[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21679-21691]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08608]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0018, FRL-9909-46-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve part of the December 27, 2013,
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Oregon for purposes of
meeting the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead
(Pb) on October 15, 2008. The CAA requires that each state, after a new
or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIP to ensure that it
meets the infrastructure requirements necessary to implement the new or
revised NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find that the Oregon SIP meets
the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0018, by any of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200
Sixth

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office
of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. 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-
2014-0018. 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 the
disclosure of which 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
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. 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: Kristin Hall at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
IV. Analysis of the State Submittal
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and
secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards, so-called ``infrastructure''
requirements. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS to the EPA no later than October 15, 2011.
    To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued
guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2).\1\ As noted in the guidance, to the extent an
existing SIP already meets the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements,
states may certify that fact in a letter to the EPA. The certification
should address each CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure element as
applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The certification should include
documentation demonstrating a correlation between each 110(a)(2)
infrastructure element and an equivalent state statutory authority in
the existing or submitted SIP. As for all SIP submittals, a state
should provide reasonable public notice of, and an opportunity for a
public hearing on, the certification before it is submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
the case of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met the basic
infrastructure elements set out in CAA section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions.
    On December 27, 2013, the State of Oregon made a submittal to the
EPA to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
NAAQS, and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. We note that this action is only
addressing the portion of the submittal related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
We will address the remainder of the submittal in a separate action.
    The submittal included an analysis of Oregon's SIP as it relates to
each section of the CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Oregon provided notice and an opportunity for public
comment on the submittal from July 15, 2013, through August 15, 2013. A
notice of public hearing was published in the Oregonian on July 15,
2013. The State held a public hearing on August 15, 2013, in Portland,
Oregon. Comments received during the comment period and the State's
responses were included in the submittal. We have evaluated Oregon's
submittal and have determined that Oregon met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA.

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states
must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP
infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and enforcement
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed
below:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Oregon's submittal does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, the EPA does not consider
an Oregon 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS as a required
submittal at this time. See EME Homer City generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801
(2013). Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise
modified by the Supreme Court, which granted review of the case on
June 24, 2013 and heard oral argument on December 10, 2013, states
are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has
quantified their obligations under that section. The portions of the
Oregon SIP submittal relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, are required. In this notice, we are
proposing to approve Oregon's submittal for purposes of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    The EPA's October 14, 2011, guidance restated our interpretation
that two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed
by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because
SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not
due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS,
but rather, are due at the time the nonattainment area plan
requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various
pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i)
submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that
subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of
the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I)
which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address
infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or CAA section
110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new
NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of the CAA
are not changed by a new NAAQS.

III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

    The EPA is acting upon the portion of the SIP submission from
Oregon that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for
states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the
term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under
the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP''
submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part
D of title I of the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by
the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA
section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\3\ The EPA therefore
believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for
infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains
ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given
new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section
110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\4\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires the EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans
for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\5\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, the EPA must determine which provisions of
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,''
70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section
110(a)(2)(I)).
    \5\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2)
is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set
specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether the

EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although
section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet these
requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, the EPA can
elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger
combined action.\6\ Similarly, the EPA interprets the CAA to allow it
to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive
infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent
action on the entire submission. For example, the EPA has sometimes
elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements
of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action approving the
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State
separately to meet the requirements of the EPA's 2008
PM2.5 NSR rule), and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action on
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \7\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77
FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), the
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the
EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not
have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the
NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant
pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in
section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\9\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\10\ The EPA developed this document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, the EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. The EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\11\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA interprets sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need
to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, the
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the
EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for
infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states
and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
regardless of whether or not the EPA provides guidance or
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
    \10\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \11\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance
shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C.
Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which
had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In
light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, the EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither
binding nor required by statute, whether the EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
SIP appropriately addresses the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013
Guidance explains the EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety
of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive
statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual
state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and
enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of
an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the
substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in the
EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the
provisions of section 128.
    As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD
program requirements contained in part C and the EPA's PSD regulations.
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants,
including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions the EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of
a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether
the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, the
EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and
every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007).
Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such
potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if
it is aware of such existing provisions.\12\ It is important to note
that the EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include
a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states
and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, the EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations
with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the EPA determines that a state's SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate
transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\13\ Section 110(k)(6)
authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submissions.\14\

Significantly, the EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude the
EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a
subsequent action.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \14\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \15\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis of the State Submittal

    The Oregon submittal lists specific provisions of the Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 468 Environmental Quality Generally,
Public Health and Safety, General Administration; ORS Chapter 468A Air
Quality, Public Health and Safety, Air Quality Control; Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, and the Oregon SIP. The
specific sections are listed below, with a discussion of how the Oregon
SIP meets the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements.

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA.
    State submittal: Oregon's submittal cites multiple Oregon air
quality laws and SIP-approved regulations to address this element for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. ORS 468A.035 ``General Comprehensive Plan'' provides
authority to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to
develop a general comprehensive plan for the control or abatement of
air pollution. ORS 468A.020 ``Rules and Standards'' gives the State
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) authority to adopt rules and
standards to perform functions vested by law. ORS 468A.025 ``Air Purity
Standards'' provides the EQC with authority to set air quality
standards, emission standards, and emission treatment and control
provisions. ORS 468A.040 ``Permits; Rules'' provides that the EQC may
require permits for specific sources, type of air contaminant or
specific areas of the State. The Oregon submittal cites the following
additional laws and regulations:

 ORS 468A.045 ``Activities Prohibited without Permit; Limit on
Activities with Permit''
 ORS 468A.050 ``Classification of Air Contamination Sources;
Registration and Reporting; Registration and Reporting of Sources;
Rules; Fees''
 ORS 468A.055 ``Notice Prior to Construction of New Sources;
Order Authorizing or Prohibiting Construction; Effect of No Order;
Appeal''
 ORS 468A.070 ``Measurement and Testing of Contamination
Sources; Rules''
 ORS 468A.310 ``Federal Operating Permit Program Approval;
Rules; Content of Plan''
 ORS 468A.315 ``Emission Fees for Major Sources; Base Fees;
Basis of Fees; Rules''
 ORS 468A.350-455 ``Motor Vehicle Pollution Control''
 ORS 468A.365 ``Certification of Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Systems and Inspection of Motor Vehicles; Rules''
 ORS 468A.400 ``Fees; collection; Use; Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control''
 ORS 468A.990 ``Penalties for Air Pollution Offenses''
 ORS 815 ``Vehicle Equipment Generally; Oregon Vehicle Code;
General Provisions''
 OAR 340-200 ``General Air Pollution Procedures and
Definitions''
 OAR 340-202 ``Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD
Increments''
 OAR 340-204 ``Designation of Air Quality Areas''
 OAR 340-216 ``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits''
 OAR 340-222 ``Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits''
 OAR 340-224 ``Major New Source Review''
 OAR 340-225 ``Air Quality Analysis Requirements''
 OAR 340-228 ``Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel
Sulfur Content''
 OAR 340-234 ``Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries:
Emission Limitations''
 OAR 340-236 ``Emission Standards for Specific Industries:
Emission Limits''
 OAR 340-250 ``General Conformity''
 OAR 340-252 ``Transportation Conformity''
 OAR 340-256 ``Motor Vehicles''
 OAR 340-258 ``Motor Vehicle Fuel Specifications''
 OAR 340-268 ``Emission Reduction Credits''
    The submittal includes revisions to Division 200 ``General Air
Pollution Procedures and Definitions'' and Division 202 ``Ambient Air
Quality Standards and PSD Increments.'' With respect to Division 200,
the submittal revises OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``General Air Quality
Definitions, Table 1--Significant Air Quality Impact'' to add
significant impact levels to the table for purposes of implementing the
Oregon source permitting program for the 1-hour NO2 and 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. The submittal also revises OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>
``State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan'' to reflect the
date last modified, specifically October 16, 2013. With respect to
Division 202, the submittal revises OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Sulfur
Dioxide,'' OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Nitrogen Dioxide,'' and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>
``Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead'' to align with the revised
Federal NAAQS. The submittal also adds OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>
``Applicability'' to clarify that Lane County Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency (LRAPA) implements Division 202 in Lane County,
unless LRAPA has adopted rules that are at least as strict.
    EPA analysis: The EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered
by the nonattainment area mandates in part D, title I of the CAA to be
governed by the submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Regulations and other control measures for purposes of attainment
planning under part D, title I of the CAA are due on a different
schedule than infrastructure SIPs. In addition, Oregon has no areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and generally regulates
emissions of Pb through its SIP-approved major and minor new source
review (NSR) permitting programs, and other SIP-approved regulations
cited above.
    On December 27, 2011, the EPA approved an Oregon SIP revision to
adopt the 2008 Pb NAAQS at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Lead'' (76 FR 80747). In the same action, we approved
revisions to update Oregon's major and minor NSR permitting programs
for fine particulate matter, among other things. In the December 27,
2013, submittal, Oregon revises OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Ambient

Air Quality Standard for Lead'' to include more specific language on
the form of the standard and the appropriate reference method for
determining compliance with the standard. The submittal also adds OAR
340-202-0020 ``Applicability'' to clarify that Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency (LRAPA) implements Division 202 in Lane County,
unless LRAPA has SIP-approved rules specific to its jurisdiction that
are at least as strict.
    Based on the above, we are proposing to approve the revision to OAR
340-202-0130 ``Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead'' and the addition
of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Applicability.'' We are taking no action on the
rule revisions to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``General Air Quality Definitions,
Table 1--Significant Air Quality Impact,'' OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Sulfur
Dioxide,'' and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Nitrogen Dioxide'' because the
revisions are outside the scope of this Pb infrastructure action. We
intend to address the NO2 and SO2 revisions in a
separate action.
    Additionally, we are not approving the submitted revision to OAR
340-200-0040 ``State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan''
because it is unnecessary to take action on a provision addressing
State SIP adoption procedures and because the relevant SIP provisions
have been separately submitted and approved. Based on the above
analysis, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    We note that, in this action, we are not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations
at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance \16\
and the EPA plans to address such state regulations. In the meantime,
we encourage any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps
to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For further description of the EPA's SSM Policy, see, e.g.,
a memorandum dated September 20, 1999, titled ``State Implementation
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Also, the
EPA issued a proposed action on February 12, 2013, titled ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking: Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction.'' This rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking
filed by the Sierra Club that concerns SSM provisions in 39 states'
SIPs (February 22, 2013, 78 FR 12460).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State rules with regard to director's discretion or variance
provisions. The EPA believes that a number of states may have such
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance
(November 24, 1987, 52 FR 45109), and the EPA plans to take action in
the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, we
encourage any state having a director's discretion or variance
provision that is contrary to the CAA and the EPA guidance to take
steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal references ORS 468.035(a-e,
m) ``Functions of the Department'' which provides authority to conduct
and supervise inquiries and programs to assess and communicate air
conditions and to obtain necessary resources (assistance, materials,
supplies, etc) to meet these responsibilities. Oregon also references
OAR 340-212 ``Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring'' regulations.
    EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Oregon to
the EPA on December 27, 1979 (40 CFR 52.1970) and approved by the EPA
on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15136). This air quality monitoring plan has
been subsequently updated and most recently approved by the EPA on
March 10, 2014.\17\ This plan includes, among other things, the
locations for Pb monitoring. Oregon provides an annual air quality data
report to the public at http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/forms/annrpt.htm.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Oregon Monitoring Network Approval Letter, dated March 10,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program
to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal refers to ORS 468.090-140
``Enforcement'' which provides ODEQ with authority to investigate
complaints, investigate and inspect sources for compliance, access
records, commence enforcement procedures, and impose civil penalties.
In addition, ORS 468.035 ``Functions of the Department,'' paragraphs
(j) and (k), provide ODEQ with authority to enforce Oregon air
pollution laws and compel compliance with any rule, standard, order,
permit or condition. In addition to these statutes, the submittal cites
the following Oregon laws and regulations:

 ORS 468.020 ``Rules and Standards''
 ORS 468.065 ``Issuance of Permits; Consent; Fees; Use''
 ORS 468.070 ``Denial, Modification, Suspension or Revocation
of Permits''
 ORS 468.920-963 ``Environmental Crimes''
 ORS 468.996-997 ``Civil Penalties''
 ORS 468A.025 ``Air Purity Standards; Air Quality Standards;
Treatment and Control of Emissions; Rules''
 ORS 468A.035 ``General Comprehensive Plan''
 ORS 468A.040 ``Permits; Rules''
 ORS 468A.045 ``Activities Prohibited without Permit; Limit on
Activities with Permit''
 ORS 468A.050 ``Classification of Air Contamination Sources;
Registration and Reporting; Registration and Reporting of Sources;
Rules; Fees''
 ORS 468A.055 ``Notice Prior to Construction of New Sources;
Order Authorizing or Prohibiting Construction; Effect of No Order;
Appeal''
 ORS 468A.070 ``Measurement and Testing of Contamination
Sources; Rules''
 ORS 468A.310 ``Federal Operating Permit Program Approval;
Rules; Content of Plan''
 ORS 468A.990 ``Penalties for Air Pollution Offenses''
 OAR 340-012 ``Enforcement Procedure and Civil Penalties''
 OAR 340-202 ``Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD
Increments''
 OAR 340-210 ``Stationary Source Notification Requirements''
 OAR 340-214 ``Stationary Source Reporting Requirements''
 OAR 340-216 ``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ADCP)''
 OAR 340-224 ``Major New Source Review''

    EPA analysis: The EPA is proposing to find that the Oregon code
provisions referenced above provide ODEQ with

authority to enforce the air quality laws, regulations, permits, and
orders promulgated pursuant to ORS Chapters 468 and 468A. ODEQ staffs
and maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. The ODEQ Director, at the direction of the Governor, may
enter a cease and desist order for polluting activities that present an
imminent and substantial danger to public health (ORS 468-115).
Enforcement cases may be referred to the State Attorney General's
Office for civil or criminal enforcement. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to a program of enforcement measures for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary
sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As
explained above, we are not in this action evaluating nonattainment
related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by
part D, title I of the CAA. In addition, Oregon has no designated
nonattainment areas for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    We are proposing to find that the Oregon SIP meets the requirements
related to PSD under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
The Oregon major NSR program includes requirements for major source
permitting in nonattainment areas, maintenance areas, and attainment
and unclassifiable areas (OAR 340-224). Oregon's Federally-enforceable
state operating permit program is found at OAR 340-216 ``Air
Contaminant Discharge Permits,'' and is also the administrative permit
mechanism used to implement the notice of construction and major new
source review programs. ODEQ delegates authority to LRAPA to implement
the source permitting programs within LRAPA's area of jurisdiction. The
requirements and procedures contained in OAR 340-216, OAR 340-222 and
OAR 340-224 are used by LRAPA to implement its permitting programs
until it adopts rules which are at least as restrictive as State rules.
We most recently approved revisions to the Oregon major NSR rules on
December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747).
    The EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in
the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the
EPA's rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule). The
court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart
4 consistent with this opinion.''Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, title
I of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas. The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
addressed by the court's decision promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA
does not consider the portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's
opinion. Moreover, we do not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
Accordingly, our proposed approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), with respect to the PSD requirements, does not
conflict with the court's opinion. The EPA interprets the CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure submittals due three years after
adoption or revision of a NAAQS to exclude nonattainment area
requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment
NSR program. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as
nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which are due by the
dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as ten years following designations for some elements.
    In addition, we note that on December 27, 2011, we approved
revisions to the Oregon SIP made in response to the Federal
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC);
Final Rule'' (2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule) (75 FR
64864). See 76 FR 80747. However, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703
F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, inter alia, vacated
the provisions adding the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring
Concentration to the Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c)
and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule (75 FR 64864). In its decision,
the court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to
exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section
165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5
be included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the
PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD
program, were a state PSD program that contains such a provision to use
that provision to issue new permits without requiring ambient
PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC
would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the requirements of
section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
    This decision also, on the EPA's request, vacated and remanded to
the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this
vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA
regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5, because the wording
of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR
52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the
preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these
provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not
vacated and remains in effect. The court's decision does not affect the
PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
    On December 9, 2013 the EPA removed the affected PM2.5
SILs and SMC provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations (78 FR
73698). In the December 9, 2013, action we stated that ``Permitting
authorities with EPA-approved SIPs containing any or all of the
affected PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions previously allowed by
sections 51.166(k)(2) and 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) should remove their
corresponding SILs provisions and revise the numerical value of the
PM2.5 SMC to 0 [micro]g/m\3\ (or make equivalent changes) as
soon as feasible, which may be in conjunction with the next otherwise
planned SIP revision.'' We also advised that ``these provisions as
reflected in the existing state and local EPA-approved SIPs are
unlawful and may not be applied even prior to their removal from the
SIPs.'' Oregon intends to address the court decision on SMC

and SIL provisions in a rulemaking proposal regarding updates to its
permitting program in 2014.
    Given the clarity of the court's decision and our December 9, 2013,
action to remove the provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations,
the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions included in Oregon's SIP-
approved PSD program on the basis of the EPA's regulations are unlawful
and no longer enforceable by law. Permits issued on the basis of these
provisions as they appear in Oregon's SIP would be inconsistent with
the CAA and difficult to defend in administrative and judicial
challenges. Thus, the SIP provisions may not be applied even prior to
their removal from the SIP. As the vacated PM2.5 SILs and
SMC provisions in the Oregon SIP are no longer enforceable, the EPA
does not believe the existence of the provisions in the Oregon SIP
precludes our proposed approval of the Oregon SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as those
elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program.
    Oregon's SIP-approved minor NSR program applies major source NSR/
PSD requirements to any source with emissions over the significant
emission rate, through the administrative mechanisms laid out in OAR
340-216 ``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits.'' The EPA has determined
that Oregon's Federally-approved minor NSR program, adopted pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, regulates emissions of Pb. Based on
the analysis above, we are proposing to find that the Oregon SIP
includes enforcement and minor source permitting provisions that are
adequate to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to
approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) addresses four separate elements, or
``prongs.'' CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (prong
1), and adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state (prong 2). CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that state SIPs contain adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other
state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of
its air quality (prong 3), and adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures
to protect visibility (prong 4).
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal addresses the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prongs 3 and 4) only. As noted above,
the Oregon submittal does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
See footnote 2. The Oregon submittal references OAR-340-200 ``General
Air Pollution Definitions and Procedures'' and OAR 340-202 ``Ambient
Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments.'' The submittal also notes
that the EPA most recently approved revisions to Oregon's major NSR
rules on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747).
    EPA analysis: In this action, we are proposing to approve the
Oregon SIP for purposes of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The EPA believes that the PSD
sub-element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) is satisfied
where new major sources and major modifications in Oregon are subject
to a Federally-approved PSD program that satisfactorily implements the
2008 Pb NAAQS. In this action, as discussed under section 110(a)(2)(A),
we are proposing to approve revisions to OAR Division 202 ``Ambient Air
Quality Standards and PSD Increments.'' In addition, the EPA most
recently approved revisions to Oregon's major NSR rules on December 27,
2011 (76 FR 80747) for purposes of fine particulate matter, among other
things. As discussed in section 110(a)(2)(C) above, we believe that our
proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by
recent court vacaturs of Federal PSD implementing regulations.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with regard to PSD for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011, guidance, that
with regard to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-
element, significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources
are expected to be limited to short distances from the source and most,
if not all Pb stationary sources, are located at distances from Class I
areas such that visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can
be a component of coarse and fine particles, Pb generally comprises a
small fraction of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, when
evaluating the extent that Pb could impact visibility, Pb-related
visibility impacts were found to be insignificant (e.g., less that
0.10%).\18\ Where a state's regional haze SIP has been approved as
meeting all current obligations, a state may rely upon those provisions
in support of its demonstration that is satisfies the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS. ``Ambient Pb's
Contribution to Class 1 Area Visibility Impairment,'' November 7,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 14, 2010, Oregon submitted the Oregon Regional Haze
SIP. On July 5, 2011, the EPA approved portions of the Oregon Regional
Haze SIP, including the requirements for best available retrofit
technology (BART) (76 FR 38997). We approved the remaining elements of
the Oregon Regional Haze SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50611). Because
we approved the Oregon SIP as meeting the regional haze requirements,
we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements with respect to the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
    Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources
to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal references OAR 340-209
``Public Participation,'' as part of the Federally-approved Oregon PSD
program. The submittal states that Oregon regulations are consistent
with Federal requirements in Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50 pertaining to
the notification of interstate pollution abatement.
    EPA analysis: The EPA most recently approved revisions to the
Oregon major NSR regulations on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). The
public notice provisions at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> require that for major NSR
actions, ODEQ will provide notice to neighboring states, among other
officials and agencies. Oregon has no pending obligations under section
115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any

provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion
thereof), (ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements
respecting state boards under CAA section 128 and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
SIP provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such SIP provision.
    State submittal: With respect to the requirements of sub-element
(E)(i), the Oregon submittal cites ORS 468.035 ``Functions of
Department'' which provides ODEQ authority to employ personnel,
purchase supplies, enter into contracts, and to receive, appropriate,
and expend federal and other funds for purposes of air pollution
research and control. In addition, ORS 468.045 ``Functions of Director;
Delegation'' provides the ODEQ Director with authority to hire, assign,
reassign, and coordinate personnel of the department and to administer
and enforce the laws of the State concerning environmental quality. In
addition, the submittal cites the CAA section 105 grants received from
the EPA and matched through the Oregon General Fund.
    With respect to the requirements of sub-element (E)(ii), the
submittal cites OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Purpose,'' OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Public
Interest Representation,'' and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Disclosure of
Potential Conflicts of Interest.'' The submittal states that the EPA
approved the listed regulatory provisions as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 128 on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891).
    With respect to the requirements of sub-element (E)(iii), the
submittal cites ORS 468.020 ``Rules and Standards'' which requires a
public hearing on any proposed rule or standard prior to adoption. ORS
468.035(c) ``Functions of Department'' provides ODEQ authority to
advise, consult, and cooperate with other states, state and federal
agencies, or political subdivisions on all air quality control matters.
ORS 468A.010 ``Policy'' calls for a coordinated statewide program of
air quality control with responsibility allocated between the state and
the units of local government. ORS 468A.100-180 ``Regional Air Quality
Control Authorities'' describes the establishment, role and function of
regional air quality control authorities. State regulations at OAR 340-
200 ``General Air Quality Definitions'' specify LRAPA has authority in
Lane County and defines the term ``Regional Agency.'' OAR 340-204
``Designation of Air Quality Areas'' includes designation of control
areas within Lane County. OAR 340-216 ``Air Contaminant Discharge
Permits'' includes permitting authorities for LRAPA.
    EPA analysis: We are proposing to find that the above-referenced
provisions provide Oregon with adequate authority to carry out SIP
obligations with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS as required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). We are also proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which requires that SIPs
contain requirements to comply with CAA section 128, for the Pb NAAQS.
On January 22, 2003, we approved OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through OAR 340-200-
0120 as meeting the requirements of CAA section 128 (68 FR 2891). We
previously approved LRAPA Title 12, Section 025 (recodified at LRAPA
Title 13, section 025) as meeting the requirements of CAA section 128
on March 1, 1989 (54 FR 8538). Finally, we are proposing to find that
Oregon has provided necessary assurances that, where the State has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any SIP provision, the State has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP with
regards to the 2008 Pb NAAQS as required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008
Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA,
which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public
inspection.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal refers to the following
statutory and regulatory provisions which provide authority and
requirements for source emissions monitoring, reporting, and
correlation with emission limits or standards:

 ORS 468.035 ``Functions of Department'' paragraphs (b) and (d)
 ORS 468A.020 ``Rules and Standards''
 ORS 468A.025(4) ``Air Purity Standards; Air Quality Standards;
Treatment and Control of Emissions; Rules''
 ORS 468A.070 ``Measurement and Testing of Contamination
Sources; Rules''
 OAR 340-212 ``Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring''
 OAR 340-214 ``Stationary Source Reporting Requirements''
 OAR 340-222 ``Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits''
 OAR 340-225 ``Air Quality Analysis Requirements''
 OAR 340-234 ``Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries:
Monitoring and Reporting''
 OAR 340-236 ``Emission Standards for Specific Industries:
Emissions Monitoring and Reporting''
    EPA analysis: The Oregon statutory provisions listed above provide
authority to establish a program for measurement and testing of
sources, including requirements for sampling and testing. The Oregon
regulations cited above require facilities to monitor and report
emissions, including requirements for monitoring methods and design,
and monitoring and quality improvement plans. In addition, stationary
source reporting requirements include maintaining written records to
demonstrate compliance with emission rules, limitations, or control
measures, and requirements for reporting and recordkeeping. Information
is made available to the public through public processes outlined at
OAR 340-209 ``Public Participation.''
    Additionally, Oregon is required to submit emissions data to the
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published
the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which
modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions
data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report
emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to
submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a
comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report
emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online
Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six
criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, ammonia, Pb, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and
volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report
emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA compiles the emissions
data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general
public through

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal cites ORS 468-115
``Enforcement in Cases of Emergency'' which authorizes the ODEQ
Director, at the direction of the Governor, to enter a cease and desist
order for polluting activities that present an imminent and substantial
danger to public health. In addition, OAR 340-206 ``Air Pollution
Emergencies'' authorizes the ODEQ Director to declare an air pollution
alert or warning, or to issue an advisory to notify the public. OAR
340-214 ``Stationary Source Reporting Requirements'' requires reporting
of emergencies and excess emissions and reporting requirements.
    EPA analysis: Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA
Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contribution to
emissions which present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' We find that ORS 468-
115 ``Enforcement in Cases of Emergency'' provides emergency order
authority comparable to CAA Section 303.
    As noted in the October 14, 2011, guidance, based on the EPA's
experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designating Pb nonattainment
areas, the EPA expects that an emergency episode associated with Pb
emissions would be unlikely and, if it were to occur, would be the
result of a malfunction or other emergency situation at a relatively
large source of Pb. Accordingly, the EPA believes that the central
components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the
source at issue and public communication as needed. We note that 40 CFR
part 51, subpart H (51.150-51.152) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix L do
not apply to Pb.
    We most recently approved revisions to the Oregon air pollution
emergency rules at OAR 340-206 ``Air Pollution Emergencies'' on
December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). In the same action we approved
revisions to OAR 340-214 ``Stationary Source Reporting Requirements,''
which requires that, where applicable, sources report emergencies and
excess emissions to ODEQ. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the
Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal refers to ORS 468.020 ``Rules
and Standards'' which requires public hearing on any proposed rule or
standard prior to adoption, and ORS 468A.035 ``General Comprehensive
Plan'' which requires ODEQ to develop a general comprehensive plan for
the control or abatement of air pollution. The submittal also refers to
OAR 340-200 ``General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions'' -0040
``State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan'' which provides
for revisions to the Oregon SIP and submittal of revisions to the EPA,
including standards submitted by a regional authority and adopted
verbatim into ODEQ rules.
    EPA analysis: As cited above, the Oregon SIP provides for
revisions, and in practice, Oregon regularly submits SIP revisions to
the EPA to take into account revisions to the NAAQS and other Federal
regulatory changes. On December 27, 2011, the EPA approved numerous
revisions to the Oregon SIP, including updates to reflect Federal
changes to multiple Federal NAAQS (76 FR 80747). Accordingly, we are
proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not
governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls
are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan
requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific
subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection
refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA,
and (ii) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to
the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA.
As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR
or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to CAA section 121,
relating to consultation. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires
states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to
enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent
exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet
applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to
prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal reference specific laws and
regulations relating to consultation, public notification, and PSD and
visibility protection:

 ORS 468.020 ``Rules and Standards''
 ORS 468.035 ``Functions of Department'' paragraphs (a), (c),
(f), and (g)
 ORS 468A.010 ``Policy'' paragraphs (1)(b) and (c)
 ORS 468A.025 ``Air Purity Standards; Air Quality Standards;
Treatment and Control of Emissions; Rules''
 OAR 340-202 ``Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD
Increments''
 OAR 340-204 ``Designation of Air Quality Areas''
 OAR 340-206 ``Air Pollution Emergencies''
 OAR 340-209 ``Public Participation''
 OAR 340-216 ``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits''
 OAR 340-224 ``Major New Source Review''
 OAR 340-225 ``Air Quality Analysis Requirements''
 OAR 340-223 ``Regional Haze Rules''
 OAR 340-252 ``Transportation Conformity''

    EPA analysis: The Oregon SIP includes specific provisions for

consulting with local governments and Federal Land Managers as
specified in CAA section 121, including the Oregon rules for major
source PSD permitting. The EPA most recently approved revisions to the
Oregon major NSR permitting rules at OAR 340-224, which provide
opportunity and procedures for public comment and notice to appropriate
Federal, state and local agencies, on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747).
We most recently approved the Oregon rules that define transportation
conformity consultation on October 4, 2012 (77 FR 60627). While
transportation conformity requirements do not apply for Pb because of
the nature of the standard, the consultation procedures that Oregon has
in place to implement transportation conformity requirements provides
evidence of the State's ability to consult with other governmental
agencies on air quality issues.
    In practice, ODEQ routinely coordinates with local governments,
states, Federal Land Managers and other stakeholders on air quality
issues including permitting action, transportation conformity, and
regional haze. Therefore, we are proposing to find that the Oregon SIP
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation
with government officials for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances. The EPA calculates an air
quality index for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA:
Ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. This air quality index provides daily
information to the public on air quality. While Pb is not specifically
part of the air quality index, we note that Oregon actively
participates and submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW and
Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs which provide information to the
public on the air quality in their locale. Oregon provides the State's
annual network monitoring plan and annual air quality monitoring data
summaries to the public on their Web site at http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/forms/annrpt.htm. The monitoring plans and data
summaries include information on Pb monitoring. Therefore, we are
proposing to find that the Oregon SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA, we have
evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved revisions to
Oregon's PSD program on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747), updating the
program for purposes of fine particulate matter NAAQS implementation in
attainment and unclassifiable areas, among other things. We believe
that our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(J) is not affected by
recent court vacaturs of Federal PSD implementing regulations. Please
see our discussion of section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing
to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
110(a)(2)(J) with regards to PSD for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility
triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective.
    Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal refers to ORS 468-020 ``Rules
and Standards'' which requires public hearing on any proposed rule or
standard prior to adoption, and ORS 468.035 ``Functions of Department''
which provides ODEQ authority to conduct studies and investigations to
determine air quality. The submittal also references OAR 340-225 ``Air
Quality Analysis Requirements'' which includes modeling requirements
for analysis and demonstration of compliance with standards and
increments in specified areas.
    EPA analysis: The EPA previously approved OAR 340-225 ``Air Quality
Analysis Requirements'' on November 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747) and these
rules require all modeled estimates of ambient concentrations be based
on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models). Any
change or substitution from models specified in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W is subject to notice and opportunity for public comment and
must receive prior written approval from ODEQ and the EPA.
    As an example of the State's modeling capacity, we cite a recent
Oregon SIP revision, supported by modeling. The Portland and Salem
areas were historically nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone standard
and require maintenance plans that ensure on-going compliance with the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. On May 22, 2007, the State submitted these
maintenance plans to the EPA, supported by extensive modeling. The EPA
approved the SIP revision on December 19, 2011 (76 FR 78571).
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal refers to ORS 468.065
``Issuance of Permits: Content; Fees; Use'' which provides the EQC
authority to establish a schedule of fees for permits based upon the
costs of filing and investigating applications, issuing or denying
permits, carrying out Title V requirements and determining compliance.
ORS 468A.040 ``Permits; Rules'' provides that the EQC may require
permits for air contamination sources, type of air contaminant, or
specific areas of the State. The submittal also references OAR 340-216
``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits'' which requires payment of permit
fees based on a specified table of sources and fee schedule.
    EPA analysis: On September 28, 1995, the EPA fully approved
Oregon's title V program (60 FR 50106) (effective November 27, 1995).
While Oregon's title V operating permit program is not formally
approved into the State's SIP, it is a mechanism the State can use to
ensure that ODEQ has sufficient resources to support the air program,
consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before the EPA can grant
full approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate
fees. The

Oregon title V program included a demonstration that fees were
adequate, and the State will collect a fee from title V sources above
the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). In
addition, Oregon regulations require fees for purposes of major and
minor NSR permitting, as specified in OAR 340-216 ``Air Contaminant
Discharge Permits''-0020 (Table 2) ``ACDP Fee Schedule'' and -0090
(Table 1) ``Sources Subject to ADCP and Fees.'' Therefore, we are
proposing to conclude that Oregon has satisfied the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    State submittal: The Oregon submittal refers to the following laws
and regulations:

 ORS 468.020 ``Rules and Standards''
 ORS 468.035 ``Functions of Department'' paragraphs (a), (c),
(f), and (g)
 ORS 468A.010 ``Policy'' paragraphs (1)(b) and (c)
 ORS 468A.035 ``General Comprehensive Plan''
 ORS 468A.040 ``Permits; Rules''
 ORS 468A.055 ``Notice Prior to Construction of New Sources;
Order Authorizing or Prohibiting Construction; Effect of No Order;
Appeal''
 ORS 468A.070 ``Measurement and Testing of Contamination
Sources; Rules''
 ORS 468A.100-180 ``Regional Air Quality Control Authorities''
 OAR 340-200 ``General Air Pollution Procedures and
Definitions''
 OAR 340-204 ``Designation of Air Quality Areas''
 OAR 340-216 ``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits''

    EPA analysis: The regulations cited by Oregon were previously
approved on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747), and provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP. We are proposing to approve the
Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the December 27,
2013, SIP submittal from Oregon relating to the infrastructure
requirements of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, we are proposing to
approve the submitted revision to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Lead'' and the addition of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>
``Applicability.'' We are proposing to find that the Oregon SIP meets
the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the
2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M).
    As described in detail above, we are not approving the submitted
revision to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``State of Oregon Clean Air Act
Implementation Plan.'' In addition, we are taking no action on the
submitted revisions to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``General Air Quality
Definitions, Table 1--Significant Air Quality Impact,'' OAR 340-202-
0070 ``Sulfur Dioxide,'' and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> ``Nitrogen Dioxide''
because these revisions are outside the scope of the 2008 Pb
infrastructure SIP. We intend to address these revisions in a separate
action.

VI. 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 the 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).
    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
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: March 27, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-08608 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 46991]
[DOCID:fr22au07-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-521-000]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Change in
Technical Conference

August 15, 2007.
    On August 7, 2007, the Commission issued a ``Notice of Technical
Conference'' in the above-referenced proceeding. The date has been
changed from Tuesday, September 11, 2007, and will now be held on
Monday, September 10, 2007, at 10 a.m. (EDT), in conference room 3M-2A/
B at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A further notice will provide a detailed agenda.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Morris
Margolis, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8611<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16502 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P