Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2005-OR-0001-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon; Portland Carbon Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2006-01-24T05:00Z

[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 3768-3770]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-10]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No.: EPA-R10-OAR-2005-OR-0001; FRL-8015-3]

 
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon; 
Portland Carbon Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes our approval of the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality on January 3, 2005. EPA is approving the State of 
Oregon's second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for the 
Portland maintenance area. Specifically, EPA is approving the 
following: Oregon's demonstration that the Portland CO Attainment Area 
will maintain air quality standards for CO through the year 2017; a 
revised CO motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity 
purposes using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model and latest growth and 
planning assumptions; and revised state implementation plan (SIP) 
control strategies and contingency measures.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2005-OR-0001. 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, 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 form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA, Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle 
WA. EPA requests that if all possible, you contact the contact 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 legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (AWT-107), EPA Region 10,

[[Page 3769]]

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-2970; 
fax number: (206) 553-0110; e-mail address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``awe,'' 
``aus,'' or ``aour'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized 
as follows:

I. What Is the Background of This Rulemaking?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Is Our Final Action?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background of This Rulemaking?

    On September 6, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register, a 
detailed description of our proposed action to approve the Portland, 
Oregon, CO Second 10-year maintenance plan. See 70 FR 52956.
    The air quality data shows that the Portland CO maintenance area 
has not recorded a violation of the primary or secondary CO air quality 
standards since 1989. EPA believes the area will continue to meet the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) until at 
least 2017 as required by the Clean Air Act.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period to solicit comments 
on our proposal published in the September 6, 2005 Federal Register. We 
received one comment letter on the proposed rulemaking. This comment 
letter was from Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center on behalf of the 
Northwest Environmental Defense Center. In general, the letter opposed 
the proposed SIP revision. The comments and our responses are 
summarized as follows:
    Comment: The commenter states that EPA cannot approve Oregon's 
proposed CO Maintenance Plan because it does not account for 
agricultural sources' contributions to CO in the Portland area.
    Response: The Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 
Emission Inventory and Forecast was prepared using current and 
applicable EPA procedure and guidance documents and computer software 
programs. The primary procedure and guidance documents are Procedures 
for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and 
Precursors of Ozone, Volume I, and Emission Inventory Requirements for 
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans. Emission factors were taken 
from the supplemental Short List of AMS SCCS and Emission Factors, and 
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
    By letter dated November 15, 2005, as corrected on November 21, 
2005, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) provided 
specific information in response to the comment. As part of the 
Portland carbon monoxide maintenance plan, agricultural activity was 
inventoried per EPA guidance. The types of agricultural activity 
inventoried by ODEQ were orchard pruning burning (11 tons/year), 
agriculture field burning (61 tons/year) and non-road agriculture 
equipment (298.9 tons/year) for a total of 370.8 tons/year. The 370.8 
tons of CO that ODEQ calculates are generated by agriculture in the 
Portland area represents .07% of the region's total. ODEQ informed EPA 
that there are no Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) within 
the boundary of the Portland CO Maintenance Area.
    CO is not a pollutant where transport is a concern and there is no 
information to suggest that CO emissions from CAFOs outside of the 
Portland CO Maintenance Area impact CO levels within the maintenance 
area. For these reasons, EPA finds the State of Oregon's second 10-year 
CO maintenance plan for the Portland CO Maintenance Area adequately 
accounts for emissions from agricultural sources.
    Comment: The commenter states ODEQ cannot properly implement the 
maintenance plan as a result of budget cuts. Specifically, the 
commenter is concerned because the ODEQ air program is expected to lose 
nearly 20 staff members and 4 of the 5 air quality monitors that were 
installed in the Portland area several years ago are being 
decommissioned.
    Response: ODEQ has informed EPA that the four air quality monitors 
which are to be decommissioned by ODEQ due to budget cuts are part of a 
temporary effort to investigate toxic air pollutants in the Portland 
airshed. The monitors to be removed do not measure CO and are not 
required by EPA for monitoring of CO. As stated in the maintenance plan 
submitted by ODEQ, three CO monitors operating in the Portland CO 
maintenance area will continue to operate throughout the second 10-year 
period. For these reasons, EPA believes that ODEQ will continue to 
fulfill the monitoring commitments set forth in the Maintenance Plan.

III. What Is Our Final Action?

    EPA is taking final action to approve the Portland, Oregon CO 
Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan consistent with the published proposal. 
A Technical Support Document on file at the EPA Region 10 office 
contains a detailed analysis and rationale in support of the plan.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

[[Page 3770]]

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule 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 March 27, 2006. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 8, 2005.
L. Michael Bogert,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(145) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (145) On December 27, 2004, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality submitted to the Regional Administrator of EPA, the Second 
Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan that demonstrates 
continued attainment of the NAAQS for carbon monoxide through the year 
2017.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340: 200-0040, 204-0090 
and 242-0440, as effective December 15, 2004.

0
3. Paragraph (a) of Sec.  52.1973 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1973   Approval of plans.

    (a) Carbon monoxide.
    (1) EPA approves as a revision to the Oregon State Implementation 
Plan, the Second Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, 
effective December 15, 2004, and submitted to EPA on December 27, 2004.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-636 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P