Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884-0016
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Posted Date: 2013-08-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46514-46516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884, FRL-9841-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate 
Matter and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submittals from the State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets 
the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, and October 17, 
2006, and for ozone on March 12, 2008. The EPA is finding that the 
Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet the CAA 
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 
PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also finding 
that the Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet 
the interstate transport requirements of the CAA related to prevention 
of significant deterioration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and related to 
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This 
action does not approve any additional provisions into the Oregon SIP 
but is a finding that the current provisions of the Oregon SIP are 
adequate to satisfy the above-mentioned infrastructure elements 
required by the CAA.

DATES: This action is effective on September 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884. 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 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 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 
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: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, 
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. 
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 21, 2013, the EPA proposed to approve the September 25, 
2008, December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and December 19, 2011 SIP 
submittals from the State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets 
the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the NAAQS 
promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 
1997, and October 17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12, 2008 (78 FR 
17304). In our March 21, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), we 
proposed to approve the SIP submittals and to find that the Federally-
approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet the following CAA 
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), 
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We also 
proposed to find that the Federally-approved provisions currently in 
the Oregon SIP meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
as it applies to prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. An 
explanation of the CAA requirements and implementing regulations that 
are met by these SIP submittals, a detailed explanation of the 
submittals, and the EPA's reasons for approving the submittals and 
making the above-described findings were provided in the NPR, and will 
not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule 
ended on April 22, 2013. The EPA received one comment on the NPR.

[[Page 46515]]

II. Response to Comment

    Comment: The commenter stated that ``the Oregon SIP does not 
currently contain emission limits and other provisions which ensure 
that Oregon will attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 
and should be disapproved. In support of this conclusion, the commenter 
described the potential impact of future PM2.5 emissions 
from Coyote Island Terminal, LLC's proposed Morrow Pacific Project in 
Oregon. The commenter included an air quality modeling analysis of the 
Morrow Pacific Project's potential future ambient PM2.5 
impacts, commissioned by the commenter's client. The analysis predicted 
that the Morrow Pacific Project will emit PM2.5 in 
quantities that will cause violations of the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. The commenter concluded that ``if the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality issues an air pollution permit to the Coyote 
Island terminal, it will demonstrate that the Oregon SIP currently 
lacks emission limits and other measures to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The commenter further 
stated that ``[s]hould the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
deny the air pollution permit for the Coyote Island coal terminal, then 
these comments would no longer be applicable.'' The commenter did not 
identify any particular regulatory deficiencies in the Oregon SIP. The 
commenter's conclusion that the Oregon SIP should be disapproved is 
contingent upon the outcome of a future permitting decision.
    Response: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that a SIP ``include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 
techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as 
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of 
this chapter.'' The EPA notes that the commenter did not identify a 
specific absence of ``enforceable emission limitations or other control 
measures'' necessary to ensure attainment of the PM2.5 
NAAQS. Rather, the commenter's conclusion that the Oregon 
infrastructure SIP for PM2.5 is deficient is contingent upon 
a particular decision being made under the existing SIP-approved 
regulations that the commenter anticipates will be applied in the case 
of the proposed Morrow Pacific Project, if that project is issued an 
air quality permit in the future.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that the Oregon 
SIP must, or can be disapproved contingent upon a particular, 
potential, future permitting decision. Rather, our analysis of the 
Oregon SIP as discussed in the NPR, set forth the EPA's basis for 
concluding that the current Federally-approved Oregon SIP meets the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In our analysis we stated that the State of 
Oregon generally regulates emissions of PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors through its SIP-approved New Source Review 
(NSR) permitting programs, in addition to other rules and control 
programs. The EPA most recently approved revisions to the State's major 
and minor NSR permitting programs on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747), 
to regulate direct PM2.5 emissions, in addition to nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as 
precursors to PM2.5. In addition to the State's NSR 
permitting regulations, the State's approved SIP contains rules that 
establish various controls on emissions of particulate matter, 
NOX, and SO2. These regulations address 
operational and work practice standards, fuel burning equipment and 
fuel sulfur content, grain loading, specific industry sectors, motor 
vehicle pollution, industrial emission management, residential wood 
heating, field burning, and banking of emission reduction credits.
    As described above, the comment focused on the Coyote Island 
Terminal, LLC's proposed Morrow Pacific Project, asserting that if 
permitted, the source would, in the future, emit PM2.5 in 
quantities that would violate the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because 
the source in question is a new source which has not yet been permitted 
and is not currently operating, the comment does not provide a basis 
for finding that the SIP lacks emission limitations and other control 
measures necessary to support a disapproval of the State's 
infrastructure SIP submission.
    The EPA finds that Oregon's SIP contains ``emission limits and 
other control measures'' that are appropriate to ensure attainment of 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the provisions of Oregon's 
Federally-approved SIP, owners and operators of new and modified major 
sources must satisfy the requirements of Oregon's Federally-approved 
major NSR program set forth at Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-
224 ``Major New Source Review.'' Oregon's major NSR program includes 
requirements for new and modified major sources located in attainment 
and unclassifiable areas (OAR 340-224-0070) and nonattainment areas 
(OAR 340-224-0050). Oregon's minor NSR program set forth at OAR 340-216 
``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits'' includes requirements for minor 
sources located in attainment, unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas 
and requires that increases in emissions from any new or modified 
source not cause or contribute to violations of ambient standards or 
applicable PSD increments. Oregon's Federally-approved major and minor 
NSR permitting programs regulate and control emissions from new and 
modified sources of regulated pollutants, including PM2.5 
and NOX and SO2 as precursors.
    The commenter's conclusion that ``if the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality issues an air pollution permit to the Coyote 
Island terminal, it will demonstrate that the Oregon SIP currently 
lacks emission limits and other measures to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' fails to account for 
the State's Federally-approved NSR permitting programs and the 
requirements that owners and operators must satisfy prior to obtaining 
a permit. A finding related to the legal adequacy of this SIP cannot be 
based solely on the outcome of this particular potential permitting 
action, as the commenter proffers.
    The EPA believes the current, Federally-approved Oregon SIP 
includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, 
means, or techniques to attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, and therefore, is taking final action to find that the Oregon 
SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Action

    The EPA has determined that the September 25, 2008, December 23, 
2010, August 17, 2011, and December 19, 2011, SIP submittals from the 
State of Oregon are consistent with the requirements of section 110 of 
the CAA. Therefore, the EPA is approving the SIP submittals from the 
State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure 
requirements of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated for PM2.5 
on July 18, 1997, and October 17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12, 
2008. The EPA is finding that the Federally-approved provisions 
currently in the Oregon SIP meet the following CAA section 110(a)(2) 
infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 
PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA is also finding 
that the Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 
prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 ozone

[[Page 46516]]

NAAQS, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility 
for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 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 Act 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 
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 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).
    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 the EPA notes that it will not 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. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, and 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 19, 2013.
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. Section 52.1991 is amended by redesignating the undesignated text as 
paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1991  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) On September 25, 2008, December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and 
December 19, 2011, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
submitted SIP revisions to address the requirements of CAA sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 
and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approves the submittals as meeting the 
following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), 
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA 
also approves the submittals as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to prevention of significant 
deterioration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 2006 
PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18314 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P