
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45431-45435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18354]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective on September 28, 2015, without further 
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 31, 2015. If 
the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0323, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: edmondson.lucy@epa.gov.
     Mail: Lucy Edmondson, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Lucy Edmondson, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0323. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use 
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Edmondson (360) 753-9082, 
edmondson.lucy@epa.gov, or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. This Action

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

[[Page 45432]]

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

II. Background

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

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision offer 
a reasonable opportunity for notice and public hearing. This must occur 
prior to the revision being submitted by the State to the EPA. The 
State provided notice and an opportunity for public comment from 
December 16, 2014 until January 26, 2015 with no comments received. 
ODEQ also held a public hearing on January 22, 2015 in Grants Pass. 
This SIP revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was 
received by the EPA on April 22, 2015. The EPA evaluated ODEQ's 
submittal and determined that the State met the requirements for 
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the 
CAA.

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

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

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

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

V. Review of the State's Submittal

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

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

[[Page 45433]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 45434]]

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

E. Has the State met conformity requirements?

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

VI. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a 
penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit, unless 
the source has been provided five days advanced written notice of the 
violation, and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance 
schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does 
not apply to Oregon's Title V program, or to any program if application 
of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal 
delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application 
of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, 
no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in 
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian

[[Page 45435]]

country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules 
section of the Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition 
for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 8, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. In Sec.  52.1970, paragraph (e), the table entitled ``State of 
Oregon Air Quality Control Program'' is amended by adding a new entry 
for ``Section 4'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
          SIP citation             Title/subject     effective   EPA approval date          Explanations
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 4......................  Grants Pass          4/16/2015  7/30/2015........
                                  Second 10-Year                 [Insert Federal
                                  PM10 Limited                    Register
                                  Maintenance Plan.               citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


