81 FR 31202 - Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour PM2.5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 96 (May 18, 2016)

Page Range		31202-31206
FR Document		2016-11628

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date for the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, on the basis that the State has met the criteria for such an extension under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31202-31206]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11628]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0051; FRL-9946-51-Region 10]

Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date for the Oakridge,
Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, on the basis that
the State has met the criteria for such an extension under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0051 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Spenillo at (206) 553-6125, or
email address [email protected],gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background for the Proposed Action
II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment Date
III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year Extension
A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015
B. Oakridge Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable SIP
IV. Summary of Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for the Proposed Action

On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued its final action to revise the
PM2.5 NAAQS to establish revised 24-hour standards (71 FR
61144). In that action, we promulgated identical revised primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards designed to protect public health
and welfare that specified a 24-hour PM2.5 average
concentration of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Specifically, the 2006 standards
require that the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile
concentration may not exceed 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
On November 13, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule designating all
areas throughout the country for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688). In that action, the
EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon and a small surrounding area as a
nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA) based on monitor values at the
Willamette Activity Center in Oakridge. As a result of this
nonattainment area designation, Oregon is required to prepare and
submit to the EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to meet
attainment plan requirements and to bring the Oakridge NAA into
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The State
submitted an attainment plan submission for the Oakridge NAA to the EPA
by letter dated December 12, 2012 (2012 Oakridge Plan).
On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision in
NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, holding that the EPA erred in implementing
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS only pursuant to the provisions of
subpart 1 of the Act, rather than the particulate matter specific
provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). The Court did
not vacate the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, but remanded it to the EPA with instructions to
promulgate a new implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS in
accordance with the requirements of both subpart 1 and subpart 4. On
June 6, 2013, consistent with the Court's remand decision, the EPA
withdrew its March 2012 Implementation Guidance recommending that
states rely on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for
development of attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Thus, the EPA withdrew the guidance it initially provided to
states for meeting attainment plan requirements for purposes of areas
designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
such as the Oakridge NAA.
On June 2, 2014, in response to the NRDC decision that it implement
the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to subpart 4, the EPA promulgated
the ``PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and
Deadline Rule'' (79 FR 31566). In that action, the EPA classified all
areas currently designated nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas. That rule
also provided guidance to states on how to meet the subpart 4
requirements and set a deadline of December 31, 2014 for states to
submit any revisions to previously submitted attainment plan
submissions, as necessary to meet subpart 4 requirements. Thus, the EPA
classified the Oakridge NAA as a Moderate nonattainment area for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and provided an

[[Page 31203]]

opportunity for the state to revise the 2012 Oakridge Plan.
A Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area's ambient air
quality status is determined in accordance with Appendix N of 40 CFR
part 50. To show attainment of the current 24-hour and annual standards
for PM2.5, data from the most recent three consecutive years
prior to the area's attainment date must show that PM2.5
concentrations over the prior three year period are at or below the
levels of the standards. A complete year of air quality data, as
described in part 50, Appendix N, is comprised of all four calendar
quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of
the scheduled sampling days.
The EPA begins processing and analyzing data related to the
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS after the applicable
attainment date for the affected areas. Current EPA regulations, under
40 CFR part 58, set the deadline for the state to certify its air
quality data in the Air Quality System (AQS) database by May 1 of the
following year. Under section 179(c), the EPA is required to determine
as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 6 months after the
applicable attainment date, whether a nonattainment area has attained
the relevant NAAQS. In the case of a state with an area that qualifies
for an extension of the attainment date under section 188(d), however,
the EPA has discretion instead to extend the attainment date for an
area if the state requests the extension and meets the statutory
criteria for such an extension.

II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment Date

CAA section 188(d) allows states to apply for, and the EPA the
discretion to grant, a 1-year extension to the statutory attainment
date for Moderate PM10 (particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of a nominal 10 micrometers) nonattainment areas.
Section 188(d) establishes two criteria that the EPA must consider to
grant a requested attainment date extension: (1) The state has complied
with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
applicable implementation plan, and (2) no more than one exceedance of
the 24-hour NAAQS level for PM10 has occurred in the area in
the year preceding the extension year and the annual mean concentration
of PM10 in the area for such year is less than or equal to
the level of the annual standard. Section 188(d) also provides for the
possibility that the EPA may grant a second 1-year extension if the
Moderate area meets the specified criteria. No more than two 1-year
attainment date extensions may be granted for a single nonattainment
area.
The provisions of section 188(d) thus allow a state an opportunity
to demonstrate that a Moderate area should continue to be classified as
Moderate and not reclassified to Serious, even if the area has monitor
data exceeding the level of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in
the calendar year preceding the otherwise applicable attainment date.
Although section 188(d) provides the criteria for such an extension,
the EPA believes that there are some ambiguities in the statutory
language that warrant interpretation. Thus, in this action the EPA is
proposing to interpret the requirements of section 188(d) in evaluating
the extension request from the State.
The most significant issue that the EPA must address is how to
interpret the air quality requirement of section 188(d)(2) in light of
the fact that the statutory language refers to PM10 rather
than to PM2.5, and the fact that the air quality requirement
is phrased as ``no more than one exceedance'' of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS in the year prior to the otherwise applicable
attainment date. Based upon the NRDC decision, there can be no doubt
that the EPA must interpret the references to PM10 in
section 188(d)(2) to encompass PM2.5. Given that fact,
however, the EPA cannot read the ``no more than one exceedance''
requirement to apply literally to the PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the distinct differences in the form of the PM10 NAAQS and
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
The statutory language addressing PM10 in CAA section
188 explicitly sets ambient air quality conditions for an attainment
date extension in terms that relate factually to the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS that was in effect at the time of the 1990
Amendments of the CAA, which has a statistical form that is
substantially different from the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
requirement in 188(d)(2) states that an extension may be granted if
``no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour national ambient air
quality standard level for PM10 has occurred in the area in
the year preceding the Extension Year, and the annual mean
concentration of PM10 in the area for such year is less than
or equal to the standard level.'' Given the form of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, the requirement that an area have no more than
one ``exceedance'' meant that there could be no more than one monitored
value over the numerical level of the NAAQS. Such an approach is
logical when the form of the 24-hour NAAQS allows one exceedance per
year, on average, over a three year period. By having no more than one
exceedance, the state was meeting the NAAQS in that last year, even if
it did not yet meet the requirements for attainment over the requisite
three year period. In other words, the state would be close to
attaining the NAAQS, thus making one year extension a potentially
appropriate way provide additional time for a state to come into
attainment without the need for a reclassification to Serious and
additional SIP planning efforts. By contrast, the form of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a 98th percentile-based form and not a
``one expected exceedance'' form as is the PM10 NAAQS. Under
the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, there can be a
number of exceedances of the numerical level of the NAAQS that are
permitted and are not considered a violation of the NAAQS. Thus, under
the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS an area could be
close to attaining the NAAQS in the year prior to the attainment date,
even if there were one or more dates with monitored ``exceedances.''
Therefore the statutory language requires some interpretation with
regard to how it applies to the PM2.5 NAAQS.
For this action, the EPA is proposing to interpret section 188(d)
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a way that is
equivalent to the ``no more than one exceedance'' condition that
Congress imposed for purposes of the PM10 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the EPA interprets the requirement to demonstrate that the
area had ``no more than one exceedance'' of the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to mean that the state must demonstrate that the
area had ``clean data'' in the year proceeding the extension year.
Thus, a state seeking an attainment date extension for a Moderate
nonattainment area for a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be
required to demonstrate that the area had monitor data showing no
monitored violations of the NAAQS in light of the statistical form of
that particular standard (i.e., for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, the 98th percentile value did not exceed 35 [mu]g/m\3\) in the
calendar year prior to the applicable attainment date for the area.
An additional issue that the EPA must address concerning the air
quality requirement of section 188(d)(2) is whether a state seeking an
extension for purposes of a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS only, must
nevertheless meet the portion of section 188(d)(2) that refers to the
annual ambient air quality of such an area. The EPA notes that
statutory language of section 188(d) does provide that a state seeking
an extension of a Moderate area attainment date must

[[Page 31204]]

have not more than one exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS ``and'' meet an
annual ambient level requirement as well. The EPA believes that reading
this provision to require a state to meet both tests, even when the
state has an area that is designated nonattainment only for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and is seeking an extension of only the
attainment date for such NAAQS, is not a logical interpretation of the
provision. Such a reading would be logical were the area at issue
designated nonattainment for both the 24-hour NAAQS and the annual
NAAQS, but not if designated nonattainment only for one of those
standards.
The EPA is proposing to interpret section 188(d) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to require a state only to establish that
it meets the air quality requirement with respect to the 24-hour NAAQS
when seeking an extension of the attainment date only for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes this interpretation of section
188(d)(2) is appropriate for two main reasons. First, while most
PM10 nonattainment areas were designated nonattainment for
either just the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS or for both the 24-hour
and annual PM10 NAAQS, the majority of current
PM2.5 nonattainment areas are, in contrast, designated for
either the 24-hour or the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and should
arguably only need to demonstrate clean data for the NAAQS for which
the area is designated nonattainment. For those few PM2.5
nonattainment areas designated for both 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA believes it also is appropriate that a
state must only demonstrate clean data for the specific NAAQS for which
the state is seeking an attainment date extension because such an
approach is consistent with the statute's overall approach to
designating nonattainment areas and implementing control strategies for
each separate PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, if an area is designated
as nonattainment for both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5
standards and receives an extension for one standard while still
working toward a later attainment date for the other standard, the EPA
maintains that public health protection would not be delayed because
the state would still be subject to the ongoing mandate to adopt and
implement measures to ensure expeditious attainment of the other
standard.
Section 188(d)(1) of the Act also provides that the state must have
``. . . complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to
the area in the applicable implementation plan.'' As with section
188(d)(2), the EPA believes that there are some ambiguities in the
statutory language that warrant interpretation in order to evaluate the
State's extension request. The EPA proposes to interpret this provision
to mean that the state has submitted a SIP submission to address the
attainment plan requirements for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS
and that the state has implemented the control measures in the SIP
submission. This proposed interpretation is based on the plain language
of section 188(d) that does not explicitly require that the state
comply with all requirements applicable to the area in the CAA, but
merely requires that the state comply with all requirements in the
applicable SIP. In other words, the EPA believes that section 188(d)(1)
should be interpreted to mean that so long as the state has submitted
the necessary attainment plan for the area for the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control measures in the
submission, the fact that the EPA has not yet acted on such submission
to make it an approved part of the applicable SIP should not be a
barrier to the state obtaining an extension of the attainment date
under section 188(d)(1).
Under this proposed interpretation, therefore, the state has to
demonstrate that it has submitted an attainment plan to the EPA for the
relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and that the state is implementing
control measures in that SIP submission. Because the extension at issue
under section 188(d) is an extension of a Moderate area attainment
date, it follows that the control measures in the attainment plan
submission would be those measures that the State intended to meet the
RACM and RACT requirements. The EPA interprets the requirement of
section 188(d)(1) that the state have complied with the ``requirements
and commitments'' of the applicable implementation plan to mean that
the state must be implementing the control measures in the submitted
attainment plan. The state must have adopted and submitted the
attainment plan SIP revision to the EPA, but the state can qualify for
the extension even if the EPA has not yet taken action on the SIP
submission.
In sum, in order for the EPA to make a decision on whether to grant
a 1-year attainment date extension, the state is required to submit
sufficient information to demonstrate that it has both complied with
all requirements and commitments in the applicable implementation plan,
and that it had ``clean'' air quality data in the attainment year, as
explained above. Any decision made by the EPA to extend the attainment
date for an area would be based on facts specific to the nonattainment
area at issue.
Section 188(d) does not specify the process by which the EPA should
evaluate and act upon requests from states for an extension of the
Moderate PM2.5 area attainment date. However, the EPA
believes that an attainment date extension should only be granted after
the EPA provides notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for
the public to comment. Requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking allows
for appropriate evaluation of the relevant criteria and facts in order
to assure that the extension is granted or denied after full
evaluation. This process also is consistent with past practice by the
EPA in granting attainment date extensions for PM2.5 areas.
If this proposal is finalized, then the nonattainment area would remain
classified as Moderate for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS throughout
the 2016 calendar year. After the December 31, 2016 attainment date,
the EPA will evaluate air quality data and other relevant information
to determine whether the area has attained the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS by the December 31, 2016 attainment date.

III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year Extension

On December 14, 2015, the State of Oregon submitted a request to
extend the Moderate area attainment date for the Oakridge NAA for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December
31, 2016. This request contained documentation intended to demonstrate
that the State meets the criteria for a 1-year attainment date
extension for this area pursuant to CAA section 188(d). On February 11,
2016, the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) submitted an
Oakridge Extension Request Follow-up, that provides the final quality-
assured air quality data for 2015 and documentation of efforts to
implement the 2012 Oakridge plan during the 2015-16 winter. The EPA is
evaluating this request in light of its statutory interpretations of
section 188(d) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015

The LRAPA implements the CAA on behalf of the State in the Oakridge
NAA. The LRAPA monitors ambient PM2.5 at one monitoring site
in the Oakridge NAA at the Willamette Activity Center, the area of
expected highest concentrations. The air monitor began operation in
1989 and has monitored continuously to the present. The monitor is a
Federal Reference Method sampler, sampling every third day. The

[[Page 31205]]

EPA has previously approved the State's monitoring network including
the PM2.5 network for Oakridge. The EPA verified in 2010 and
2013 that the PM2.5 sample collection and filter handling
procedures met Federal requirements for quality assurance and control.
The LRAPA reviews and certifies all data from this monitor for
compliance with these procedures and submits the data to the ODEQ. The
ODEQ then submits the certified data to the EPA AQS data system.
The ODEQ submitted complete certified PM2.5 monitor data
for calendar year 2015 into the EPA AQS data system before February 28,
2016. Likewise, the state has submitted certified data for calendar
years 2013 and 2014 to the EPA AQS data system. Thus, the EPA AQS data
system contains sufficient data for the EPA to evaluate whether the
Oakridge NAA attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
statutory attainment date of December 31, 2015, but also the requisite
data to determine whether the Oakridge NAA was meeting the NAAQS in
calendar year 2015 in order to qualify for a one year extension under
section 188(d).
As explained above, the EPA is interpreting the air quality
criterion of section 188(d)(2) in order to reflect the different form
of the NAAQS for the PM10 NAAQS in effect at the time of the
1990 Amendments to the CAA versus the form of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Under this proposed interpretation, a state could qualify for a
one year extension of the Moderate area attainment date if the monitor
data reflects that the area has ambient air quality that is at or below
the level of the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS for the calendar year
preceding the otherwise applicable attainment date, i.e., for the
calendar year prior to the requested extension year. The three year
average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 values
for 2013-2015 in the Oakridge NAA is 37 [mu]g/m\3\ and thus the EPA
cannot find that the area has attained the 24-hour standards for this
3-year period. However, the 98th percentile value for the single year
of 2015 in this area is 28.9 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the level of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
Because the Oakridge NAA is designated nonattainment only for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the State only seeks a one year
extension of the attainment date with respect to this NAAQS. As
explained above, the EPA is interpreting the air quality criterion of
section 188(d) to apply only with respect to the specific NAAQS for
which a state seeks an extension. Thus, for a state seeking an
extension of an attainment date for an area designated nonattainment
only for the 24-hour NAAQS, section 188(d) does not require the EPA to
evaluate the ambient air quality in the area with respect to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Under this proposed approach, the
monitored annual ambient level of PM2.5 in the Oakridge NAA
is not germane to the EPA's evaluation the extension request. However,
the EPA notes that the annual design value for the Oakridge monitor is
9.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 2012-2014 period and the preliminary design
value is 9.6 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 2013-2015 period. Thus, even if the
annual ambient monitored PM2.5 level were relevant to this
extension request, the monitored PM2.5 level in the Oakridge
NAA is well below the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ level of the 2006 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 12 [mu]g/m\3\ level of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that the State
meets the ambient air quality criterion for a 1-year attainment date
extension for the Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 188(d)(2).

B. Oakridge Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable SIP

On December 12, 2012, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) submitted a SIP revision to address attainment plan
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA
(2012 Oakridge Plan). The State intended this SIP submission to meet
the statutory requirements for an attainment plan for purposes of the
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon the statutory requirements and the
EPA guidance for those requirements available at that time. Although
the EPA anticipates that the state may elect to make an additional SIP
submission to revise and update the 2012 Oakridge Plan, to date the
State has not done so.
The State developed the 2012 Oakridge Plan in order to address the
ambient PM2.5 problem in this area through a control
strategy designed to focus on the dominant sources of emissions in the
area. The State has concluded that the violations of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Oakridge NAA are primarily due to
emissions of direct PM2.5 from residential wood combustion
(RWC) from winter time home heating. Oakridge is a small rural
community located in a valley of the western slope of the Cascade
mountain range. Therefore, the State has ascertained that reducing
emissions of PM2.5 to prevent violations of the
PM2.5 NAAQS rests primarily on RWC curtailment.
The 2012 Oakridge Plan included new control measures to address RWC
emissions by requiring the curtailment of RWC during times when
elevated levels of PM2.5 are predicted or occur. The RWC
curtailment control measure was adopted, and is enforceable as a City
of Oakridge ordinance. This ordinance, in addition to Oregon's state-
wide Heat Smart program, also requires the replacement of old
uncertified wood stoves with EPA certified stoves when houses
containing uncertified wood stoves are sold, and requires the
installation of EPA certified wood stoves in new construction. The
State provided documentation in the attainment date extension request
to demonstrate the implementation of the Oakridge RWC curtailment
ordinance.
Subsequent to the submission of the 2012 Oakridge Plan submission,
the City of Oakridge enacted revisions on November 15, 2012 and again
on October 15, 2015 to strengthen the RWC ordinance which included
lowering the threshold for triggering a curtailment or ``burn ban,''
imposing a more stringent opacity limit, and requiring that only dry,
seasoned wood be burned for RWC. The State plans to submit a SIP
revision to the EPA in December 2016 that will include the most recent
RWC ordinance revisions. The State and LRAPA provided evidence of the
adoption and implementation of the new revised ordinance in support of
the extension request. Although the State has not yet submitted the
ordinance revisions to the EPA for evaluation, and thus the revisions
are not yet part of the applicable implementation plan, the Agency
nevertheless considers these revisions an important part of the State's
strategy for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Oakridge NAA.
As explained above, the EPA is proposing to interpret the
compliance with applicable implementation plan criterion of section
188(d)(1) to require that a state have made a submission intended to
meet the attainment plan requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and that the state be implementing the control measures in that
attainment plan submission. Under this proposed interpretation, a state
could qualify for a 1-year extension of the Moderate area attainment
date if the state has submitted an attainment plan for the relevant
PM2.5 NAAQS and demonstrates that it is actively
implementing the commitments and requirements of the attainment plan at
the time of attainment date extension request.
The State developed and submitted the 2012 Oakridge Plan to the EPA
for evaluation. The State also submitted information to establish that
the control measures in the 2012 Oakridge Plan are

[[Page 31206]]

in effect and are being implemented by the LRAPA at this time as part
of the attainment date extension request. The EPA has reviewed the
control measures of the submitted 2012 Oakridge Plan and the
documentation of implementation submitted as part of the extension
request. The docket provides documentation of this including the
official extension request that describes supplemental strategies
currently underway, an expanded city ordinance that enhances controls
designed to reduce emissions from residential home heating, and local
strategies and efforts to reduce emissions. Based upon this
information, the EPA believes that the State and the LRAPA are
complying with the requirements and commitments of the applicable
implementation plan, as contemplated by section 188(d)(1).
For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that the State
meets the compliance with the applicable implementation plan criterion
for a 1-year attainment date extension for the Oakridge NAA pursuant to
CAA section 188(d)(1).

IV. Summary of Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the criteria
for receiving a 1-year extension to the Moderate area attainment date
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as provided in
section 188(d) of the Act. The State is implementing the requirements
and commitments in the applicable attainment plan for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, and the 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 air quality value for 2015 is below 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
Accordingly, the State has established that it meets the criteria of
section 188(d) as the EPA is proposing to interpret those requirements
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is therefore
proposing to exercise the discretion granted to the Administrator by
section 188(d) of the CAA to extend the Moderate area attainment date
for the Oakridge NAA from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: May 9, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-11628 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

31202 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

American Housing Programs, Office of other file sharing system). For the EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon
Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th additional submission methods, the full and a small surrounding area as a
Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC EPA public comment policy, nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA)
20410–8000; telephone number 202– information about CBI or multimedia based on monitor values at the
401–7914 (this is not a toll-free submissions, and general guidance on Willamette Activity Center in Oakridge.
number). Persons with hearing or making effective comments, please visit As a result of this nonattainment area
speech impairments may access this http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ designation, Oregon is required to
number through TTY by calling the toll- commenting-epa-dockets. prepare and submit to the EPA a State
free Federal Relay Service at 800–877– Docket: All documents in the Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to
8339.’’ electronic docket are listed in the http:// meet attainment plan requirements and
Dated: May 12, 2016. www.regulations.gov index. Although to bring the Oakridge NAA into
Camille E. Acevedo,
listed in the index, some information is attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other NAAQS. The State submitted an
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations.
information that is restricted by statute attainment plan submission for the
from disclosure. Certain other material, Oakridge NAA to the EPA by letter
[FR Doc. 2016–11747 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am]
such as copyrighted material, is not dated December 12, 2012 (2012
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
placed on the Internet and will be Oakridge Plan).
publicly available only in hard copy On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit
form. Publicly available docket Court issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION materials are available at http:// 706 F.3d 428, holding that the EPA
AGENCY www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, NAAQS only pursuant to the provisions
40 CFR Part 52
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington of subpart 1 of the Act, rather than the
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0051; FRL–9946–51– 98101. The EPA requests that you particulate matter specific provisions of
Region 10] contact the person listed in the FOR subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4).
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to The Court did not vacate the 2007 PM2.5
Extension of the Attainment Date for schedule your inspection. The Regional Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5
the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour PM2.5 Office’s official hours of business are NAAQS, but remanded it to the EPA
Nonattainment Area Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, with instructions to promulgate a new
AGENCY: Environmental Protection excluding Federal holidays. implementation rule for the PM2.5
Agency (EPA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NAAQS in accordance with the
ACTION: Proposed rule. Justin Spenillo at (206) 553–6125, or requirements of both subpart 1 and
email address spenillo.justin@epa,gov. subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: with the Court’s remand decision, the
Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a 1- Throughout this document whenever EPA withdrew its March 2012
year extension of the attainment date for ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is Implementation Guidance
the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment intended to refer to the EPA. recommending that states rely on the
area to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for
NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to Table of Contents development of attainment plans for the
December 31, 2016, on the basis that the I. Background for the Proposed Action 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, the
State has met the criteria for such an II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment EPA withdrew the guidance it initially
extension under the Clean Air Act (CAA Date provided to states for meeting
or Act). III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year attainment plan requirements for
DATES: Written comments must be Extension purposes of areas designated
received on or before June 17, 2016. A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015 nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
B. Oakridge Requirements and
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Commitments in the Applicable SIP
PM2.5 NAAQS, such as the Oakridge
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– IV. Summary of Proposed Action NAA.
OAR–2016–0051 at http:// V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews On June 2, 2014, in response to the
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online NRDC decision that it implement the
instructions for submitting comments. I. Background for the Proposed Action PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to subpart 4, the
Once submitted, comments cannot be On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued EPA promulgated the ‘‘PM2.5 Subpart 4
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. its final action to revise the PM2.5 Nonattainment Classification and
The EPA may publish any comment NAAQS to establish revised 24-hour Deadline Rule’’ (79 FR 31566). In that
received to its public docket. Do not standards (71 FR 61144). In that action, action, the EPA classified all areas
submit electronically any information we promulgated identical revised currently designated nonattainment for
you consider to be Confidential primary and secondary PM2.5 standards both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Business Information (CBI) or other designed to protect public health and as ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment areas.
information whose disclosure is welfare that specified a 24-hour PM2.5 That rule also provided guidance to
restricted by statute. Multimedia average concentration of 35 mg/m3. states on how to meet the subpart 4
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be Specifically, the 2006 standards require requirements and set a deadline of
accompanied by a written comment. that the 3-year average of the annual December 31, 2014 for states to submit
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

The written comment is considered the 98th percentile concentration may not any revisions to previously submitted
official comment and should include exceed 35 mg/m3. attainment plan submissions, as
discussion of all points you wish to On November 13, 2009, the EPA necessary to meet subpart 4
make. The EPA will generally not issued a final rule designating all areas requirements. Thus, the EPA classified
consider comments or comment throughout the country for the 2006 24- the Oakridge NAA as a Moderate
contents located outside of the primary hour PM2.5 NAAQS, effective December nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour
submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688). In that action, PM2.5 NAAQS and provided an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 May 17, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1

31206 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

in effect and are being implemented by Federal requirements and does not Dated: May 9, 2016.
the LRAPA at this time as part of the impose additional requirements beyond Dennis J. McLerran,
attainment date extension request. The those imposed by state law. For that Regional Administrator, Region 10.
EPA has reviewed the control measures reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2016–11628 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am]
of the submitted 2012 Oakridge Plan • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
and the documentation of action’’ subject to review by the Office
implementation submitted as part of the of Management and Budget under
extension request. The docket provides Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
documentation of this including the October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY
official extension request that describesJanuary 21, 2011);
supplemental strategies currently • does not impose an information 40 CFR Part 52
underway, an expanded city ordinance collection burden under the provisions [EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0164; FRL–9946–
that enhances controls designed to of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 358–Region 9]
reduce emissions from residential home U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
heating, and local strategies and efforts • is certified as not having a Determination of Attainment of the 1-
to reduce emissions. Based upon this significant economic impact on a Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
information, the EPA believes that the substantial number of small entities Quality Standard in the San Joaquin
State and the LRAPA are complying under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Valley Nonattainment Area in
with the requirements and U.S.C. 601 et seq.); California
commitments of the applicable • does not contain any unfunded
implementation plan, as contemplated mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection
by section 188(d)(1). affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA).
For these reasons, the EPA is in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule.
proposing to find that the State meets of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
the compliance with the applicable • does not have Federalism
Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine
implementation plan criterion for a 1- implications as specified in Executive
that the San Joaquin Valley
year attainment date extension for the Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
nonattainment area has attained the 1-
Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 1999); hour ozone National Ambient Air
188(d)(1). • is not an economically significant
Quality Standard. This proposed
regulatory action based on health or
IV. Summary of Proposed Action determination is based on the most
safety risks subject to Executive Order
The EPA is proposing to find that the recent three-year period (2012–2014) of
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
sufficient, quality-assured, and certified
State has met the criteria for receiving • is not a significant regulatory action
a 1-year extension to the Moderate area data. Preliminary data for 2015 are
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5 consistent with continued attainment of
28355, May 22, 2001);
NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as • is not subject to requirements of the standard in the San Joaquin Valley.
provided in section 188(d) of the Act. Section 12(d) of the National DATES: Any comments must arrive by
The State is implementing the Technology Transfer and Advancement June 17, 2016.
requirements and commitments in the Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
applicable attainment plan for the PM2.5 application of those requirements would identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
NAAQS in the area, and the 98th be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; OAR–2016–0164 at http://
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 air quality and www.regulations.gov, or via email to
value for 2015 is below 35 mg/m3. • does not provide the EPA with the lee.anita@epa.gov. For comments
Accordingly, the State has established discretionary authority to address, as submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
that it meets the criteria of section appropriate, disproportionate human online instructions for submitting
188(d) as the EPA is proposing to health or environmental effects, using comments. Once submitted, comments
interpret those requirements for practicable and legally permissible cannot be edited or removed from
purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The methods, under Executive Order 12898 Regulations.gov. For either manner of
EPA is therefore proposing to exercise (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). submission, the EPA may publish any
the discretion granted to the The SIP is not approved to apply on comment received to its public docket.
Administrator by section 188(d) of the any Indian reservation land or in any Do not submit electronically any
CAA to extend the Moderate area other area where the EPA or an Indian information you consider to be
attainment date for the Oakridge NAA tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has Confidential Business Information (CBI)
from December 31, 2015 to December jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian or other information whose disclosure is
31, 2016. country, the rule does not have tribal restricted by statute. Multimedia
implications and will not impose submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
V. Statutory and Executive Order accompanied by a written comment.
substantial direct costs on tribal
Reviews The written comment is considered the
governments or preempt tribal law as
Under the Clean Air Act, the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 official comment and should include
Administrator is required to approve a FR 67249, November 9, 2000). discussion of all points you wish to
SIP submission that complies with the make. The EPA will generally not
provisions of the Act and applicable List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 consider comments or comment
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Environmental protection, Air contents located outside of the primary
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Incorporation by submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
submissions, the EPA’s role is to reference, Intergovernmental relations, other file sharing system). For
approve state choices, provided that Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, additional submission methods, please
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Reporting and recordkeeping contact the person identified in the FOR
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
merely approves state law as meeting organic compounds. For the EPA’s full public comment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 May 17, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1

Document Created: 2016-05-18 00:07:07
Document Modified: 2016-05-18 00:07:07

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.
Contact		Justin Spenillo at (206) 553-6125, or
FR Citation		81 FR 31202
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds