[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 72960]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR16-4-000]

Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on November 6, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), Medallion Pipeline
Company, LLC, filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking
confirmation and approval of general rate structure and service terms
for further expansion of Wolfcamp Connector crude oil pipeline system,
all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 7, 2015.

    Dated: November 16, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29764 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45431-45435]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0323; FRL-9931-16-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Grants
Pass Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of Oregon on April 22,
2015, for the Grants Pass area for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10). The plan explains how this area will continue to
meet the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for a
second 10-year period through 2025.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 28, 2015, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 31, 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-2015-0323, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     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-
2015-0323. 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 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The 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
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
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 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<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using 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.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
    A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
V. Review of the State's Submittal
    A. Has the State demonstrated that Grants Pass qualifies for the
limited maintenance plan option?
    B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions
inventory?
    C. Does the limited Maintenance plan include an assurance of
continued operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality
monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58?
    D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for
contingency provisions?
    E. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Oregon Notice Provision
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is approving the limited maintenance plan submitted by the
State of Oregon (the State) on April 22, 2015, for the Grants Pass
Urban Growth

Boundary. The plan addresses maintenance of the PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for a second 10-year period
through 2025.

II. Background

    The EPA identified the Grants Pass, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary
as a ``Group I'' area of concern due to measured violations of the
newly promulgated 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) on August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383). On November 15, 1990,
the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments under section 107(d)(4)(B),
designated Grants Pass Group I area as nonattainment for
PM10 by operation of law. The EPA published a Federal
Register document announcing all areas designated nonattainment for
PM10 on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). The Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) worked with the community of Grants
Pass to develop a plan for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.
Control measures focused on reducing smoke emissions with
PM10 control measures for wood stoves, open forestry
burning, as well as industrial growth controls and other strategies.
The EPA proposed approval of the plan on March 10, 1993 (58 FR 13230),
and approved it on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65934). On November 5,
1999, Oregon submitted a complete rule renumbering and relabeling
package to the EPA for approval into the SIP. On January 22, 2003, the
EPA approved the recodified version of Oregon's rules to remove and
replace the outdated numbering system (68 FR 2891). The EPA approved
ODEQ's maintenance plan to ensure continued compliance with the
PM10 NAAQS for ten years on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61111).
    In addition to approving ODEQ's maintenance plan for the area, the
EPA also approved ODEQ's request to redesignate the Grants Pass
nonattainment area to attainment on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61111). The
purpose of the submitted limited maintenance plan is to fulfill the
second 10-year planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure
compliance through 2025.

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 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. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (limited
maintenance plan option memo). The limited maintenance plan option memo
contains a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air
quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the
standard ten years into the future. Thus, the EPA provided the
maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in
the memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these
areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation
conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the limited maintenance plan option, the State must
demonstrate the area meets the criteria described below. First, the
area should have attained the PM10 NAAQS. Second, the most
recent five years of air quality data at all monitors in the area,
called the 24-hour average design value, should be at or below 98
[micro]g/m\3\. Third, the State should expect only limited growth in
on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive
dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test. Lastly, the memo identifies core provisions that must be
included in all limited maintenance plans. These provisions include an
attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation
of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency
provisions.

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and areas covered
by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an
acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms to the
applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the
planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.
    While qualification for the limited maintenance plan option does
not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may
be demonstrated without submitting an emissions budget. Under the
limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in the period that a violation of the
PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity
purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas need not
be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions
analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to
the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget
test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that
the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

V. Review of the State's Submittal

A. Has the State demonstrated that Grants Pass qualifies for the
limited maintenance plan option?

    As discussed above, the limited maintenance plan option memo
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify. First, the area
should be attaining the NAAQS. The EPA determined the Grants Pass area
attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data from 1988
through 1990 and approved the State's maintenance plan and request to
redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment on October 27,
2003 (68 FR 61111). The area has been in continued compliance with the
PM10 NAAQS since that time.
    Second, the average design value for the past five years of
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98
[mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The critical design
value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. Using the most recently available
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitoring data for the years 2004-2008,
the State's analysis demonstrated that Grants Pass average design value
was 49 [mu]g/m\3\, well below the 98 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold. An FRM
monitor is one that has been approved by the EPA under 40 CFR part 58
to measure compliance with the NAAQS.

As discussed later in this proposal, ODEQ also calculated average
design values using a linear regression analysis technique for the
period 2009 to 2013. This more recent monitoring data shows that
PM10 levels continue to be well below the standard with an
average design value of 49 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA reviewed the data
provided by ODEQ and finds that Grants Pass meets the design value
criteria outlined in the limited maintenance plan option memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test described in attachment B of the limited maintenance plan
option memo. ODEQ submitted an analysis showing that growth in on-road
mobile PM10 emissions sources was minimal and would not
threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the limited
maintenance plan policy. Using the EPA's methodology, ODEQ calculated a
regional emissions analysis margin of safety of 52 [mu]g/m\3\, easily
meeting the threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA reviewed the
calculations in the State's limited maintenance plan submittal and
concurs with this conclusion.
    Lastly, the limited maintenance plan option memo requires all
controls relied on to demonstrate attainment remain in place for the
area to qualify. The area's first 10-year maintenance plan relied on
measures addressing residential wood combustion, open burning, road
dust from motor vehicles and a major new source review program for
industry. EPA approved the rules into the SIP on October 27, 2003 (68
FR 61111).
    As described above, Grants Pass meets the qualification criteria
set forth in the limited maintenance plan option memo. Under the
limited maintenance plan option, the State will be expected to
determine on an annual basis that the criteria are still being met. If
the State determines that the limited maintenance plan criteria are not
being met, it should take action to reduce PM10
concentrations enough to requalify. One possible approach the State
could take is to implement contingency measures. Section V. I. provides
a description of contingency provisions included as part of the limited
maintenance plan submittal.

B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory?

    Pursuant to the limited maintenance plan option memo, the State's
approved attainment plan should include an emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory
should represent emissions during the same five-year period associated
with air quality data used to determine whether the area meets the
applicability requirements of the limited maintenance plan option.
    ODEQ's Grants Pass limited maintenance plan submittal includes an
emissions inventory based on EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) data for Josephine County. The 2011 base year represents the most
recent emissions inventory data available and is consistent with the
data used to determine applicability of the limited maintenance plan
option. This approach is also consistent with the 1993 emission
inventory developed for the first maintenance plan. Historically,
exceedances of the 24-hr PM10 standard in Grants Pass have
occurred during the winter months, between November 1 and the end of
February. As such, in addition to annual emissions, typical season day
and worst-case season day emissions are included in the inventory. The
term ``worst-case day'' describes the maximum activity/emissions that
have occurred or could occur on a season day, for each emissions
source. Worst-case day emissions are summed for all sources/categories,
i.e. assumed to occur on the same day. This assumption is the basis for
what would be needed to cause an exceedance of the 24-hr standard. 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 was
spatially allocated to the Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary, and to
buffers around the boundary or monitor, depending on emissions
category.
    The submitted emissions inventory included the following
categories: permitted point sources, area sources (including open
burning, small stationary fossil fuel combustion, residential wood
combustion, wildfires and prescribed burning, fugitive dust), nonroad
(aircraft and airport related, locomotives, marine vessels, nonroad
vehicles and equipment), and onroad mobile (exhaust/brake/tire, re-
entrained road dust). The EPA has reviewed the emissions inventory data
and methodology and finds that the data support ODEQ's conclusion that
the control measures contained in the original attainment plan will
continue to protect and maintain the PM10 NAAQS.

C. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of continued
operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?

    The state of Oregon began monitoring in the Grants Pass area in
1987, with many changes to the monitoring technology and requirements
since. From 2006 through 2008, the State collocated a PM2.5
monitor with the existing PM10 Federal Reference Method
(FRM) monitor to establish correlation data and confirm that
PM10 levels could be accurately predicted using
PM2.5 concentrations for the areas. Due to the high level of
correlation between the PM2.5 and PM10 monitors,
ODEQ developed a report on their findings and asserted that
PM2.5 monitoring was an accurate predictor of
PM10 levels for purposes of determining continued
maintenance of the PM10 standard in Grants Pass, and asked
to discontinue the PM10 monitor. EPA approved this request
in the Annual Network Plan Approval letter, dated January 6, 2012. Both
the ODEQ report and the EPA approval letter are included in the
materials of this docket.
    A full description of the correlation data and the estimation model
is included in the State's submittal. The EPA is approving the use of
PM2.5 monitoring data to estimate PM10
concentrations for the second 10-year maintenance plan period in Grants
Pass and finds that it meets the relevant requirements at 40 CFR
58.14(c). This estimation method is a reproducible approach to
representing air quality in the area, and the area continues to meet
the applicable Appendix D requirements evaluated as part of the annual
network approval process.
    In order to continue to qualify for the limited maintenance plan
option, the State must calculate the PM10 design value
estimate annually from PM2.5 monitoring data to confirm the
area continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS.

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for contingency
provisions?

    CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the
area to attainment. The first Grants Pass maintenance plan contained
contingency measures that would be implemented under two scenarios--if
the official PM10 monitor registers a value of 120 [mu]g/
m\3\ or higher, or if a

violation of the 24-hr PM10 standard were to occur. These
two contingency scenarios are continued under the limited maintenance
plan.

E. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would
result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    In the June 24, 2015 adequacy finding for the Grants Pass
PM10 limited maintenance plan, EPA determined that Grants
Pass met the criteria to be exempt from regional emissions analysis for
PM10. 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.
    Upon approval of the Grants Pass PM10 limited
maintenance plan, the area is exempt from performing a regional
emissions analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as
well as the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
 (2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement
can be met is to demonstrate that the total of direct and indirect
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and
documented by the state agency primarily responsible for the applicable
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions
budgets specified in the applicable SIP (see 40 CFR
93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the State air
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than those used
in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to
specified levels. The State has not chosen to include specific
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the
provisions of general conformity.

VI. 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 five-day 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.

VII. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    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

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.  52.1970, paragraph (e), the table entitled ``State of
Oregon Air Quality Control Program'' is amended by adding a new entry
for ``Section 4'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
          SIP citation             Title/subject     effective   EPA approval date          Explanations
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 4......................  Grants Pass          4/16/2015  7/30/2015........
                                  Second 10-Year                 [Insert Federal
                                  PM10 Limited                    Register
                                  Maintenance Plan.               citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-18354 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P