Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPAR10OAR20190599. All documents in the docket are listed on the https www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be 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 is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Randall Ruddick, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA
98101, at 206 5531999, or ruddick.randall@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever we, us, or our is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
ADDRESSES:

I. Background Information II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Technical Correction V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

I. Background Information On February 19, 2021, EPA proposed to approve Oregons November 3, 2014, and September 27, 2019, SIP
submissions revising the Oregon Smoke Management Plan 86 FR 10220. The reasons for our approval are included in the proposal and will not be restated here. The public comment period for our proposed approval closed on March 22, 2021. EPA received multiple comments on the proposal.
II. Response to Comments EPA received a total of 19 comments during the public comment period.
Fourteen comments expressed support for the proposed action, five comments were adverse including two comments that raised concerns EPA believes are outside the scope of the proposed action. The full text of all comments received may be found in the docket for this action. We have summarized and responded to the adverse comments.
Comments: EPA received three comments opposing EPAs proposed action. All three comments suggested that non-burning approaches to forest management, such as chipping and recycling wood waste, should be used instead of prescribed fire to avoid the generation of smoke that can impact human health.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 May 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

Response: Oregons SIP submission, which EPA is taking final action to approve, includes a provision that encourages the use of alternatives to burning to reduce the volume of prescribed burning necessary to meet Oregons management objectives. See Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 629
0480200. Due to the fact that prescribed fire produces smoke that impacts air quality, Oregons SIP
submission deals centrally with the use of prescribed fire and safeguards to ensure that such burning does not impermissibly compromise air quality.
EPA has reviewed the Oregon SIP
revisions and we proposed to approve the submissions as consistent with Clean Air Act CAA requirements.
As explained in EPAs February 19, 2021, notice of proposed rulemaking, Oregons 2019 SIP submittal includes additional controls and contingencies to protect against impacts on air quality from prescribed burning. The submittal establishes sub-National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS intrusion thresholds and a burn approval target not to exceed approximately 75% of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2019 SIP
submittal also establishes a NAAQS
protective criterion for burn approvals through use of a one-hour threshold even though there is no NAAQS onehour limit. Considered as a whole, the revisions contained in the 2019
submittal strengthen the currently SIPapproved smoke management requirements.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided those choices meet the criteria of the CAA. EPA makes a determination regarding whether the state has adequately demonstrated that its chosen control measures will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and otherwise satisfy the requirements of the CAA. Here, as explained in EPAs notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA finds that Oregon has adequately demonstrated that the SIP
revision related to the forest management tool of prescribed fire will continue to protect the NAAQS. Even if non-burning alternatives may accomplish the same results as burning, EPA cannot substitute non-burning alternatives that were not included in Oregons lawfully submitted SIP
revisions.
Comment: One commenter appears to support the use of prescribed fire to limit the scope of the wildfires but also urges EPA to work towards lowering Federal air quality standards.
Response: This comment appears to relate to the adequacy of the NAAQS
and is therefore outside the scope of this
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

27977

action, which relates only to the approval of amendments to Oregons SIP. The CAA contains provisions that specifically address the review and promulgation of the NAAQS. Taking into consideration the information in the Integrated Science Assessment ISA, Risk/Exposure Assessment REA, Policy Assessment PA, and the advice of Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee CASAC, EPA develops and publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking that communicates the Administrators proposed decisions regarding the review of each NAAQS. A
public comment period, during which public hearings are generally held, follows publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. Taking into account comments received on the proposed rulemaking, EPA issues a final rule promulgating a new or revised NAAQS or retaining a NAAQS. EPA
encourages the commenter to participate in future rulemakings when the NAAQS
standards are reviewed. EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the NAAQS
when taking action on a proposed SIP
revision related to NAAQS pollutants and the comment is outside of the scope of this action. Rather, EPAs role in reviewing and approving a SIP revision is to ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS as the relevant and applicable standard for approvals of SIP
revisions under CAA section 110.
Comment: One commenter appears to support Oregons use of prescribed fire but states I still have a problem that is the standard of the license to be obtained before burning, how to control it more accurately and prevent the masses from abusing it?
Response: The commenters concerns seem to address Oregons permitting requirements and the related implementation and possible abuse of the prescribed fire permits. The comment is vague, lacks supporting evidence or documentation, and does not identify any portions of Oregons submittals or EPAs proposed approval that are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. In approving SIPs under section 110 of the CAA, Congress gave states the lead in developing SIPs. In reviewing state plans, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided those choices meet the criteria of the CAA.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410k and 40 CFR
52.02a.
Oregon submitted permitting and general air quality rules for the purpose of managing smoke from prescribed fires to EPA and requested that EPA approve the rules into the Oregon SIP. Oregon Revised Statute ORS 477.515 states that it is unlawful to set or cause to be set an open fire inside or within one-

E:FRFM25MYR1.SGM

25MYR1