of the Houma Navigation 

Canal. It is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0650 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0650 Safety zone; Houma 

Navigation Canal between mile 23 to 23.5, 

Dulac, LA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: All waters of the 

Houma Navigation Canal, surface to 

bottom, between mile 23 and mile 23.5, 

Dulac, LA. 

(b) Enforcement period. This safety 

zone will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. 

until 7:00 p.m. daily from July 7 through 

July 27, 2016. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into this zone is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port Morgan City (COTP) or 

designated personnel. Persons or vessels 

desiring to enter into or pass through 

the zone must request permission from 

the COTP or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM radio channel 13 and 16 or 

phone at 504–343–7928. 

(2) Persons and vessels permitted to 

deviate from this safety zone regulation 

and enter the restricted area must transit 

at the slowest safe speed and comply 

with all lawful directions issued by the 

COTP or the designated representative. 

(d) Informational broadcasts. The 

COTP or a designated representative 

will inform the public through 

broadcast notices to mariners of the 

enforcement period for the temporary 

safety zone as well as any changes in the 

planned schedule. 

Dated: July 1, 2016. 

B.E. Welborn, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Morgan City. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17035 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0854; FRL–9949–00– 

Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Medford 

Area Carbon Monoxide Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a second 10-year 

carbon monoxide (CO) limited 

maintenance plan (LMP) for the 

Medford area in Oregon, submitted by 

the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (tODEQ) on 

December 11, 2015, along with a 

supplementary submittal on December 

30, 2015, as a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). In 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is 

approving this SIP revision because it 

demonstrates that the Medford area will 

continue to meet the CO National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for a second 10-year period 

beyond redesignation, through 2025. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 19, 2016, without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by August 19, 2016. If the EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0854 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Chi.John@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1MOVES2010b was the most current model 

available at the time that ODEQ was performing its 

analysis. The EPA released MOVES2014 on October 

7, 2014 (79 FR 60343). 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and 

Waste (OAW–150), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue, 

Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 

206–553–1185; email address: 

Chi.John@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. This Action 

II. Background 

III. Evaluation of Oregon’s Submittal 

A. Base Year Emission Inventory 

B. Demonstration of Maintenance 

C. Control Measures 

D. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

E. Contingency Plan 

F. Transportation and General Conformity 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

The EPA is approving the carbon 

monoxide limited maintenance plan 

(CO LMP) submitted by the ODEQ, on 

December 11, 2015, along with a 

supplementary submittal on December 

30, 2015, (the submittal) for the Medford 

area. A LMP is a means of meeting 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for 

formerly designated nonattainment 

areas that meet certain qualification 

criteria. This CO LMP is designed to 

keep the Medford area in attainment 

with the CO standard for a second 10- 

year period beyond redesignation, 

through 2025. 

II. Background 

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

CAA, each CO area designated 

nonattainment prior to enactment of the 

1990 Amendments, such as Medford, 

was designated nonattainment by 

operation of law upon enactment of the 

1990 Amendments. Under section 

186(a) of the CAA, each CO area 

designated nonattainment under section 

107(d) was also classified by operation 

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

depending on the severity of the area’s 

air quality problem. CO areas with 

design values between 9.1 and 16.4 

parts per million (ppm), such as 

Medford, were classified as moderate. 

These nonattainment designations and 

classifications were codified in 40 CFR 

part 81 on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56695). 

On July 24, 2002, the EPA approved 

the ODEQ’s request to redesignate the 

Medford area to attainment of the CO 

standard (67 FR 48388). In that action, 

the EPA also approved the maintenance 

plan required under CAA section 

175A(a) to provide for 10 years of 

maintenance of the CO standard in the 

Medford area through the year 2015 (67 

FR 48388). 

As required by the CAA section 

175A(b), the SIP submittal provides a 

second 10-year plan for maintaining the 

CO standard in the Medford area until 

2025. For the second 10-year 

maintenance plan, the ODEQ chose the 

option as described in an EPA October 

6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph 

Paisie, the Group Leader of the 

Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, 

titled, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable CO 

Nonattainment Areas’’ (LMP Option). 

To qualify for the LMP Option, the CO 

design value for an area, based on the 

eight consecutive quarters (two years of 

data) used to demonstrate attainment, 

must be at or below 7.65 ppm (85 

percent of the CO NAAQS). In addition, 

the control measures from the first CO 

maintenance plan must remain in place. 

The EPA has determined that the LMP 

Option for CO is also available to all 

states as part of the CAA 175A(b) update 

to the maintenance plans, regardless of 

the original nonattainment 

classification, or lack thereof. Thus, the 

EPA finds that although the Medford 

area was designated as a moderate 

nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS, 

redesignation to attainment status in 

conjunction with meeting all 

requirements of the October 6, 1995, 

memorandum, allows the ODEQ to be 

eligible to submit a LMP as the update 

to its original maintenance plan per 

section 175A(b) of the CAA. 

III. Evaluation of Oregon’s Submittal 

The requirements of the LMP Option 

and the EPA’s evaluation of how each 

requirement has been met by the 

ODEQ’s submittal is summarized below. 

A. Base Year Emission Inventory 

The LMP must contain an attainment 

year emissions inventory to identify a 

level of CO emissions in the area that is 

sufficiently low enough to attain the CO 

NAAQS. The submittal contains a 

summary of the CO emissions inventory 

for the Medford area for the base year 

2008. The emission inventory lists CO 

emissions by general source category— 

stationary point sources, stationary area 

sources, on-road mobile sources and 

non-road mobile sources. On-road 

mobile sources emissions for the 2008 

base year inventory were estimated with 

the EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator (MOVES) 2010b.1 The 

methods used to determine the Medford 

area CO emission inventory are 

consistent with the EPA’s most recent 

guidance on developing emission 

inventories. 

Historically, exceedances of the CO 

standard in the Medford area have 

occurred during the winter months, 

when cooler temperatures contribute to 

incomplete combustion, and when CO 

emissions are trapped near the ground 

by atmospheric inversions. Sources of 

carbon monoxide include industry, 

motor vehicles, non-road mobile 

sources, (e.g., construction equipment, 

recreational vehicles, lawn and garden 

equipment, and area sources (e.g., 

outdoor burning, woodstoves, 

fireplaces, and wildfires). The three 

consecutive months—December through 

February define the typical CO season. 

As such, season day emissions in 

addition to annual emissions are 

included in the inventory. The unit of 

measure for annual emissions is in tons 

per year (tpy), while the unit of measure 

for season day emissions is in pounds 

per day (lb/day). The county-wide 

emissions inventory data is spatially 

allocated to the Medford urban growth 

boundary (UGB), and to buffers around 

the UGB, depending on emissions 

category. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47031 

2The years 2008–2009 are the most recent two 

years for available monitoring data because 

monitoring was discontinued after 2009. The ODEQ 

has developed an alternate method to verify 

continued attainment of the CO NAAQS, discussed 

in the next section. 

2008 EMISSIONS INVENTORY, MAIN SOURCE CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

Main source category 

Annual 

emissions 

tons per year 

CO emissions 

pounds per 

winter day 

Stationary Point Sources ......................................................................................................................................... 2.367.1 13,159 

On-road Mobile Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 5,730.0 28,731 

Non-road Mobile Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 4,488.2 10,061 

Stationary Area Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 3,333.1 30,399 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 15,927.4 82,350 

B. Demonstration of Maintenance 

The CO NAAQS is attained when the 

annual second highest 8-hour average 

CO concentration for an area does not 

exceed a concentration of 9.0 ppm. The 

last monitored violation of the CO 

NAAQS in the Medford area occurred in 

1991, and CO levels have been steadily 

in decline. The second highest 8-hour 

CO concentration in 2009 was 2.4 ppm, 

which is in attainment with the CO 

NAAQS. 

For areas that meet the criteria to use 

the LMP Option, the maintenance plan 

demonstration requirement is 

considered to be satisfied. The EPA 

believes that if the area begins the 

maintenance period at, or below, 85 

percent of the level of the CO 8-hour 

NAAQS (at or below 7.65 ppm), the 

applicability of prevention of significant 

deterioration requirements, the control 

measures already in the SIP, and 

Federal control measures already in 

place will provide adequate assurance 

of maintenance over the maintenance 

period. Thus, there is no requirement to 

project emissions of air quality over the 

upcoming maintenance period. The 

second highest 8-hour CO concentration 

for Medford based on the two most 

recent years of data (2008–2009) is 2.4 

ppm, which is significantly below the 

LMP Option requirement of 7.65 ppm.2

Therefore, the EPA finds that the ODEQ 

has demonstrated that the Medford area 

qualifies for the LMP Option and has 

satisfied the maintenance demonstration 

requirement. 

C. Control Measures 

The submittal retains the control 

measures from the first CO maintenance 

plan (67 FR 48388). The primary control 

measure has been the emission 

standards for new motor vehicles under 

the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program. Other control measures have 

been the Major New Source Review 

Program with Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), Motor Vehicle 

Inspection Program, and a woodsmoke 

curtailment program. As stated above, 

the EPA believes that the Medford area 

will continue to maintain the standard 

with the continued implementation of 

these control measures along with 

meeting the other requirements to 

qualify for the LMP option. 

D. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Monitored CO levels in the Medford 

area have declined progressively since 

1991. CO levels have declined 

significantly across the nation through 

motor vehicle emissions controls and 

fleet turnover to newer, cleaner vehicle 

models. Once CO levels declined and 

continued to stay well below the 

NAAQS, the ODEQ requested to remove 

the Medford CO monitor in 2009 and 

the EPA approved the request on 

October 14, 2010. The ODEQ now has 

been using an alternate method of 

verifying continued attainment with the 

CO standard based on the regional 

emissions analysis conducted by the 

Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning 

Organization and by using the Portland 

CO monitor to track trends in general 

CO levels. Both the ODEQ report and 

the EPA network approval letter are 

included in the materials of this docket. 

Under the Medford CO LMP, the 

ODEQ will verify continued attainment 

of the CO NAAQS by conducting a 

review of CO emissions inventory data 

for the Medford area. The ODEQ will 

calculate CO emissions every three 

years as part of the Statewide Emissions 

Inventory, which is submitted to the 

EPA for inclusion in the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The ODEQ 

commits to review the NEI estimates to 

identify any increases over the 2008 

emission levels (see the base year 

emissions inventory in this section) and 

report on them in the annual monitoring 

network plan for the applicable year. 

Because on-road mobile sources and 

stationary area sources are the 

predominant sources of CO in Medford, 

these source categories will be the 

primary focus of the ODEQ’s review. 

The ODEQ will evaluate any increase in 

CO emissions to confirm it is not due to 

a change in emission calculation 

methodology, an exceptional event, or 

other factor not representative of an 

actual emissions increase. 

E. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions necessary to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violations of the standard that may 

occur. The ODEQ has submitted a 

revised contingency plan that has three 

phase of action. The initial contingency 

plan trigger is a ‘‘significant increase’’ in 

the emissions inventory, which is 

defined as ten percent above the 2008 

emissions inventory levels. The three 

phases of actions are as follows: 

Phase 1. If the three-year review of CO 

emissions shows a significant increase 

in emissions, the ODEQ will reestablish 

ambient CO monitoring in Medford. 

Phase 2. If the monitoring data 

indicates that the LMP eligibility level 

of 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hr 

standard) is exceeded, the ODEQ will 

evaluate the cause of the CO increase, 

and investigate corrective strategies. 

Phase 3. If a validated violation of the 

CO standard occurs, in addition to 

Phase 2 above, the ODEQ will replace 

the BACT requirement for new and 

expanding industry with Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER); 

reinstate CO emissions offset 

requirements for new and expanding 

industry; and consider other CO 

emission reduction measures. 

F. Transportation and General 

Conformity 

Federal transportation conformity 

rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and 

general conformity rules (58 FR 63214) 

continue to apply under a LMP. 

However, as noted in the LMP Option 

memo, these requirements are greatly 

simplified. An area under a LMP can 

demonstrate conformity without 

submitting an emissions budget, and as 

a result, emissions do not need to be 

capped nor does a regional emissions 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47032 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

analysis (including modeling) need to 

be conducted. 

On April 28, 2016, the EPA found the 

Medford CO LMP to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes (81 

FR 25394). Although regional emissions 

are no longer required as part of the 

transportation conformity 

determinations for CO for the Medford 

area, other transportation conformity 

requirements continue to apply to the 

area, such as consultation, 

transportation control measures, and 

project level conformity requirements. 

The Medford area will continue to be 

exempt from performing a regional 

emission analysis, but must meet 

project-level conformity analyses as 

well as transportation conformity areas. 

IV. Final Action 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the CAA, the EPA is approving the 

Medford CO LMP submitted by the 

ODEQ on December 11, 2015, and 

supplemented on December 30, 2015. 

The ODEQ has adequately demonstrated 

that the Medford area qualifies for the 

LMP option and will maintain the CO 

NAAQS through the second 10-year 

maintenance period through 2025. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

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

804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review, nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of the Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

the EPA can withdraw this direct final 

rule and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 30, 2016. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart MM—Oregon 

■ 2. Amend § 52.1970, paragraph (e), 

table titled ‘‘State of Oregon Air Quality 

Control Program’’ by revising ‘‘Section 

4’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47033 

STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

SIP citation Title/subject State 

effective date 

EPA 

approval date Explanation 

*******

Section 4 ........ Control Strategies for Nonattainment Areas.4.1, 12/19/1980 ...................... 4.1, 4/12/1982, 47 FR 15587 4.1 Portland-Vancouver TSP 

Attainment Plan. 

4.2, 7/16/1982 ........................ 4.2, 10/7/1982, 47 FR 44261 4.2 Portland-Vancouver CO 

Attainment Plan. 

4.3, 7/16/1982 ........................ 4.3, 10/7/1982, 47 FR 44261 4.3 Portland-Vancouver 

Ozone Attainment Plan. 

4.4, 6/20/1979 ........................ 4.4, 6/24/1980, 45 FR 42265 4.4 Salem CO Attainment 

Plan. 

4.5, 9/19/1980 ........................ 4.5, 4/12/1982, 47 FR 15587 4.5 Salem Ozone Attainment 

Plan. 

4.6, 1/30/1981 ........................ 4.6, 4/12/1982, 47 FR 15587 4.6 Eugene-Springfield TSP 

Attainment Plan. 

4.7, 6/20/1979 ........................ 4.7, 6/24/1980, 45 FR 42265 4.7 Eugene-Springfield CO 

Attainment Plan. 

4.7, 12/9/1988 ........................ 4.7, 12/6/1993, 58 FR 64161 4.7 Eugene-Springfield CO 

Maintenance Plan. 

4.8, 1/25/85 ............................ 4.8, 6/4/1986, 51 FR 20285 .. 4.8 Medford-Ashland Ozone, 

Maintenance Plan. 

4.9, 10/15/1982 ...................... 4.9, 2/13/1987, 52 FR 4620 .. 4.9 Medford-Ashland CO Attainment Plan. 

4.10, 4/1983 ........................... 4.10, 8/15/1984, 49 FR 32574 4.10 Medford-Ashland TSP, 

Attainment Plan. 

4.11, 10/24/1986 .................... 4.11, 1/15/1988, 53 FR 1020 4.11 Grants Pass CO, Attainment Plan. 

4.12, 8/18/1995 ...................... 4.12, 4/14/1997, 62 FR 18047 4.12 Klamath Falls PM–10 Attainment Plan. 

4.13, 11/13/1991 .................... 4.13, 12/17/1993, 58 FR 

65934.

4.13 Grants Pass PM–10 Attainment Plan. 

4.14, 9/9/2005 ........................ 4.14, 6/19/2006, 71 FR 35163 4.14 Medford PM–10 Attainment and Maintenance 

Plan. 

4.15, 11/8/1991 ...................... 4.15, 2/15/1995, 60 FR 8563 4.15 La Grande PM–10 Attainment Plan. 

4.16, 1/31/1991 ...................... 4.16, 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 4.16 Eugene-Springfield PM– 

10 Attainment Plan. 

4.17, 11/20/2000, (submittal 

date).

4.17, 9/20/2001, 66 FR 48340 4.17 Klamath Falls CO Maintenance Plan. 

4.18, 11/4/1996 ...................... 4.18, 3/15/1999, 64 FR 12751 4.18 Oakridge PM–10 Attainment Plan. 

4.19, 6/1/1995, (submittal 

date).

4.19, 9/21/1999, 64 FR 51051 4.19 Lakeview PM–10 Attainment Plan. 

4.50, 8/14/1996 ...................... 4.50, 5/19/1997, 62 FR 27204 4.50 Portland/Vancouver 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

4.50, 4/12/2007 ...................... 4.50, 12/19/2011, 76 FR 

78571.

4.50 Portland-Vancouver 

AQMA (Oregon portion) & 

Salem Kaizer Area 8-hour 

Ozone (110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan. 

4.51, 7/12/1996 ...................... 4.51, 9/2/1997, 62 FR 46208 4.51 Portland CO Maintenance Plan. 

4.52, 3/9/2001 ........................ 4.52, 7/24/2002, 67 FR 48388 4.52 Medford CO Maintenance Plan. 

4.53, 9/10/1999 ...................... 4.53, 8/31/2000, 65 FR 52932 4.53 Grants Pass CO Maintenance Plan. 

4.55, 10/4/2002 ...................... 4.55, 10/27/2003, 68 FR 

61111.

4.55 Grants Pass PM–10 

Maintenance Plan. 

4.56, 10/4/2002 ...................... 4.56, 10/21/2003, 68 FR 

60036.

4.56 Klamath Falls PM–10 

Maintenance Plan. 

4.57, 6/28/2007 ...................... 4.57, 12/30/2008, 73 FR 

79655.

4.57 Salem-Keizer Area CO, 

Limited Maintenance Plan. 

4.58, 12/15/2004 .................... 4.58, 1/24/2006, 71 FR 3768 4.58 Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan 2nd 10-year. 

4.58, 12/11/2013 .................... 4.58, 5/22/2014, 79 FR 29360 4.58 Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan 2nd 10-year; 

TCM substitution update 

4.58.3.2.2. 

4.59, 9/9/2005 ........................ 4.59, 6/19/2006, 71 FR 35161 4.59 La Grande PM10 Maintenance Plan. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47034 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM—Continued 

SIP citation Title/subject State 

effective date 

EPA 

approval date Explanation 

4.60, 9/9/2005 ........................ 4.60, 6/19/2006, 71 FR 35159 4.60 Lakeview PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

4.61, 9/26/2011 ...................... 4.61, 4/11/2013, 78 FR 21547 4.61 Eugene-Springfield PM10

Limited Maintenance Plan. 

4.62, 12/12/2012 .................... 4.62, 6/6/2016, 81 FR 36178 4.62, Klamath Falls PM2.5 Attainment Plan. 

4.63, 4/16/2015 ...................... 4.63, 7/28/2015, 80 FR 44867 4.63 Grants Pass Second 10- 

Year Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan. 

4.64, 4/16/2015 ...................... 4.64, 7/30/2015 80 FR 45435 4.64 Grants Pass Second 10- 

Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan. 

4.65, 12/11/2015 .................... 4.65 7/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].4.65 Medford Second 10- 

Year Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–17060 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708; FRL 9949–13– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; 2015 Kansas State 

Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State 

of Kansas. This final action will approve 

Kansas’ SIP for the lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area of Salina, Saline 

County, Kansas, received by EPA on 

February 25, 2015. EPA proposed 

approval of this plan on February 29, 

2016. The applicable standard 

addressed in this action is the lead 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. 

EPA believes that the SIP submitted by 

the state satisfies the applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

identified in EPA’s Final Rule published 

in the Federal Register on October 15, 

2008, and will bring the designated 

portions of Salina, Kansas, into 

attainment of the 0.15 microgram per 

cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0708. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through www.regulations.gov 

or please contact the person identified 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section for additional 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7719, or by email at 

doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for the approval of 

a SIP revision been met? 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

In this document, EPA is granting 

final approval of Kansas’ attainment 

demonstration SIP for the lead NAAQS 

nonattainment area in portions of 

Salina, Saline County, Kansas. The 

applicable standard addressed in this 

action is the lead NAAQS promulgated 

by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the 

SIP submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the CAA 

identified in EPA’s Final Rule (73 FR 

66964, October 15, 2008), and will bring 

the area into attainment of the 0.15 

microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead 

NAAQS. EPA’s proposal containing the 

background information for this action 

can be found at 81 FR 10162, February 

29, 2016. 

II. Have the requirements for the 

approval of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed rule opened February 29, 

2016, the date of its publication in the 

Federal Register, and closed on March 

30, 2016. During this period, EPA 

received one comment letter from Exide 

Technologies, dated March 23, 2016. 

The comment letter contained one 

comment regarding EPA’s process 

description in section V.A.1 of the 

proposal which states: 

‘‘The Exide facility in Salina, Kansas, 

manufactures lead acid batteries for 

automobiles, trucks, and watercraft. Lead 

emissions result from breaking open used 

batteries, re-melting the lead and 

reformulating new batteries.’’ 

Exide commented that EPA is in error 

regarding the description of the facility’s 

processes; the Exide Salina, Kansas, 

facility does not break open used 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES