[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2313-2315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00645]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0446, FRL-9921-69-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: 
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a portion of the State Implementation 
Plan submission from the State of Oregon to address Clean Air Act 
interstate transport requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate 
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 
Clean Air Act requires that each State Implementation Plan contain 
adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain 
adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is determining 
that Oregon's existing State Implementation Plan contains adequate 
provisions to ensure that air emissions in Oregon will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards in any other state.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0446. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the http://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 the 
disclosure of which 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, 
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101. The EPA requests that 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Karl Pepple at: (206) 553-1778,

[[Page 2314]]

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#48382d3838242d6623293a24082d3829662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="59293c2929353c7732382b35193c2938773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>, 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. Background
II. Response To Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising 
the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for PM<INF>2.5</INF> from 65 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).
    The interstate transport provisions in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each 
state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that prohibits 
emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other 
states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements 
related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state 
lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two elements of 
this section, specified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action does not address the two elements of the 
interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect 
visibility in another state. We approved the Oregon SIP for purposes 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46514).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that 
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the 
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly 
to nonattainment'' of the applicable NAAQS in another state. The second 
element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state 
from emitting pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of 
the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
    On May 14, 2014, we proposed approval of the portion of Oregon's 
June 28, 2010, submission that addresses the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS (79 FR 27528). An explanation of the CAA requirements and 
implementing regulations that are met by this SIP submission, a 
detailed explanation of the submission, and the EPA's reasons for the 
proposed action were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on 
May 14, 2014, and will not be restated here (79 FR 27528). The public 
comment period for our proposed action ended on June 13, 2014.

II. Response To Comment

    The EPA received one anonymous adverse comment on the May 14, 2014, 
proposed approval (79 FR 27528). The EPA has evaluated the comment, as 
discussed below, and has determined that Oregon's 2010 Interstate 
Transport SIP submission addressing the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS is consistent with the CAA. Therefore the EPA is approving the 
Oregon 2010 Interstate Transport SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 
Following is the comment and the EPA's response.
    Comment: ``EPA's analysis of significant contribution to 
nonattainment and maintenance areas in down-wind states must be done 
for ALL NAAQS pollutants, not just the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 
This would ensure that Oregon's PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions are not 
affecting the nonattainment or maintenance of ALL NAAQS in other 
States. The CAA specifically states that, `Each such plan shall . . . 
contain adequate provisions (i) prohibiting . . . any source or other 
type of emissions activity within the State from emitting ANY air 
pollutant in amounts which will (I) contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State 
with respect to ANY such national primary or secondary ambient air 
quality standard,' (Emphasis on `any'). This was recently affirmed by 
the Supreme Court in EME Homer City v. EPA, `To tackle the problem, 
Congress included a Good Neighbor Provision in the Clean Air Act (Act 
or CAA). That provision, in its current phrasing, instructs States to 
prohibit in-state sources ``from emitting any air pollutant in amounts 
which will . . . contribute significantly' to downwind States' 
``nonattainment . . ., or interfere with maintenance,'' of ANY EPA 
promulgated national air quality standard.'' (Again, emphasis on 
`any'). For this reason the EPA can't approve Oregon's Interstate 
Transport SIP because it, and EPA's analysis, doesn't include an 
analysis which determines that Oregon doesn't contribute to another 
State's nonattainment or maintenance for ALL NAAQS pollutants.''
    Response: This comment addresses the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This provision, the ``good neighbor'' provision, 
requires each State Implementation Plan to prohibit ``any source or 
other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air 
pollutants in amounts which will . . . contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with 
respect to any . . . primary or secondary [NAAQS].'' 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2)(D)(i). The recent Supreme Court decision in Environmental 
Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014), addressed the requirements of this provision and reversed the 
prior DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision vacating the EPA's Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule. The commenter quotes from the section of the 
Supreme Court decision that discusses the historical development (from 
1963 onward) of the EPA's interstate transport policy (the `good 
neighbor' provision). The quoted language essentially tracks the 
statutory text of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which describes 
specific elements that must be included in State Implementation Plans 
to address pollution that is transported across state lines. As the 
Supreme Court decision in EME Homer City confirmed, pursuant to CAA 
section 110(a)(1), state plans to address these requirements must be 
submitted to the Administrator within three years of the promulgation 
or revision of a NAAQS. EME Homer City, 134 S. Ct. at 1600.
    The EPA interprets the comment as stating that the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions of Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP 
submission for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS should address, 
in addition to emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, any emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of all other NAAQS. The EPA disagrees. 
Because it is the promulgation or revision of a NAAQS that triggers the 
requirement to submit a SIP addressing the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA interprets the CAA as requiring each such 
SIP to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements only 
with respect to the specific NAAQS at issue. In other words, each CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission need only address the 
specific NAAQS which had been promulgated or revised by the EPA thereby 
triggering the SIP

[[Page 2315]]

submission requirement. Because Oregon submitted this SIP to address 
the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, it need only 
demonstrate that the SIP is adequate to prohibit emissions that 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in other states. Any 
emissions that have such impacts with respect to other NAAQS must be 
addressed as appropriate in the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 
submissions for those other NAAQS. In its May 14, 2014, action, the EPA 
proposed to conclude that Oregon's 2010 Interstate Transport SIP 
submission addressed the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (79 FR 27528). 
The commenter has offered no data or evidence to suggest that the 
submission does not do so.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the portion of the June 28, 2010, SIP 
submission from Oregon that addresses the interstate transport 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The EPA is determining that Oregon's existing 
SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions from 
Oregon will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in any 
other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

IV. 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 March 17, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: December 31, 2014.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. In Sec.  52.1990 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1990  Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

* * * * *
    (b) The EPA approves the portion of Oregon's SIP submitted on June 
28, 2010 (cover letter dated June 23, 2010) addressing the requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2015-00645 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>