21814 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits would justify their costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that would maximize 

net benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this regulatory action is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of similar demonstration 

projects have been well established over 

the years through the successful 

completion and dissemination of the 

results of similar projects. For example, 

the projects first funded in FY 2007 to 

demonstrate collaborative practices that 

lead to postsecondary education and 

employment of youth with disabilities 

have served as a rich source of practices 

for the VR field. These proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

would promote projects that would 

serve as models in developing and 

implementing work-based learning 

strategies for students with disabilities 

that could be replicated by other State 

VR agencies so that such agencies could 

improve postsecondary education and 

competitive integrated employment 

outcomes for students with disabilities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: The public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

These proposed priorities contain 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under the 

Disability Innovation Fund program— 

Transition Work-Based Learning Model 

Demonstrations 1820–0018; this 

proposed regulation does not affect the 

currently approved data collection. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 8, 2016. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08492 Filed 4–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0005: FRL–9944–89– 

Region 10] 

Finding of Attainment and Approval of 

Attainment Plan for Klamath Falls, 

Oregon Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a 

finding of attainment by the attainment 

date for the Klamath Falls, Oregon 

nonattainment area (the area) based 

upon quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the area 

has monitored attainment of the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) based on the 2012–2014 data 

available in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. The proposed 

finding of attainment does not 

constitute a redesignation to attainment. 

Redesignations require states to meet a 

number of criteria including EPA 

approval of a state plan to maintain the 

air quality standard for 10 years after 

redesignation. 

The EPA also proposes to approve 

revisions to Oregon’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of 

the Klamath Falls Fine Particulate 

Matter Attainment Plan (attainment 

plan) and approve and incorporate by 

reference associated revisions to the 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21815 

submitted by the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on 

December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 

attainment plan was to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 

2014 attainment date included in the 

plan, which the area met based on 

2012–2014 monitoring data. 

The attainment plan addressed the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The 

attainment plan included 

comprehensive base year and 

attainment year emissions inventories 

for direct PM2.5 emissions and all 

particulate matter precursors, analysis 

and selection of reasonably available 

control measures and reasonably 

available control technologies (RACM 

and RACT), demonstrated attainment 

through selected permanent and 

enforceable control strategies, included 

required contingency measures, and 

addressed reasonable further progress 

and quantitative milestone requirements 

through the attainment demonstration. 

The attainment plan’s strategy for 

controlling direct and precursor PM2.5

emissions relied primarily on an 

episodic woodstove curtailment 

program and a program to change-out 

uncertified woodstoves. Additional 

emissions reductions came from control 

measures and activities associated with 

industrial sources and motor vehicles. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 13, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0005 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin A. Spenillo at (206) 553–6125, 

spenillo.justin@epa.gov, 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. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. History of the PM2.5 Standard 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

C. CAA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

Requirements 

D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter History 

II. Finding of Attainment and Clean Data 

Determination 

III. Analysis of Oregon’s Submittal 

Previously Approved Attainment Plan 

Elements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Control Measures—Oregon Rules and 

Klamath County Ordinance 

C. Classifications 

Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for 

Approval 

D. Attainment Date 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

F. Modeling 

G. Characterization of Klamath Falls Air 

Shed 

H. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT/RACM) 

I. Contingency Measures 

J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 

Quantitative Milestones 

Additional Elements 

K. Conformity Requirements 

L. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event 

Demonstration and Concurrence 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

A. History of the PM2.5 Standard 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA established 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including an 

annual standard of 15.0 mg/m 3 based on 

a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) 

standard of 65 mg/m 3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations (62 FR 38652). The EPA 

established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on significant evidence and 

numerous health studies demonstrating 

the serious health effects associated 

with exposures to PM2.5. To provide 

guidance on the CAA requirements for 

state and tribal implementation plans to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

EPA promulgated the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) (hereinafter, 

the ‘‘2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’). 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

to 35 mg/m 3 and retained the level of the 

annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 mg/m 3 (71 

FR 61144). Following promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 

required by the CAA to promulgate 

designations for areas throughout the 

United States; this designation process 

is described in section 107(d)(1) of the 

CAA. On November 13, 2009, the EPA 

designated areas as either attainment/

unclassifiable or nonattainment with 

respect to the revised 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that 

November 2009 action, the EPA 

designated Klamath Falls, Oregon, as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, requiring Oregon to 

prepare and submit an attainment plan 

for the Klamath Falls area to meet the 

revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

March 2, 2012, the EPA issued 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ to provide guidance on the 

development of SIPs to demonstrate 

attainment with the revised 24-hour 

standard (March 2012 Implementation 

Guidance). The March 2012 

Implementation Guidance explained 

that the overall framework and policy 

approach of the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provided effective 

and appropriate guidance on statutory 

requirements for the development of 

SIPs to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, the March 2012 

Implementation Guidance instructed 

states to rely on the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule in developing SIPs 

to demonstrate attainment with the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21816 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

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 pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 

1), rather than the particulate-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I (subpart 4). The Court did 

not vacate the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule but remanded the 

rule with instructions for the EPA to 

promulgate new implementation 

regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent 

with the Court’s remand decision, the 

EPA withdrew its March 2012 

Implementation Guidance which relied 

on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

to provide guidance for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 Court 

decision, states had worked towards 

meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the 

EPA regulations and guidance derived 

from subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the 

CAA. The EPA considered this history 

in issuing the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 2, 

2014) that identified the initial 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards as 

moderate. The final rule also established 

December 31, 2014 as the deadline for 

the states to submit any additional SIP 

elements related to attainment. 

The ODEQ submitted an attainment 

plan for Klamath Falls on December 12, 

2012. The plan included measures to 

demonstrate attainment in December 

2014. Concurrent with the December 31, 

2014 deadline for submitting any 

supplements necessary to address 

possible subpart 4 elements, Klamath 

Falls came into attainment based on 

2012–2014 monitoring data. Leading up 

to December 31, 2014 deadline, both the 

ODEQ and the EPA followed monitoring 

data closely to ensure that the area was 

meeting targets consistent with the 

modeling demonstration submitted in 

the attainment plan. Because the area 

was on a path toward attainment by 

December 2014 and the submitted 

attainment plan substantively addressed 

the specific PM2.5 problems in the 

airshed, the ODEQ did not submit a 

supplement to its attainment plan. 

Therefore, the EPA evaluated the State’s 

existing attainment plan submission for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to determine 

that it met not only the applicable 

requirements of subpart 1, but also the 

applicable requirements of subpart 4. 

This approach is consistent with the 

Court’s decision that the EPA must 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. In 

this notice, the EPA reviews the ODEQ’s 

attainment plan submitted to comply 

with the requirements of subpart 1 and 

provides an evaluation of why we 

believe the submittal also satisfies 

subpart 4 requirements, including the 

applicable attainment date, and an 

analysis of all sources of particulate 

matter emissions and PM2.5 precursors 

for control strategies. 

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area 

Nonattainment Requirements 

With respect to the requirements for 

attainment plans, the EPA notes that the 

general nonattainment area planning 

requirements are found in subpart 1, 

and the moderate area planning 

requirements for particulate matter are 

found in subpart 4. The EPA has a 

longstanding general guidance 

document that interprets the 1990 

amendments to the CAA commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘General Preamble’’ 

(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The 

General Preamble addresses the 

relationship between subpart 1 and 

subpart 4 requirements and provides 

recommendations to states for meeting 

statutory requirements for particulate 

matter nonattainment planning. 

Specifically, the General Preamble 

explains that requirements applicable to 

moderate area nonattainment SIPs are 

set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs 

must also meet the general 

nonattainment planning provisions in 

subpart 1, to the extent these provisions 

‘‘are not otherwise subsumed by, or 

integrally related to,’’ the more specific 

subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538, 

April 16, 1992). Additionally, the EPA 

proposed the Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements rule (80 FR 15340, March 

23, 2015), to clarify our interpretation of 

the statutory requirements that apply to 

Moderate and Serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas (NAAs) under 

subparts 1 and 4. 

The requirements of subpart 1 for 

attainment plans include: (1) The 

section 172(c)(1) requirements for 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) and attainment 

demonstrations; (2) the section 172(c)(2) 

requirement to demonstrate reasonable 

further progress (RFP); (3) the section 

172(c)(3) requirement for emissions 

inventories; (4) the section 172(c)(5) 

requirements for a nonattainment new 

source review (NSR) permitting 

program; and (5) the section 172(c)(9) 

requirement for contingency measures. 

The subpart 4 requirements for 

moderate areas are generally comparable 

with the subpart 1 requirements and 

include: (1) The section 189(a)(1)(A) 

NSR permit program requirements; (2) 

the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirements for 

attainment demonstration; (3) the 

section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for 

RACM; and (4) the section 189(c) 

requirements for RFP and quantitative 

milestones. In addition, under subpart 4 

the moderate area attainment date is no 

later than the end of the 6th calendar 

year after designation. 

The EPA evaluated the ODEQ’s 

attainment plan for the Klamath Falls 

area for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS 

and believes that the State’s submission 

satisfies the relevant requirements of 

both subpart 1 and subpart 4, as 

discussed below. 

D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter 

History 

The Klamath Falls area has a history 

of successfully addressing particulate 

matter for over 25 years. In 1987, the 

EPA designated Klamath Falls a 

nonattainment area for PM10— 

particulate matter ten micrometers and 

smaller. The ODEQ prepared a PM10

attainment plan for the Klamath Falls 

Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1991. 

The ODEQ revised and re-submitted the 

plan in 1995, and the EPA approved it 

on April 14, 1997 (62 FR 18047). The 

area’s monitor began attaining the 

standard in 1992 and has not exceeded 

the standard since that time. In 2002, 

the ODEQ submitted a redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for PM10. 

This plan demonstrated that the 

necessary control strategies were in 

place to maintain the PM10 NAAQS and 

the EPA approved the plan on October 

21, 2003 (68 FR 60036). The attainment 

and maintenance plans relied on a 

mandatory episodic woodstove 

curtailment program and a large 

woodstove change-out program to 

reduce emissions from the primary 

contributor of particulate matter in the 

area. Additional measures provided 

control on industrial emissions and are 

discussed later in this notice. The area 

has continued to maintain the PM10

NAAQS. 

In 1997, the EPA revised the 

particulate standard to include PM2.5

(particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter and smaller) at a daily 

standard of 65 mg/m3. Due to the same 

set of control measures that it used to 

address exceedances of the PM10


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21817 

standard, Klamath Falls successfully 

remained below the PM2.5 standard 

promulgated in 1997. When the EPA 

tightened the PM2.5 standard from 65mg/ 

m3 to 35mg/m3 in 2006, Klamath Falls 

was found to be exceeding the new 

standard. The EPA subsequently 

designated the area as nonattainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 

November 2009, prompting the 

adoption of more stringent control 

measures and submission of the 

attainment plan in 2012. 

II. Finding of Attainment and Clean 

Data Determination 

Pursuant to sections 179(c) and 

188(b)(2) of the Act, the EPA has the 

responsibility of determining within six 

months of the applicable attainment 

date whether nonattainment areas 

attained the NAAQS based on certified 

air quality data. The EPA reviewed the 

PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data from 

the Peterson School regulatory monitor 

(AQS site 41–035–0004 POC1), 

consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, as 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database for the Klamath Falls 

area. For purposes of determining 

attainment by the attainment date, the 

EPA considered data recorded in the 

AQS database, certified as meeting 

quality assurance requirements, and 

determined to have met data 

completeness requirements. On the 

basis of this review, the EPA has 

concluded that the Klamath Falls area 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

during the 2012–2014 monitoring 

period—http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

values.html. Specifically, under the EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 24-hour 

primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS 

are met when the 98th percentile 24- 

hour concentration is less than or equal 

to 35 mg/m3. The design value (the 

metrics calculated in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N, for 

determining compliance with the 

NAAQS) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the years 2012–2014 at the 

Peterson School monitor was 34 mg/m3, 

meeting the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date 

established in the 2012 attainment plan. 

As a result, the EPA proposes to 

determine that the area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that the area has clean data 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This determination is based upon 

quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

showing that the area has monitored 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on 2012–2014 monitoring data, 

discussed above. Under a Clean Data 

Determination (CDD), the requirements 

for the area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated RACM, RFP 

plan, contingency measures, and any 

other planning SIP requirements related 

to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS would be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to meet this 

NAAQS. If EPA subsequently 

determines that the area is in violation 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

basis for the suspension of the specific 

requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 

51.1004(c), would no longer exist and 

the area would thereafter have to 

address the pertinent requirements. 

Although a CDD suspends the 

requirement for submission of certain 

attainment planning elements, it does 

not relieve the EPA of its responsibility 

to take action on a state’s SIP 

submission. As described in this action, 

the EPA is proposing to fully approve 

the remaining elements of the Klamath 

Falls nonattainment plan as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. 

The proposed finding of attainment 

by the attainment date and clean data 

determination that the air quality data 

shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

This proposed action, if finalized, will 

not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment under section 107(d)(3) of 

the CAA, because the state must have an 

approved maintenance plan for the area 

as required under section 175A of the 

CAA, and a determination that the area 

has met the other requirements for 

redesignation in order to be 

redesignated to attainment. The 

designation status of the area will 

remain nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as the 

EPA determines that the area meets the 

CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). 

III. Analysis of Oregon’s Submittal 

In accordance with Sections 172(c) 

and 189 of the CAA, the attainment plan 

that the ODEQ submitted for the 

Klamath Falls area included 

comprehensive base year and 

attainment year emissions inventories 

that addressed direct particulate matter 

emissions and all particulate matter 

precursors, analyzed RACM and RACT, 

demonstrated attainment through 

selected permanent and enforceable 

control strategies, included required 

contingency measures, and addressed 

reasonable further progress and 

quantitative milestone requirements 

through the attainment demonstration. 

The attainment plan’s strategy for 

controlling direct and precursor PM2.5

emissions relied primarily on an 

episodic woodstove curtailment 

program and the change-out of 

uncertified woodstoves. Additional 

emissions reductions came from control 

measures and activities associated with 

industrial sources, motor vehicles, and 

public education. 

The rule revisions submitted by the 

ODEQ and the ordinances passed by 

Klamath County support the 

implementation of these control 

measures in a manner that is both 

permanent and enforceable. The EPA 

approved, on August 25, 2015, the 

baseline emissions inventory and 

control measures associated with this 

attainment plan (80 FR 51470). By 

including these measures in the SIP, the 

state has made them permanent and 

enforceable, and with the EPA’s 

approval of these control measures on 

August 25, 2015, the measures have 

become federally enforceable. This 

submittal also addresses transportation 

conformity budgets and the EPA’s 

proposed approval to exclude data from 

wildfire exceptional events affecting 

data on September 25, 2009 (for 

purposes of the attainment 

demonstration), August 25, 2012, 

August 28, 2012, August 31, 2012, July 

30, 2013, and August 5, 2013 (for 

purposes of the finding of attainment) 

that affected the regulatory monitor in 

Klamath Falls. 

Previously Approved Attainment Plan 

Elements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

The baseline emission inventory 

requirements were approved in an 

action completed on August 25, 2015 

(80 FR 51470). The approved emissions 

inventory covered direct PM2.5 and 

precursors to the formation of PM2.5

(nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) to meet the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of CAA section 172(c) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

emissions inventory applicable to the 

attainment demonstration and the 

attainment year inventory will be 

discussed in the Modeling and 

Attainment Demonstration sections of 

this notice. 

B. Control Measures—Oregon Rules and 

Klamath County Ordinance 

The December 12, 2012 attainment 

plan submitted by the ODEQ included 

revisions to a number of administrative 

rules to implement the attainment plan 

for the Klamath Falls area. These 

revisions consisted of updates to 

identify the Klamath Falls 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

nonattainment area and to adopt local 

and state measures to ensure permanent 

and enforceable control strategies and 

contingency measures, as described in 

the attainment plan, to bring the area 

back into attainment in the event the 

area failed to meet RFP or failed to 

attain the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. Specifically, the ODEQ 

revised rules in OAR 340, Divisions 200, 

204, 225, 240, 262, and 264. The EPA 

already provided notice and comment 

on these rules, except for the 

contingency measures, and proposed to 

approve the rules on December 30, 2014 

(79 FR 78372) and finalized the action 

on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51470). 

These control measures were relied 

upon by Klamath Falls to attain the 

standard by 2014 and will remain in 

place for continued maintenance of the 

standard. Further details on these 

control measures can be found in the 

docket for this action within the 

Klamath Falls attainment plan submittal 

as well as in the proposed and final 

Federal Register notices approving 

these measures. 

C. Classifications 

The applicable attainment planning 

requirements under subpart 4 (section 

189(a) and (b)) depend on whether the 

nonattainment area is classified as 

moderate or serious. In response to the 

Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, the 

EPA finalized on June 2, 2014, initial 

classifications of all current 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as 

moderate (79 FR 31566). Thus, the 

attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ 

for the Klamath Falls area is evaluated 

pursuant to the moderate area 

requirements of subpart 4. 

Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for 

Approval 

D. Attainment Date 

The CAA requirements of subpart 4 

include a demonstration that a 

nonattainment area will meet applicable 

NAAQS within the timeframe provided 

in the statute (Section 189(c)(1)). For the 

2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, an 

attainment plan must show that a 

moderate nonattainment area will attain 

the standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the end of 

the sixth calendar year after the area’s 

designation, which in the case of 

Klamath Falls is December 31, 2015. In 

the Klamath Falls attainment plan the 

ODEQ demonstrated that attainment by 

December 2014 was as expeditious as 

practicable based on the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

that the attainment date could not be 

advanced by a year or more with 

additional reasonable measure (e.g. 

RACM). The EPA is proposing to 

approve the attainment date of 

December 2014 as submitted by the 

ODEQ, which the area successfully met 

as confirmed by quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data. 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a 

moderate area nonattainment plan 

contain either a demonstration that the 

plan will provide for attainment by the 

applicable attainment date, or a 

demonstration that attainment by such 

date is impracticable. In the attainment 

demonstration section of the Klamath 

Falls PM2.5 attainment plan, the ODEQ 

described how its chosen control 

strategies would provide the emissions 

reductions needed to bring the area into 

attainment no later than December 2014. 

Quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

confirm that the area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 2014. 

TABLE 1—ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION STRATEGIES FOR THE KLAMATH FALLS AREA

Control strategies 

Projected air 

quality 

benefit 

(μg/m3) 

Baseline Design Value 2008 .................................................................................................................................................................. 45.1 

Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated) ................................................................................................................................................ 9.6 

• Woodstove curtailment—lower thresholds and increased enforcement.

• Shorter open burning window 

Woodstove Change-out Programs ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 

Heat Smart—woodstove change-out upon sale of home ...................................................................................................................... 0.3 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) particleboard and hardboard ................................................................................ 0.1 

Public Awareness ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 

New fireplace standards ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions .......................................................................................................................................... Minimal 

• Diesel Retrofits 

• Low Emission Vehicle Program 

• Fuel Economy 

Road Paving ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Minimal 

Future Design Value 2014 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34.6 * 

* The individual emission reduction estimates in this table are derived from the modeled Future Design Value in 2014. The air quality benefit 

for individual control measures were assessed in isolation and are presented as such in Table 1. Because the control strategies interact nonlinearly, the final design value is not a simple subtraction of the individual measures’ benefits from the baseline design value. When all control strategies are simulated together, their benefit is less than it would appear because, for instance, the curtailment ordinance has a smaller benefit 

when stoves have been changed out to be cleaner. 

Using the values in Table 1, results 

from the roll-forward modeling showed 

that the control strategies would achieve 

a future year design value of 35 mg/m3

with a relative response factor (RRF) of 

0.717, as explained in more detail in the 

modeling discussion. In order to 

provide a buffer to ensure attainment, 

the ODEQ, Klamath Falls, and Klamath 

County implemented additional 

measures which yielded a modeled 

design value of 34.6 mg/m3 with an RRF 

of 0.667. As noted in the RACM/RACT 

discussion later in this document, more 

than 95% of the projected control 

strategy air quality benefits came from 

the Klamath Falls Clean Air Ordinance 

wood smoke curtailment program (the 

Ordinance), woodstove change-out 

program, and the Heat Smart program. 

The ODEQ and Klamath County relied 

on the Ordinance and the woodstove 

change-out program to successfully 

attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21819 

woodstove curtailment program restricts 

residential wood burning on days when 

the ambient PM2.5 levels are close to 

exceeding the standard. Additional 

reductions came from the control of 

industrial sources and from continuing 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions 

from cleaner motor vehicles, as 

described later in this document. 

The ODEQ included a number of 

supplemental analyses in the attainment 

plan for a weight of evidence 

demonstration of attainment, as 

recommended by the EPA’s modeling 

guidance. Attachments 3.3 b–e, g–o, w, 

and y of the submitted plan (located in 

the docket) describe the Klamath Falls 

airshed, the source sector contributions, 

and the ability of emission controls to 

reduce PM2.5 concentrations. 

The ODEQ identified wood burning 

emissions as the most significant source 

sector in the emissions inventory and 

thus the key source sector to attainment 

with its readily available emissions 

reductions. Accordingly, in formulating 

an emissions control strategy, the ODEQ 

conducted detailed wood burning 

surveys for the Klamath Falls area, 

assessed the contribution of secondary 

organic aerosol to overall PM2.5, used 

locally-derived estimates for how well 

wood burners follow the yellow and red 

curtailment requirements, assessed the 

impact of prescribed burning on 

wintertime PM2.5, and used the best 

available emission factors for wood 

burning devices. This level of analysis 

is consistent with other moderate 

nonattainment areas where wood 

burning is a significant issue. 

In addition to demonstrating 

attainment using the roll-forward 

model, the ODEQ also conducted an 

unmonitored area analysis (UMAA) to 

demonstrate that other parts of the 

nonattainment area would also meet the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

analysis used data from seven monitors 

in the area for a saturation survey in 

2010–2011 to develop a map of PM2.5

concentration relative to the main 

monitor at the Peterson School. The 

UMAA calculated the PM2.5 from point 

sources at 1.2 kilometer intervals in the 

nonattainment area and added this 

calculation to the projected 

concentration from all other sources. 

Results from the UMAA showed that the 

Peterson Area monitor is the area of 

highest neighborhood-scale 

concentration, such that one could 

reasonably infer that unmonitored areas 

of the nonattainment area were in 

attainment based on a finding of 

attainment at the Peterson Area monitor. 

F. Modeling 

All attainment demonstrations must 

project air quality below the standard 

using standard modeling techniques. 

The ODEQ submitted a modeled 

demonstration that is consistent with 

the recommendations contained in 

EPA’s modeling guidance document 

‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze’’ 

(EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007) and 

the June 28, 2011, memorandum from 

Tyler Fox to Regional Air Program 

Managers, ‘‘Update to the 24-hour PM2.5

Modeled Attainment Test.’’ Modeling 

should be based on national (e.g., EPA), 

regional (e.g., Western Regional Air 

Partnership) or local modeling, or a 

combination thereof, if appropriate. The 

April 2007 guidance indicates that 

states should review supplemental 

analyses, in combination with the 

modeling analysis, in a ‘‘weight of 

evidence’’ assessment to determine 

whether each area is likely to achieve 

timely attainment. 

To determine which control strategies 

to implement, the ODEQ began by 

characterizing the area’s emissions. 

Along with developing the 2008 

baseline emissions inventory, the ODEQ 

also conducted a series of analyses to 

better understand particulate matter in 

Klamath Falls. This included 

conducting and reviewing studies, 

analyzing filter samples, and modeling. 

For modeling attainment in Klamath 

Falls, the ODEQ used a roll-forward 

model as the basis for projecting future 

design values and the effect of control 

strategies. A standard roll-forward 

model assumes all sources contribute to 

the Peterson School monitor in 

proportion to their weight in the 

emissions inventory. This is a 

reasonable assumption for most source 

categories which were mostly direct 

PM2.5 because they are relatively welldistributed within the nonattainment 

area, but for certain source categories 

such as large point sources, prescribed 

burning, and road dust, this assumption 

is not always accurate. For these three 

source categories, effective primary 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission 

rates were derived from additional 

analyses including AERMOD 

atmospheric dispersion modeling for 

large point sources, positive matrix 

factorization (PMF) modeling for road 

dust, and analysis of historical 

prescribed burning and its impact on 

PM2.5 at the Peterson School monitor. 

The ODEQ developed several emissions 

inventories for modeling, one for the 

current emissions for the baseline year 

of 2008 and two for the attainment year 

of 2014. The projected 2014 attainment 

year inventory accounts for all changes 

(i.e. vehicle fleet turnover, population 

changes) that were expected to occur 

from 2008 to 2014, except for the locally 

imposed control strategies. The ODEQ 

then applied each local control strategy 

to the 2014 modeling inventory in 

isolation, and as a group, as part of 

developing the control 2014 inventory 

for modeling. When each of these 

modeling inventories was run through 

the model, the ODEQ was able to 

estimate the relative change in PM2.5

resulting from each control strategy in 

isolation and from all control strategies 

at the same time. See Table 1 in the 

Attainment Demonstration section. 

The relative change in modeled, 

species-specific PM2.5 concentrations at 

the Peterson School monitor between 

the 2014 control strategy run and the 

2008 baseline is referred to as a Relative 

Response Factor (RRF). The ODEQ 

calculated RRFs separately for each 

chemical component of PM2.5, per the 

EPA modeling guidance. The RRFs for 

ammonium, sulfate, nitrate, and 

particle-bound water were held at 1.0 

(i.e. constant), which is a conservative 

assumption implying that there will be 

no reduction in precursor emissions. 

However, NOX emissions are projected 

to decline from 2,236 tons per year (tpy) 

in 2008 to 1,810 tpy in 2014, VOC 

emissions are projected to decline from 

2,910 tpy in 2008 to 2,645 in 2014, and 

ammonia emission inventories are 

projected to remain fairly level at 244 

tpy in 2008 and 247 tpy in 2014. The 

RRF for organic carbon and elemental 

carbon are allowed to fluctuate based on 

projected emissions and the model, but 

the RRF for organic aerosol does not 

account for changes in secondary 

organic aerosol because a chemical box 

model analysis conducted by the ODEQ 

and Portland State University 

(Appendix A–6–1 of the attainment 

plan) found that contributions from both 

biogenic and anthropogenic secondary 

organic aerosol (SOA) sources were 

minor (less than 1% and 3%, 

respectively, of total design value 

PM2.5). By keeping the RRF constant for 

secondary PM2.5, the ODEQ took a 

conservative approach in modeling 

emission reductions because the 

emissions inventory values for most 

secondary PM2.5 precursors were 

projected to decline between 2008 and 

2014 due to control measures already in 

place. In the attainment plan 

submission, SO2 emission inventories 

were projected to increase slightly from 

110 tpy in 2008 to 136 tpy in 2014. 

However, it is important to note that 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21820 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1See EPA’s 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 

issue in the NRDC v. EPA case in which EPA 

discussed that emissions of SO2, NOX, VOCs and 

ammonia are factual and scientific precursors to 

PM2.5. 72 FR 20586, at 20589–97. April 25, 2007. 

2EPA notes that it has already addressed the 

requirements of subpart 4 for precursors, 

specifically within the context of the requirements 

of section 189(e), in the General Preamble. See 57 

FR at 13539 and 13541–2, April 16, 1992. 

3See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 2008 San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy,’’ (76 FR 

69896, November 9, 2011). 

32.2 tpy of projected growth in the SO2

emissions inventory was due to the 

anticipated addition of the Klamath 

Falls Bioenergy facility that was 

expected to be built by 2014. This 

facility has since withdrawn its 

application for a site certification and 

will not be constructed. Removing these 

projected emissions results in a net 

decrease of 6.2 tpy in overall projected 

SO2 emissions from 2008 to 2014. 

The ODEQ applied the speciesspecific RRFs to the baseline 2006–2010 

monitored data based on the EPA’s 

guidance to estimate 2014 design 

values. The modeling projected an 

attainment date of December 2014 

which the area achieved. The EPA 

carefully evaluated the ODEQ’s 

modeling demonstration and concluded 

that it adequately meets the current EPA 

modeling requirements, and uses 

acceptable modeling techniques to 

project attainment by the December 

2014 attainment date. 

In addition, the EPA believes that the 

attainment demonstration modeling 

submitted by the ODEQ meets subpart 4 

requirements. First, section 189(a)(1)(B) 

provides that for a moderate 

nonattainment area, a state must submit 

either a demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan will 

provide for attainment by the applicable 

attainment date or a demonstration that 

attainment by such date is 

impracticable. The applicable 

attainment date for moderate areas in 

section 188(c)(1) of subpart is as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than the end of the sixth calendar year 

after the area’s designation, or, as 

applied to Klamath Falls, December 

2015. The ODEQ’s modeling 

demonstrated attainment by December 

2014, which is a year earlier than the 

December 2015 attainment deadline. 

Second, the modeling relied upon by 

the ODEQ included both direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors. The ODEQ’s 

weight of evidence analysis is further 

supported by quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the area 

has monitored attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 

2012–2014 data. For these reasons, the 

EPA proposes to find that the ODEQ’s 

modeling is consistent with EPA’s 

guidance and meets the attainment 

demonstration requirements of subparts 

1 and 4. 

G. Characterization of the Klamath Falls 

Air Shed 

In evaluating the Klamath Falls 

attainment plan under the requirements 

of subpart 4, control of direct PM2.5 and 

precursors must be considered. 

According to CAA section 302(g) the 

term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air 

pollution agent or combination of such 

agents, including any physical, 

chemical, biological, radioactive 

(including source material, special 

nuclear material, and by product 

material) substance or matter which is 

emitted into or otherwise enters the 

ambient air. Such term includes any 

precursors to the formation of any air 

pollutant, to the extent the 

Administrator has identified such 

precursor or precursors for the 

particular purpose for which the term 

‘‘air pollutant’’ is used. The provisions 

of subpart 4 do not define the term 

‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of particulate 

matter, nor do they explicitly require 

the control of any specifically identified 

precursor. However, the EPA has long 

recognized the scientific basis for 

concluding that SO2, NOX, VOC, and 

ammonia are precursors to PM10 and to 

PM2.5.1

The EPA’s interpretation of section 

189(e) and section 172 indicates that 

consideration of all precursors is 

necessary for PM2.5 attainment plans, 

and RACM/RACT requirements 

explicitly require the evaluation of 

available control measures for direct 

PM2.5 emissions and precursor 

emissions from stationary, area, and 

mobile sources in order to attain as 

expeditiously as practicable. Section 

189(e) requires the control of 

appropriate precursors from major 

stationary sources, unless the 

Administrator determines that precursor 

emissions from such major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in the area.2

While subpart 4 expressly requires 

control of precursors from major 

stationary sources where direct PM from 

major sources is controlled unless 

certain conditions are met, other sources 

of precursors may also need to be 

controlled for the purposes of 

demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in a given 

area. Thus, a state should evaluate all 

economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, 

and should adopt those measures that 

are deemed reasonably available, i.e., 

those constituting RACM and RACT 

controls for sources located in the area. 

The EPA has interpreted subpart 4 to 

require analysis for control of precursors 

from all source categories in a given 

nonattainment area, unless there is a 

demonstration that controlling a 

precursor or precursors is not necessary 

for expeditious attainment of the 

NAAQS in the area. This notice will 

demonstrate that additional precursor 

controls beyond those discussed in 

Oregon’s 2012 attainment plan 

submission will not affect expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS in the 

Klamath Falls area; moreover the area is 

already attaining the NAAQS with 

existing controls and additional 

precursor controls are unnecessary for 

expeditious attainment. 

As discussed in the EPA’s 1992 

General Preamble, in the event that a 

state’s attainment plan includes controls 

on major stationary sources for PM10 in 

order to achieve timely attainment in 

the area, section 189(e) requires controls 

of all PM10 precursors for major 

stationary sources located within the 

area, unless there is a showing that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to violations in the area (57 FR 13541, 

April 16, 1992). Thus, the EPA’s 

existing interpretation of subpart 4 

requirements with respect to precursors 

in attainment plans for PM10, as set out 

in the General Preamble, contemplates 

that states may develop attainment 

plans that regulate only those precursors 

that are necessary for purposes of 

attainment in the area in question, i.e., 

states may determine that only certain 

precursors need be regulated for 

attainment purposes. Id.; see also Assoc. 

of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 

F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). The EPA 

believes that application of this same 

approach to PM2.5 precursors under 

subpart 4 is appropriate and reasonable 

at this time. Indeed, the EPA has already 

taken action upon attainment plans for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other areas 

after carefully evaluating the state’s 

conclusions regarding which PM2.5

precursors should be regulated in the 

area at issue.3

The General Preamble describes the 

assessment of precursors as specific to 

each nonattainment area, and 

acknowledges that the determination of 

precursor significance would likely vary 

based on the characteristics of the areawide nonattainment problem. The 

General Preamble further provides that 

in making a determination regarding the 

significance of precursors, the EPA will 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21821 

rely on technical information presented 

in the state’s submittal, including filter 

analysis, the relative contribution to 

overall nonattainment, the selected 

control strategies, as well as other 

relevant factors (57 FR 13541, April 16, 

1992). The remanded 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule also discusses the 

types of technical analyses that states 

could perform to demonstrate the 

significance or insignificance of a 

particular precursor for purposes of 

attainment, such as emission inventory 

information, speciation data 

information, modeling, or monitoring 

data. 

For the reasons discussed in this 

section, the EPA believes that the 

ODEQ’s attainment plan adequately 

evaluated emissions of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors as demonstrated in the 

attainment plan and supported by 

attainment of the NAAQS. The PM2.5

precursor analysis relied on the types of 

analyses discussed in the General 

Preamble and the remanded 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule for demonstrating 

the contribution of PM2.5 precursors. 

Based on these analyses, supported by 

current monitoring data, the ODEQ 

submittal showed that direct PM2.5

emissions were the primary contributor 

to the nonattainment problem and that 

additional emissions reductions from 

PM2.5 precursors were not needed for 

demonstrating attainment, not 

economically or technologically feasible 

to advance the attainment date by one 

year, and that existing control measures 

adequately addressed precursors in light 

of the minimal impact secondary 

organic formation has on this specific 

airshed, as evidenced by the Portland 

State University SOA study and the 

EPA’s Positive Matrix Factorization 

(PMF) analysis. Accordingly, the ODEQ 

selected control strategies to reduce 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and provided 

a demonstration that implementation of 

these strategies would bring the area 

into attainment by the attainment date. 

The ODEQ’s attainment plan for 

Klamath Falls focused on controlling 

direct PM2.5 emissions to attain the 2006 

24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS. Notably, this was 

the predominant strategy for controlling 

PM2.5 in Tacoma, Washington, which is 

similarly impacted by direct PM2.5

emissions from residential wood smoke 

and was recently redesignated to 

attainment as a result of its 

implementation of residential wood 

smoke direct PM2.5 control strategies. In 

support of this control strategy, the 

ODEQ attainment plan and supporting 

analyses showed that: (1) The Klamath 

Falls area attained the standard, (2) 

control of direct PM2.5 would reduce 

exceedances of the NAAQS, and (3) 

emissions from residential wood 

combustion were the largest 

contributors to PM2.5 on polluted days. 

The EPA reviewed the ODEQ’s 

attainment plan and proposes to find 

that this approach to direct PM2.5 and 

precursors is appropriate for the 

Klamath Falls area and is consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. 

1. Quality Assured Monitoring Data 

Showing Attainment 

As described in Section II. Finding of 

Attainment, the Klamath Falls area met 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during 

the 2012–2014 monitoring period using 

the approach to direct PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants adopted by the 

State in the submitted attainment plan. 

Given the area’s attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and continued 

attainment, it follows that no additional 

controls of direct PM2.5 and precursors 

beyond those described in the 

attainment plan are necessary for the 

area to timely attain the NAAQS. 

Because EPA’s longstanding approach to 

precursors under subpart 4, as 

explained in the General Preamble, 

authorizes a state to establish that it can 

attain the NAAQS expeditiously by 

focusing on some but not all precursors, 

the EPA believes that the ODEQ’s 

submitted attainment plan for the 

Klamath Falls area is consistent with 

this aspect of subpart 4. 

As previously discussed in the 

Attainment Demonstration section III. 

E., the ODEQ demonstrated the ability 

to reduce the emissions in Klamath 

Falls below 35 mg/m3 by December 

2014. Control measures considered for 

demonstrating attainment are discussed 

in section III. H. RACT/RACM below, 

and the chosen methods primarily focus 

on the reduction of direct PM2.5. Table 

1 in the Attainment Demonstration 

section identifies the 2008 baseline 

design value as 45.1 mg/m3 and then 

shows how the direct PM2.5 projected air 

quality benefits from the chosen control 

strategies will achieve a future design 

value in 2014 below 35 mg/m3. The 

RACT/RACM section will also identify 

that other reductions would be needed 

to advance the attainment date by one 

year, but that the remaining control 

measures were determined to not be 

economically and/or technologically 

feasible, or collectively amount to 

reductions necessary to advance 

attainment by one year—1.67 mg/m3. 

2. Control of Direct Emissions of PM2.5

Would Reduce Exceedances of the 

NAAQS 

The ODEQ determined that direct 

PM2.5 was the primary contributor to 

winter time exceedances in the Klamath 

Falls area. As is typical of many areas 

in the Pacific Northwest region that 

experience PM2.5 exceedances from 

anthropogenic sources, these 

exceedances occur during the winter 

when temperatures are low and air 

stagnation conditions are present. These 

conditions lead to increases in 

residential wood heating which generate 

the majority of direct PM2.5 emissions 

reaching the monitor. This relationship 

is supported by a SANDWICH (Sulfate, 

Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water, 

Inferred Carbonaceous Material Balance 

Approach) chemical speciation analysis 

on days that exceeded the standard and 

an analysis of primary and secondary 

organic aerosols conducted by Portland 

State University (PSU), as discussed 

above. 

The SANDWICH chemical speciation 

analysis determined that PM2.5 mass on 

days exceeding the standard was 80% 

organic and elemental carbon. The PSU 

study showed that the contributions 

from both biogenic and anthropogenic 

sources of secondary organic aerosols 

were minor, contributing 1% and 3%, 

respectively, to the total PM2.5 design 

value. The bulk of emissions causing 

exceedances were from directly emitted 

organic and elemental carbon PM2.5 (See 

attainment plan attachments 3.3f, 3.3g1, 

3.3g2). Based on this weight of 

evidence, the ODEQ concluded that 

direct PM2.5 was the primary contributor 

to exceedances of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5

NAAQS at the regulatory monitor in the 

Klamath Falls area. 

3. Emissions From Residential Wood 

Combustion Were the Largest 

Contributors to PM2.5 on Polluted Days 

The 2008 emissions inventory 

compiled by the ODEQ calculated a 

direct PM2.5 emissions rate of 654.7 tpy. 

Approximately 62% of the total annual 

emissions were attributable to area 

sources, primarily of emissions from 

residential wood combustion. Worst 

case daily emissions of direct PM2.5

were calculated at 5,420 pounds (lbs) 

per day with 53% of total emissions 

attributable to area sources, primarily 

emissions from residential wood 

combustion. To assess how these 

emissions translated into contributions 

at the monitor, the EPA conducted a 

PMF analysis as discussed above based 

on speciated data from the Klamath 

Falls violating monitor. The results of 

the PMF analysis showed that emissions 

of residential wood smoke contributed 

an estimated 64–72% of total PM2.5

concentrations at the monitor 

(attachment 3.3h). Residential wood 

combustion also emits small amounts of 

SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia, 4%, 2%, 

11%, and 6%, respectively, of the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21822 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4The General Preamble acknowledges that states 

can take into account reductions from existing 

control requirements. 57 FR 13358, April 16, 1992. 

inventory for these precursors on the 

‘‘worst case day.’’ So not only did 

primary organic and elemental carbon 

make up over 60% of the PM2.5 mass at 

the monitor based on the emissions 

inventory data, PMF analysis, and 

speciation analyses, but control 

measures to address residential wood 

combustion also had the collateral 

benefit of reducing the precursor 

inventory. 

General PM2.5

According to the SANDWICH and 

PSU analyses secondary PM2.5

conservatively comprised 20% of the 

PM2.5 in Klamath Falls on days with 

monitored PM2.5 concentrations above 

25 mg/m3. By species, the percentages 

were 9.6% for nitrate, 4.2% for particlebound water, 3% for anthropogenic 

secondary organic aerosols (SOA), 1.6% 

for sulfate, 1% for biogenic SOA, and 

0.7% for ammonium. 

The 2008 baseline emission inventory 

for NOX was 2,236 tpy annually and 

15,483 lbs/day during wintertime PM2.5

episodes. The non-road and on-road 

mobile source categories contributed 

70% to annual and worst case day NOX

emissions. The ODEQ’s 2014 attainment 

inventory showed decreases from 2008 

of over 30% in NOX on-road and nonroad mobile source emissions attributed 

to federal mobile source control 

measures.4 The decrease of 3,425 lbs/

day from motor vehicle controls was 

greater than the NOX emissions from all 

the stationary point sources combined, 

two of which are already subject to NOX

controls. The remaining 9% of NOX

emissions were spread among area 

sources such as natural gas combustion 

and residential wood combustion. 

Other secondary species were 

similarly small components and were 

generally emitted by multiple source 

categories. While VOCs were the largest 

source of precursor emissions on a 

pound per day basis (2,910.4 tpy 

annually; 22,754 lbs/day during 

wintertime episodes), the anthropogenic 

secondary organic carbon produced 

from such emissions only contributed 

3% of the PM2.5 mass. Emissions of 

VOCs were split among the stationary 

point sources (45%), area sources 

(30%), and mobile sources (25%). Much 

of the SO2 (109.9 tpy; 1,046 lbs/day) 

emissions were from fuel oil 

combustion, with the resulting 

ammonium sulfate and associated 

particle-bound water contributing less 

than 5% of the PM2.5 mass. Ammonium 

on its own, disassociated from its sulfate 

and nitrate, was less than 1% of the 

PM2.5 mass. Based on the weight of 

evidence provided in the attainment 

plan, the EPA finds that the ODEQ 

appropriately considered all precursors 

in their analysis. 

Industrial PM2.5

With respect to emissions of PM2.5

precursors from major stationary 

sources pursuant to section 189(e), the 

analyses discussed above, which were 

conducted for all sources generally, are 

similarly applicable to control of 

precursor emissions from stationary 

sources. The ODEQ identified four Title 

V stationary sources with annual 

primary PM2.5 emissions exceeding 10 

tpy for consideration in its RACT 

analysis. These sources were identified 

in the 2008 baseline emissions 

inventory as Columbia Forest Products 

(48.9 tpy), Collins Forest Products (48.4 

tpy), Klamath Energy Cogeneration (39.9 

tpy) and Jeld-Wen (17.3 tpy). Emissions 

of direct PM2.5 from all other stationary 

sources in the aggregate amounted to 

less than 10 tpy. A consideration in the 

ODEQ’s assessment of these facilities 

was AERMOD modeling which 

indicated that all industrial point 

sources combined contributed only 1% 

of the baseline primary PM2.5 design 

value, as opposed to residential wood 

combustion which accounts for roughly 

two-thirds. These sources are located 

relatively far away from the area where 

the greatest PM2.5 concentrations 

existed, as confirmed by the monitoring 

saturation study, compared to 

residential wood combustion which 

showed a much greater impact on PM2.5

concentrations. Also, industrial 

stationary source stacks send emissions 

higher into the atmosphere, and the 

inversions that trap area and mobile 

source emissions near the ground also 

reduce mixing of the elevated stack 

emissions to the surface. 

In summary, the ODEQ provided data 

and analyses indicating that direct PM2.5

was the main cause of exceedances of 

the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard in 

Klamath Falls and that precursor 

emissions are relatively minor 

contributors to monitored violations in 

the Klamath Falls area. 

H. Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACT/RACM) 

The Klamath Falls attainment plan 

addressed the RACT/RACM 

requirement under subpart 1. It did not 

directly discuss whether the analysis 

and selection of RACT/RACM also 

meets the subpart 4 requirements 

determined to be applicable in NRDC v. 

EPA because the Court decision 

occurred after the ODEQ’s submittal of 

the attainment plan, and preliminary 

monitoring data showed that the area 

was on a path to come into attainment 

concurrent with the EPA’s deadline for 

any additional submittals under subpart 

4. The EPA in this notice addresses 

whether the RACT/RACM analysis 

complies with subpart 4 as well as 

subpart 1, and evaluates whether 

application of subpart 4 criteria would 

affect the control measures identified as 

part of the ODEQ’s control strategy for 

the Klamath Falls area. 

The general SIP planning 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

under subpart 1 include section 

172(c)(1), which requires 

implementation of all RACM (including 

RACT). The CAA section 172(c) 

indicates that what constitutes RACM or 

RACT is related to what is necessary for 

attainment in a given area, as the 

provision states that nonattainment 

plans shall provide for attainment of the 

NAAQS in the area covered by the 

attainment plan. 

The EPA based its remanded 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule on the 

general attainment plan requirement for 

RACM and RACT in section 172(c). The 

EPA included requirements for the 

process by which states should 

determine and establish what control 

measures would constitute RACM and 

RACT level controls for appropriate 

sources in a given nonattainment area. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the 

EPA provided that a state should submit 

a demonstration that it had adopted all 

RACM and RACT ‘‘necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable and to meet RFP 

requirements.’’ The EPA also required 

states to include a ‘‘list of the potential 

measures considered by the state, and 

information and analysis sufficient to 

support the state’s judgment that it has 

adopted all RACM, including RACT.’’ 

Moreover, in 40 CFR 51.1010(b), the 

EPA provided that a state could 

determine that certain otherwise 

available control measures are not 

RACM or RACT for sources in the area 

if, considered cumulatively, the 

measures not adopted would not 

advance the attainment date in the area 

by at least one year. 

The SIP planning requirements under 

subpart 4 likewise impose upon states 

an obligation to develop attainment 

plans that impose RACM and RACT on 

sources within a nonattainment area. 

Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that states 

with areas classified as moderate 

nonattainment areas must have SIP 

provisions to assure that RACM and 

RACT level controls are implemented 

by no later than four years after 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21823 

designation of the area. As with subpart 

1, the terms RACM and RACT are not 

defined within subpart 4. Nor do the 

provisions of subpart 4 specify how 

states are to meet the RACM and RACT 

requirements. However, the EPA’s 

longstanding guidance in the General 

Preamble provides recommendations for 

appropriate considerations for 

determining what control measures 

constitute RACM and RACT for 

purposes of meeting the statutory 

requirements of subpart 4. 

The EPA’s existing guidance for 

RACM and RACT under subpart 4 is 

comparable to the approach that the 

EPA set forth in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule. The EPA’s 

guidance for RACM under subpart 4 in 

the General Preamble includes: (1) A list 

of some potential measures for states to 

consider; (2) a statement of the EPA’s 

expectation that the state will provide a 

reasoned explanation for a decision not 

to adopt a particular control measure; 

(3) recognition that some control 

measures might be unreasonable 

because the emissions from the affected 

sources in the area are de minimis; (4) 

an emphasis on state evaluation of 

potential control measures for 

reasonableness, considering factors such 

as technological feasibility and the cost 

of control; and (5) encouragement that 

states evaluating potential control 

measures imposed upon municipal or 

other governmental entities also include 

consideration of the impacts on such 

entities, and the possibility of partial 

implementation when full 

implementation would be infeasible 

(e.g., phased implementation of 

measures such as road paving). 57 FR 

13540, April 16, 1992. 

With respect to RACT requirements, 

the EPA’s existing guidance in the 

General Preamble: (1) Noted that RACT 

has historically been defined as ‘‘the 

lowest emission limit that a source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility;’’ (2) noted that 

RACT generally applies to stationary 

sources, both stack and fugitive 

emissions; (3) suggested that major 

stationary sources be the minimum 

starting point for a state’s RACT 

analysis; and (4) recommended that 

states evaluate RACT not only for major 

stationary sources, but for other source 

categories as needed for attainment and 

considering the feasibility of controls. 

57 FR 13540 at 13541, April 16, 1992. 

For both RACM and RACT, the EPA 

notes that an overarching principle is 

that if a given control measure is not 

needed to attain the relevant NAAQS in 

a given area as expeditiously as 

practicable, then that control measure 

would not be required as RACM or 

RACT because it would not be 

reasonable to impose controls that are 

not in fact needed for attainment 

purposes. In both the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule interpreting the 

subpart 1 RACM and RACT 

requirements and the General Preamble 

making recommendations for the 

subpart 4 RACM and RACT 

requirements, the focus is upon the 

process to identify emissions sources, to 

evaluate potential emissions controls, 

and to impose those control measures 

that are reasonable and that are 

necessary to bring the area into 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable, but by no later than the 

applicable attainment date for the area. 

The only exception is if the 

economically and technically feasible 

measures not adopted as RACT/RACM 

will collectively advance attainment by 

at least a year, then those measures must 

be adopted in most cases. 

In its submitted attainment plan for 

the Klamath Falls area, the ODEQ 

addressed the RACM and RACT 

requirements of subpart 1 as interpreted 

by the EPA in the remanded 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule. The EPA 

proposes to find that the ODEQ RACM 

and RACT analysis also meets the 

requirements of subpart 4 as explained 

in the General Preamble. As described 

below, the ODEQ evaluated which 

measures would constitute RACM and 

RACT in the Klamath Falls area. 

1. First, the ODEQ ascertained that 

control of direct PM2.5 emissions was 

necessary for attainment and that 

available RACM for direct PM2.5 would 

obviate the need for additional controls 

for SO2, NOX, NH3, and VOCs, beyond 

existing federal and state controls, in 

order to attain the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As described in the Characterization of 

Klamath Falls Air Shed section above, 

the ODEQ identified direct PM2.5 as the 

primary pollutant causing violations at 

the regulatory monitor in Klamath Falls, 

and was able to show that available 

RACM for direct PM2.5 were sufficient to 

demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24- 

hr PM2.5 standard by the subpart 1 

attainment date of December 2014. 

The EPA agrees that there are not 

additional reasonable controls available 

to reduce emissions of SO2, NH3, VOC, 

and NOX that collectively would 

provide for attainment of the standard 

by at least one year sooner than 

provided for in the attainment 

demonstration. The EPA believes that 

the ODEQ’s assessment of precursors 

sufficiently demonstrates that adoption 

of additional precursor controls is not 

reasonable or necessary for continued 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the subpart 4 requirements. 

2. Second, the ODEQ evaluated the 

relevant emissions sources in the area. 

The ODEQ’s control strategy focused 

primarily on RACM from ‘‘non-point 

sources’’ (i.e., area sources) given that 

analyses showed direct PM2.5 from these 

sources was the main contributor to 

exceedances of the PM2.5 standard. 

While there was limited ability for 

controls on PM2.5 precursors to advance 

attainment, this notice shows that there 

are existing controls on industrial and 

on road mobile precursor sources. As 

such, the attainment plan benefits from 

strategies that have already been 

considered and enacted and that 

applied to ‘‘point sources’’ (i.e., major 

stationary sources), non-road mobile 

sources, and on-road mobile sources. 

Major stationary sources are controlled 

through the ODEQ’s permitting 

programs and the mobile sources have 

been addressed via national and state 

measures expected to reduce mobile 

source emissions through fuel economy 

standards and vehicle emissions 

standards including Oregon Low 

Emission Vehicle regulations (LEV II/

Tier 2 emissions standards). Table 2 

provides a chart of certain RACT/RACM 

implemented for the Klamath Falls area. 

The table provides the RACT/RACM in 

two sections: Current Strategies and 

New Strategies. The current strategies 

are those that were initiated between 

2007–12 and the future strategies are 

those that were initiated in 2012. All 

measures are being implemented 

currently. A full discussion of the 

RACT/RACM evaluated by the ODEQ is 

available in the Klamath Falls 

Attainment Plan. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21824 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—RACT/RACM IN KLAMATH FALLS

Emission reduction measure Sector Pollutant 

addressed 

Current Strategies (2007–present), currently implemented but not 

accounted for in the 2008 base year EI 

Residential Wood Combustion: 

Klamath Woodstove Curtailment Program—revised with lower thresholds & 

increased enforcement (Clean Air Ordinance).

Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Woodstove Change-out Programs .................................................................... Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Heat Smart program removal of uncertified woodstoves upon sale of home .. Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Open Burning: Shortened Open Burning Window (Klamath Clean Air Ordinance) Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Fuel and Transportation Related: 

Low Emission Vehicle Program ......................................................................... Mobile ..................................................... SOX, NOX

Road Paving ...................................................................................................... Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Diesel Retrofits .................................................................................................. Mobile ..................................................... PM2.5

Fuel Economy .................................................................................................... Mobile ..................................................... SOX

Industrial Point Sources: Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)— 

hardboard and particleboard facilities.

Point ........................................................ PM2.5, SOX

New Strategies (2012–present) 

Residential Wood Combustion: 

Fireplace Standard ............................................................................................ Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Public Awareness .............................................................................................. Area ........................................................ PM2.5

Industrial Point Sources: 

Opacity, Operation and Maintenance Plan Requirements ................................ Point ........................................................ PM2.5

Offset Requirements .......................................................................................... Point ........................................................ PM2.5

Road Dust: Highway Road Sanding practices ......................................................... Area ........................................................ PM2.5

3. Third, the ODEQ has a 

demonstrated history of implementation 

success with respect to particulate 

matter control strategies. Given that the 

Klamath Falls area devised control 

measures to address nonattainment for 

PM10 in the past, the area was already 

implementing a number of relevant 

control strategies with demonstrated 

efficacy. For purposes of attaining the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the ODEQ 

and Klamath County strengthened some 

of these existing strategies, which were 

previously considered RACT/RACM for 

purposes of attaining the PM10 NAAQS, 

to achieve PM2.5 reductions to meet the 

stricter PM2.5 standard (Klamath Falls 

PM10 Attainment Plan—62 FR 18047, 

April 14, 1997, PM10 Maintenance 

Plan—68 FR 60036, October 21, 2003). 

In addition to considering the range of 

implemented strategies that had 

effectively controlled emissions to attain 

the PM10 NAAQS, the ODEQ and the 

Klamath Falls community formed the 

Klamath Air Quality Advisory 

Committee (KAQAC) to evaluate and 

develop additional RACM/RACT at the 

county level to approve into the 

Klamath Falls PM2.5 attainment plan. 

The KAQAC and the ODEQ contributed 

to the formal RACT/RACM analysis of 

current and future control strategies and 

provided recommendations to the 

county commissioners for approval. 

The RACT/RACM adopted and 

updated by the ODEQ for the Klamath 

Falls area were projected to reduce the 

24-hour PM2.5 design value by 

approximately 11.7 mg/m3 by 2014 (see 

table 3 below). Accordingly, the plan 

demonstrated attainment by projecting 

that the area’s design value would be 

reduced from the 2008 base year design 

value of 45mg/m3 to below 35mg/m3 in 

2014. Recent monitoring data for 2012– 

14 indicate that the plan was effective, 

reducing the design value to 34 mg/m3. 

TABLE 3—RACT/RACM PROJECTED AIR QUALITY BENEFIT FOR THE KLAMATH FALLS AREA

RACT/RACM 

Projected 

air quality 

benefit 

(μg/m3) 

Primary measures: 

Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated) ................................................................................................................................................ 9.6 

• Woodstove curtailment—lower thresholds and increased enforcement 

• Shorter open burning window 

Woodstove Change-out Programs ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 

Heat Smart—woodstove change-out upon sale of home ...................................................................................................................... 0.3 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) particleboard and hardboard ................................................................................ 0.1 

subtotal 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 11.0 

Additional measures: 

Public Awareness ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 

New fireplace standards ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions .......................................................................................................................................... Minimal. 

• Diesel Retrofits 

• Low Emission Vehicle Program 

• Fuel Economy 

Road Paving ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Minimal. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21825 

TABLE 3—RACT/RACM PROJECTED AIR QUALITY BENEFIT FOR THE KLAMATH FALLS AREA—Continued 

RACT/RACM 

Projected 

air quality 

benefit 

(μg/m3) 

subtotal 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.7 

Total ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11.7 

As seen in Table 3, the most 

important control strategies address 

residential wood combustion because 

the emissions inventory and sourcereceptor analyses identified residential 

wood combustion as the most 

significant contributor to PM2.5 at the 

monitor on days that exceed the 

standard. The residential wood 

combustion strategies include an 

ongoing woodstove change-out program 

to replace woodstoves with cleaner, 

more efficient devices, and an updated 

Klamath Clean Air Ordinance that 

includes a strengthened woodstove 

curtailment program to reduce 

woodstove emissions on days when 

exceedances of the standard are most 

likely to occur. 

The woodstove change-out program in 

Klamath Falls has proven effective for 

meeting the PM10 standard and again 

was selected as a primary RACT/RACM 

strategy for the PM2.5 attainment plan. 

The program, currently implemented by 

the City of Klamath Falls, provides 

financial incentives for homeowners to 

replace older uncertified woodstoves 

with newer, cleaner certified 

woodstoves. Between 2008 and 2011, 

the change-out program replaced 584 

uncertified woodstoves in the area. The 

removal and destruction of the old 

woodstoves assures that the emissions 

reductions are permanent, and the 

change-outs are enforceable because 

there is a statewide building code that 

prohibits the installation of any 

uncertified woodstove in the future. The 

584 uncertified stoves that have been 

changed out were estimated in the 

attainment demonstration to collectively 

provide emission reductions that would 

lead to an air quality improvement of 

1.0 mg/m3. The ODEQ intends to 

continue its financial support of this 

program in the future for purposes of 

meeting and maintaining the standard, 

but it has not taken any credit in the 

attainment demonstration for future 

change-outs. 

Previous wood burning curtailment 

programs were important in helping this 

area attain the 1987 PM10 standard and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Klamath 

Clean Air Ordinance, updated in 2007 

and again in 2012, is the RACM 

providing the greatest emissions 

reductions in the attainment 

demonstration at 9.6 mg/m3. The 

Ordinance includes a curtailment 

program that restricts combustion in 

residential solid fuel-fired appliances on 

yellow and red advisory days when the 

county’s air pollution forecast is for 

high PM2.5 concentrations. The 

curtailment program is implemented 

through advisories communicated to the 

community on a daily basis. On yellow 

advisory days when the predicted 

forecast is for a 24-hour average PM2.5

between 16 and 30 mg/m3, residents 

within the air quality zone are 

prohibited from using non-certified 

woodstoves, non-certified woodstove 

insert, or a fireplace. Only certified solid 

fuel-fired appliances and pellet stoves 

can be used. On red advisory days, 

called when PM2.5 levels are forecast to 

be above 30 mg/m3, the operation of 

woodstoves is prohibited except in 

limited cases where Klamath County 

has granted a prior hardship exemption. 

Use of pellet stoves are still allowed on 

red days. The Ordinance also limits 

open burning of residential yard debris 

to only 15 days of the winter period. 

These days are selected based on a 

forecast of good ventilation. In addition, 

the ODEQ has committed biennial 

funding to assist with the County’s 

implementation and enforcement of the 

strengthened curtailment program 

(attachments 3.3r1 and 3.3r2). The 

curtailment program is a permanent and 

enforceable measure. The program was 

duly adopted as a Klamath County 

ordinance and as part of the ODEQ’s 

administrative rules. It imposes 

restrictions on wood burning when the 

PM2.5 forecast reaches certain 

thresholds, and establishes clear and 

enforceable restrictions during yellow 

and red advisory days. 

Together, the woodstove change-out 

and curtailment programs account for 

over 95% of the calculated PM2.5

emissions reductions (10 mg/m3) needed 

to demonstrate attainment. The 

implementation of earlier versions of 

these programs helped Klamath Falls to 

successfully attain the PM10 NAAQS 

and to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The ODEQ’s RACT/RACM analyses 

determined that implementation of the 

curtailment and woodstove change-out 

programs as control strategies, in 

conjunction with other adopted 

strategies providing minor emissions 

reductions, would provide for 

expeditious attainment of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additional control strategies, listed in 

Table 3, include the following: The 

Oregon Heat Smart program, that 

requires removal of uncertified 

woodstoves upon the sale of homes (0.3 

mg/m3); emissions reductions for 

implementation of Federal MACT 

standards establishing tighter opacity 

standards applicable to hardboard and 

particle board manufacturers in the 

nonattainment area (0.1 mg/m3); 

programs to enhance public awareness 

to ensure effective compliance with the 

Klamath Air Quality Ordinance and 

general proper woodstove burning and 

maintenance (0.6 mg/m3); new fireplace 

standards (0.1 mg/m3); emissions 

reductions from Federal fuel economy 

standards and state vehicle emissions 

regulations; and road paving to reduce 

re-entrained road dust. The public 

awareness measure is considered a 

voluntary measure and has been funded 

annually by the ODEQ for purposes 

meeting the PM2.5 standard. While not a 

permanent and enforceable measure, the 

program to enhance education, 

outreach, and public awareness is key to 

supporting the implementation of the 

curtailment including compliance rate 

and the implementation of the 

woodstove change-out programs. Details 

of the intergovernmental agreement 

between the ODEQ and Klamath County 

can be found in attachment 3.3s, 

including the statement of work, 

funding provided, and performance 

measures. Further discussion of these 

ancillary measures can be found in the 

Klamath Falls Attainment Plan 

(attachments 3.3a, p28–40; 3.3s). 

Existing controls on industrial sources 

are also implemented within the 

Klamath Falls nonattainment area. The 

stationary sources identified in the 

ODEQ’s RACT analysis already had 

limits in place for direct PM2.5 and 

precursors, due to existing permitted 

controls or anticipated future controls 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21826 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

such as the hardboard and particle 

board Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT 40 CFR part 63 

subpart DDDD). As such, the ODEQ 

assumed no emissions growth for major 

permitted point sources in the modeling 

demonstration between 2008 and 2014. 

For example, Klamath Energy 

Cogeneration facility is a natural gas 

fired power plant with selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) which limits 

NOX emissions. Between the 2008 

baseline emissions inventory and the 

2014 attainment year inventory, direct 

PM2.5 emissions were predicted to 

decline from 39.3 to 19.3 tpy, however 

all precursors were predicted to remain 

stable due to permit limits (NOX = 172.2 

tpy, SO2 = 19.5 tpy, VOC = 82.5 tpy, and 

NH3 = 68.9 tpy). The Jeld-Wen facility 

includes a variety of business types 

such as wood products and chrome 

plating, with 2014 attainment year 

inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 

VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 10.9, 

37.6, 1.9, 165.9, and 0.3 tpy, 

respectively. Direct PM2.5 emissions at 

Jeld-Wen were projected to decline from 

17.3 tpy in 2008 to 10.9 tpy in 2014 due 

to the hardboard and particle board 

MACT discussed above, but all other 

precursor emission were projected to 

remain constant due to existing permit 

controls. Collins Products is a 

reconstituted wood products facility 

that uses primarily natural gas, with 

2014 attainment year inventories of 

direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3

emissions equal to 31.0, 9.4, 0.1, 529.8, 

and 0.0 tpy, respectively. Most of the 

larger emission units at Collins Products 

were controlled via fabric filters for 

particulate matter. The hardboard bake 

oven was also controlled by a 

regenerative thermal oxidizer/

regenerative catalytic oxidizer for VOC 

control. Direct PM2.5 emissions at 

Collins Products were projected to 

decline from 48.4 tpy in 2008 to 31.0 

tpy in 2014, also due to the hardboard 

and particle board MACT, with all 

precursor emissions projected to remain 

constant due to existing permit limits. 

Columbia Forest Products is a plywood 

manufacturer with 2014 attainment year 

inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 

VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 48.9, 

53.5, 1.4, 41.2, and 0.3 tpy, respectively. 

The facility has two wood fired boilers, 

one of which was equipped with a 

multiclone for particulate matter 

control. Direct PM2.5 and all precursors 

were projected by the ODEQ to remain 

stable between 2008 and the 2014 

attainment year inventory due to the 

existing permit controls. 

For on-road mobile sources, in the 

2014 attainment year inventory the 

ODEQ projected significant NOX

emission reductions gained through 

improved motor vehicle fuel economy 

and emissions standards, with little 

opportunity for improvement among the 

remaining smaller sources. Other 

secondary species were demonstrated to 

be minor contributors to PM2.5 mass and 

their emissions are distributed among 

multiple source sectors. Emissions of 

NOX, NH3, and VOCs are projected to 

moderately decrease by 2014 due to 

Federal mobile source controls 

including the Tier 2 Emission Standards 

for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur 

Standards. These emission control 

requirements result in lower VOC and 

NOX emissions from new cars and light 

duty trucks, including sport utility 

vehicles. The Federal rules were phased 

in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has 

estimated that, by the end of the phasein period, the following vehicle NOX

emission reductions will occur 

nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty 

vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, 

minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 

percent); and, larger sports utility 

vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 

95 percent). VOC emission reductions 

are expected to range from 12 to 18 

percent, depending on vehicle class, 

over the same period. The ODEQ 

estimated the on-road emissions 

reductions due to federal rules (Tier 2) 

in the attainment year. Additional onroad emission reductions are expected 

to occur as the fleet continues to turn 

over and new Tier 3 vehicle and fuel 

standards are phased in. In July 2000, 

the EPA issued a The Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engine Rule, effective in 2004, which 

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel. A second phase 

took effect in 2007 which further 

reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur 

content to 15 parts per million, leading 

to additional reductions in combustion 

NOX and VOC emissions. This proposed 

rule is expected to achieve a 95% 

reduction in NOX emissions from diesel 

trucks and buses. The EPA issued the 

Nonroad Diesel Rule in 2004. This 

proposed rule applies to diesel engines 

used in industries, such as construction, 

agriculture, and mining. It is estimated 

that compliance with this proposed rule 

will cut NOX emissions from nonroad 

diesel engines by up to 90 percent. 

Some of these emission reductions were 

projected to occur by the 2014 

attainment year with additional 

emission reductions following 

attainment. 

As shown in table 1, the control 

strategies included in the attainment 

plan were projected to provide direct 

PM2.5 projected air quality benefits 

resulting in an 11.7 mg/m3 reduction in 

the 24-hour PM2.5 design value, to a 

2014 modeled value of 34.6 mg/m3. The 

implementation of these control 

strategies brought the area into 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 2014. Consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in NRDC v. 

EPA, the control measures identified by 

the ODEQ as RACM and RACT need to 

meet the requirements of section 

189(a)(1)(C), which requires that all 

RACM for a Moderate area be 

implemented by no later than four years 

after designation. The Klamath Falls 

area was designated nonattainment on 

November 13, 2009, and thus according 

to section 189(a)(1)(C), all necessary 

RACT/RACM should have been 

implemented by no later than November 

2013. The ODEQ and Klamath County 

adopted and began implementing the 

control measures identified as RACM/

RACT prior to the submission of the 

Klamath Falls attainment plan to the 

EPA in December 2012. Consequently, 

the EPA believes that the ODEQ 

complied with the four-year RACT/

RACM implementation requirement. 

4. Fourth, the ODEQ and the KAQAC 

identified and evaluated a wide range of 

additional potential control measures as 

described in the KAQAC report. The 

KAQAC report evaluated additional 

control measures for purposes of 

determining if they could reasonably 

provide additional substantive 

emissions reductions. Between March 

2011 and February 2012, the KAQAC 

met 13 times to review the state of air 

quality in Klamath Falls and develop 

recommendations of suggested control 

measures for approval by the Klamath 

County Commissioners and 

incorporation into the ODEQ’s 

attainment plan as RACT/RACM. The 

KAQAC reviewed 79 control measures 

and evaluated the measures in light of 

factors such as environmental, health, 

economic, social, and technological 

feasibility. The KAQAC’s findings and 

recommendations are summarized in 

the ODEQ’s Klamath Falls attainment 

plan and presented in attachments 

3.3p–q. 

Although the ODEQ and Klamath 

County considered a wide range of 

additional strategies, a majority of the 

strategies were eliminated as not 

reasonable because they were 

determined to be technologically or 

economically infeasible. For this reason, 

many of these control measures were 

screened out early in the process 

through application of the EPA’s criteria 

for determination of RACT/RACM, and 

were therefore not quantified for 

purposes of determining if they would 

advance the attainment date by one 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21827 

year. Given that the area needed to 

identify 10 mg/m3 of reductions over six 

years (e.g., 2008 base year to 2014 

attainment year) to get from 45 mg/m3 to 

35 mg/m3, one year of reductions was 

roughly 1.67 mg/m3 for the Klamath 

Falls attainment plan. The remaining 

control measures were provided by the 

KAQAC as a set of recommended 

RACT/RACM for the Klamath County 

Commissioners to adopt. The final 

control measures adopted by Klamath 

County were included in the plan with 

additional control measures adopted by 

the ODEQ to satisfy the RACT/RACM 

planning requirements. The emissions 

reductions from the implementation of 

the adopted enforceable measures are 

sufficient to demonstrate attainment and 

provide a buffer below the 35 mg/m3

standard. 

In the Klamath Falls Attainment Plan 

(pages 45–47), the ODEQ applied the 

primary control measures to the base 

year design value to demonstrate that 

they would be able to bring the Klamath 

Falls future design value below the 35 

mg/m3 standard. To provide a buffer 

they also took credit for additional 

emissions reductions attributed to the 

new fireplace standards and the 

education program. Table 3 in this 

document identifies the measures that 

the ODEQ identified as necessary to 

bring the area below the standard as 

primary measures and these account for 

approximately 11.0 mg/m3. Table 3 also 

includes the additional controls that 

meet the RACM/RACT criteria, listed as 

additional measures, and shows that 

they account for approximately 0.7 mg/ 

m3 of emissions reduction. With the 

information provided in the submittal 

the EPA identified that these additional 

measures of 0.7 mg/m3 were not enough 

to advance the attainment date by one 

year (i.e., 1.67 mg/m3). 

Not Necessary for Attainment 

As described in this action, the 

exceedances at the Peterson School 

monitor were from direct PM2.5, and the 

main source category responsible for 

emissions of direct PM2.5 was residential 

wood combustion. In the attainment 

demonstration, the economically and 

technologically feasible control 

measures chosen by the ODEQ focused 

on reduction of direct PM2.5 from 

residential wood combustion. The two 

major controls were in the form of 

strengthening the woodstove 

curtailment program and the change-out 

of residential woodstoves with more 

efficient, lower emissions EPA-certified 

woodstoves. With these measures, the 

ODEQ was able to demonstrate 

attainment by the end of 2014, which 

the area met based upon qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data. 

Not Possible To Advance Attainment by 

One Year 

Under the attainment plan 

requirements, an area must implement 

all reasonably available control 

measures that would advance the date 

of attainment by one year, or as 

expeditiously as possible. In the 

attainment demonstration submitted in 

the Klamath Falls attainment plan, the 

ODEQ identified that the area would 

attain the standard by December 2014. 

As the area already attained the 2006 

24-hr PM2.5 standard in December 2014, 

attaining as expeditiously as possible is 

no longer relevant. 

The EPA proposes to find that the 

ODEQ’s attainment plan meets the 

RACM/RACT requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed approval 

is based upon the State’s compliance 

with the requirements of the general 

preamble and the EPA’s analysis that 

the submitted attainment plan also 

meets the statutory RACM and RACT 

requirements of subpart 4. The plan is 

consistent with subparts 1 and 4 of the 

statute, and with the guidance provided 

in the general preamble, such as 

identifying relevant sources and 

potential control measures for those 

sources, and for evaluating whether 

potential control measures are 

reasonable based upon factors such as 

technological and economic feasibility. 

Most importantly, under either subpart, 

the state is required to determine RACM 

and RACT measures in light of the 

emissions reductions needed to bring 

the area in question into attainment. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the ODEQ’s attainment plan analysis 

sufficiently evaluated the relevant 

sources and controls and appropriately 

selected RACM/RACT measures that 

meet the requirements of subparts 1 and 

4 and provided for the timely 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The ODEQ identified emissions sources, 

evaluated potential control measures, 

and adopted reasonably available 

control measures consistent with CAA 

requirements in subparts 1 and 4, and 

with existing EPA guidance. The 

ODEQ’s attainment plan included 

sufficient information to determine that 

implementation of additional precursor 

controls was unnecessary for timely 

attainment of the NAAQS. Relying on 

its selected RACM/RACT, the ODEQ 

demonstrated attainment with the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. The 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

ODEQ’s analysis and selection of 

RACM/RACT as meeting the 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. 

I. Contingency Measures 

Contingency measures are additional 

measures to be implemented in the 

event that an area fails to attain a 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date, or fails to meet Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP). These measures must be 

fully adopted rules or control measures 

that take effect without any further 

action by the state or the EPA. 

Contingency measures should also 

contain trigger mechanisms and an 

implementation schedule. In addition, 

they should be measures not already 

included in the SIP control strategy, and 

should provide for emission reductions 

equivalent to one year of RFP. 

The ODEQ developed contingency 

measures for the Klamath Falls PM2.5

attainment plan in accordance with the 

contingency measures requirement in 

section 172(c)(9) of subpart 1 of the 

CAA (Subpart 4 does not contain 

contingency measure requirements.) 

The primary contingency measure in the 

ODEQ attainment plan is a prohibition 

on burning in all uncertified fireplaces 

during the winter wood heating season. 

This contingency measure was adopted 

as part of the Klamath County 2012 

Ordinance (attachment 3.3r2) and the 

ODEQ’s administrative rules, and the 

contingency measures automatically 

take effect without any further action by 

ODEQ if the area fails to attain by the 

attainment date. Implementation of the 

fireplace contingency measure was 

projected to reduce the future year 

design value by the one year of RFP 

reductions (1.67 mg/m3 for Klamath 

Falls) expected for contingency 

measures. The EPA proposes to approve 

the contingency measures in the 

Klamath Falls attainment plan as 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(9). The contingency measures 

within the Oregon Administrative Rules 

(OAR) for proposed approval include 

340–240–0570, 340–240–0580, 340– 

240–0610, 340–240–0620, 340–240– 

0630, 340–262–1000 and are listed in 

section V. Incorporation by reference, 

Table 5. 

J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

and Quantitative Milestones 

For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, two 

statutory provisions apply regarding 

RFP and quantitative milestones. First, 

under subpart 1, CAA section 172(c)(2) 

requires attainment plans to provide for 

RFP, which is defined in CAA section 

171(l) as ‘‘such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by [Part D 

of Title I] or may reasonably be required 

by the Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21828 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5See General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, April 16, 

1992; Addendum, 59 FR 42015–17, August 16, 

1994. 

6Merely as examples, EPA noted some potential 

approaches, such as percent implementation of 

control strategies, percent compliance with 

implemented control measures, and adherence to a 

compliance schedule. This list was clearly not 

exhaustive and reflected that the purpose of such 

milestones is merely to provide an objective way to 

assess that the area is making progress towards 

attainment by the applicable attainment date. See 

Addendum, 59 FR 42016, August 16, 1994. 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ Reasonable further 

progress is a requirement to assure that 

states make steady, incremental progress 

toward attaining air quality standards, 

rather than deferring implementation of 

control measures and thereby emission 

reductions until some time just before 

the date by which the standard is to be 

attained. Second, under subpart 4, CAA 

section 189(c) requires that a PM10

NAAQS attainment plan submission 

have ‘‘quantitative milestones which are 

to be achieved every 3 years until the 

area is redesignated to attainment and 

which demonstrate reasonable further 

progress . . . toward attainment by the 

applicable date.’’ 

While the ODEQ’s attainment plan 

was developed to meet the subpart 1 

RFP requirements, the EPA is also 

evaluating the plan to determine 

whether it meets the subpart 4 

quantitative milestones requirement. 

That section is comparable to the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1), in that 

it requires attainment plans under 

subpart 4 to meet a RFP requirement. 

However, section 189(c) also provides 

that an attainment plan should have 

quantitative milestones which are to be 

achieved every three years until the area 

is redesignated to attainment, and 

which demonstrate reasonable further 

progress toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date. The EPA’s 

General Preamble and Addendum 

provide guidance interpreting this 

statutory provision and are useful to 

evaluate this requirement of subpart 4.5

In particular, the EPA’s guidance 

recommendations with respect to 

section 189(c) include several relevant 

features: (1) That the control measures 

comprising the RFP should be 

implemented and in place to meet the 

milestone requirement; (2) that it is 

reasonable for the three year periods for 

milestones to run from the date that the 

attainment plan submission is due; and 

(3) that the precise form quantitative 

milestones should take is not specified 

and they may take whatever form would 

allow progress to be quantified or 

measured adequately.6 As discussed 

below, the EPA believes that the 

ODEQ’s attainment plan adequately 

meets both the RFP and quantitative 

milestone requirements for this area for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

First, although not presented as 

control measures that would achieve 

reductions by a specified three year 

milestone, the ODEQ’s attainment plan 

contained control measures that were 

already implemented and in place and, 

in fact, were achieving necessary 

emission reductions to meet RFP and 

quantitative milestone requirements. 

For example, the woodstoves changeout program commenced in 2008 and 

achieved sustained and quantifiable 

emission reductions between 2008 and 

2011. The ODEQ calculated the 

emissions reductions associated with 

the number of woodstoves exchanged in 

each of those years. In addition, the 

ODEQ quantified the estimated number 

of woodstove change-outs resulting from 

implementation of the Heat Smart 

program and the associated emissions 

reductions for each calendar year. These 

values in turn were relied upon to 

demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour NAAQS by the attainment date 

(refer to Table 9 and Table 10 in 

Attachment 3.3a). 

Second, even under the more 

aggressive 18-month statutory 

attainment plan due date in subpart 4, 

the control measures in the ODEQ’s 

attainment plan were in place and 

achieving reductions within three years 

of submission. The Klamath Falls area 

was designated nonattainment in 

November 2009, and under subpart 4 an 

attainment plan would have been due in 

June 2011. As noted in the RACM/RACT 

discussion (section III.E), the attainment 

plan consisted of control measures 

including past strategies implemented 

prior to 2008 and new strategies 

implemented after 2012. The past 

strategies included the woodstove 

change-out program with emission 

reductions achieved through 

implementation in 2008–2011, the 

Oregon Heat Smart program, and the 

woodstove curtailment program. While 

not explicitly identified as quantitative 

measures in the 2012 ODEQ submission, 

the state relied upon these primary 

control measures in the attainment plan 

to provide the bulk of the emissions 

reductions needed to bring the area into 

attainment, and were achieving 

reductions well within three years from 

the subpart 4 attainment plan 

submission date. In addition, there is no 

need to evaluate whether the attainment 

plan accounts for a second three-year 

milestone because the plan 

demonstrates attainment in December 

2014 before the occurrence of the 

second milestone. 

Third, the ODEQ’s attainment plan 

provided information sufficient to 

quantify the amount of emissions 

reductions to be achieved by pollutant 

and control measure by the December 

2014 attainment date. The 

quantification of reductions is found in 

the emissions inventory table in the 

attainment plan and emissions 

inventory, as well as calculated from the 

emissions reductions associated with 

each control strategy in the attainment 

demonstration (Table 3, above). Thus, 

the attainment plan did quantify the 

emission reductions that would occur at 

a point in time that was appropriate for 

a three year milestone, regardless of 

what the statutory SIP submission date 

was under either subpart 1 or subpart 4. 

The ODEQ’s attainment plan contained 

control measures that achieved annual 

emissions reductions and associated air 

quality improvements between the time 

of the nonattainment designation and 

the time the area attained the standard 

that are sufficient to demonstrate RFP 

under subpart 1. The timely 

implementation of these control 

measures may be viewed as satisfying 

the quantitative milestone requirements 

that apply under subpart 4. 

The EPA proposes to approve the 

submitted Klamath Falls attainment 

plan as meeting both the RFP and 

quantitative milestone requirements. 

The plan provides sufficient data and 

analyses that demonstrate emission 

reductions that provide reasonable 

progress towards attainment in 

December 2014. The key control 

strategies for attainment were 

implemented and achieving emissions 

reductions prior to the attainment plan 

due date under subpart 4 and within the 

three-year quantitative milestone 

requirement. This is consistent with the 

purpose of the milestone requirement 

which is to ‘‘provide for emission 

reductions adequate to achieve the 

standards by the applicable attainment 

date’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 480, 101st Cong. 2d 

Sess. 267 (1990)). The ODEQ 

demonstrated progress toward 

attainment in December 2014 and 

successfully implemented the control 

measures expected to achieve the 

NAAQS by this date. Furthermore, since 

Klamath Falls has attained the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the demonstrated date, 

this provides further support that RFP 

and quantitative milestones were being 

met at the appropriate time. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21829 

K. Conformity Requirements 

Transportation Conformity and the 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

(MVEB) 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

Federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the national 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A) as well as the Oregon 

transportation conformity SIP which 

cites the national rule (77 FR 60627, 

October 4, 2012). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

the EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their long-range 

transportation plans (‘‘plans’’) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIPs) conform to applicable SIPs. This 

is typically determined by showing that 

estimated emissions from existing and 

planned highway and transit systems 

are less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) 

contained in a SIP. 

TABLE 4—2014 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR KLAMATH FALLS

Inventory PM2.5 NOX

Worst Case Winter PM2.5 Season .......................................................... 699 lbs/day .................................... 4,834 lbs/day 

For motor vehicle emissions budgets 

to be approvable, they must meet, at a 

minimum, the EPA’s adequacy criteria 

(40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). The EPA has 

reviewed the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets listed above in Table 4 and 

found that they are consistent with the 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and meet the criteria for 

adequacy and approval. The EPA found 

the budgets located in Table 4 adequate 

(80 FR 45654; July 31, 2015). The EPA 

proposes to approve Oregon’s MVEBs in 

Table 4 for 2014 for the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the Klamath Falls 

nonattainment area. As a clarification, 

only the 2014 MVEB in the submittal is 

applicable to the attainment plan and 

only the 24-hour budget will be used for 

conformity purposes. As such, the EPA 

believes that these motor vehicle 

emissions meet applicable requirements 

for such budgets for purposes of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

M. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event 

Demonstration and Concurrence 

The CAA allows for the exclusion of 

air quality monitoring data from design 

value calculations when there are 

exceedances caused by events, such as 

wildfires, that meet the criteria for an 

exceptional event identified in the 

EPA’s implementing regulations, the 

Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 

50.14. Emissions from wildfires 

influenced PM2.5 concentrations 

recorded at the Klamath Falls Peterson 

School monitor on September 30, 2009; 

August 25, 28 and 31, 2012; and July 30 

and August 5, 2013. The ODEQ 

submitted an exceptional events 

demonstration for the 2009 wildfire 

with which the EPA concurred on June 

29, 2012. The 2009 event had regulatory 

significance for purposes of the 

attainment demonstration in the 

ODEQ’s Klamath Falls attainment plan 

submittal. The ODEQ also submitted an 

exceptional events demonstration for 

the 2012 and 2013 wildfires with which 

the EPA concurred on February 18, 

2015. The exclusion of data influenced 

by the 2012 and 2013 wildfires affected 

the design value for 2012–2014. Further 

details on the ODEQ’s analyses and the 

EPA’s concurrences can be found in the 

docket for this regulatory action. The 

EPA proposes to approve all of the 

concurred dates listed above as detailed 

in the docket as exceptional events to be 

removed from the data set used for 

regulatory purposes and to rely on the 

calculated values that exclude the 

event-influenced data in this proposed 

finding of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA proposes to find that the 

Klamath Falls area attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. The EPA proposes to 

approve the PM2.5 attainment plan for 

the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. 

As explained above, the EPA believes 

that the attainment plan submitted by 

Oregon, though not expressed in terms 

of subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of subpart 4. 

Specifically, the attainment plan 

included a weight of evidence 

demonstration that the area would 

attain by the statutory attainment date 

that applied under a subpart 1 regime 

and a full year before the latest 

allowable subpart 4 moderate area 

attainment date. In addition, the plan 

meets the substantive requirements 

applicable under subparts 1 and 4 for 

RACM/RACT, base-year emissions 

inventories, RFP and quantitative 

milestones, and contingency measures. 

The plan also included MVEBs to be 

used for transportation conformity 

purposes for Klamath Falls. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that the SIP meets applicable 

requirements for purposes of approval 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. The 

EPA also proposes to approve the rules 

submitted and the exceptional event 

demonstration discussed in this action. 

Finally, we propose to determine that 

the area has clean data based on qualityassured and quality-controlled 2012– 

2014 ambient air monitoring data for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if the 

EPA finalizes this determination, it will 

suspend the requirements for the area to 

submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated RACM, RFP, contingency 

measures, and any other planning SIP 

requirements related to the attainment 

of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, so long as the 

area continues to meet the standard. 

Although a CDD suspends the 

requirement for submission of certain 

attainment planning elements, it does 

not relieve the EPA of its responsibility 

to take action on a state’s SIP 

submission. As described in this action, 

the EPA is proposing to fully approve 

the remaining elements of the Klamath 

Falls nonattainment plan as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the rules 

described in this preamble and listed in 

Table 5 below. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21830 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED RULES FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

[EPA approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)] 

State citation Title/Subject State 

effective date 

EPA 

approval date Explanations 

Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs 

Klamath Falls Nonattainment Area Contingency Measures 

240–0570 ................................ Applicability ............................................................................. 12/11/2012 

240–0580 ................................ Existing Industrial Sources Control Efficiency ....................... 12/11/2012 

240–0610 ................................ Continuous Monitoring for Industrial Sources ........................ 12/11/2012 

240–0620 ................................ Contingency Measures: New Industrial Sources ................... 12/11/2012 

240–0630 ................................ Contingency Enhanced Curtailment of Use of Solid Fuel 

Burning Devices and Fireplaces.

12/11/2012 

Division 262—Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices 

262–1000 ................................ Wood Burning Contingency Measures for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas.12/11/2012 

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 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 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 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). 

In addition, this proposed 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 on any Indian 

reservation land in Oregon or any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: April 1, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08384 Filed 4–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0388; FRL–9944–43] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Significant New Use Rule on Certain 

Chemical Substances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant 

new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for three 

chemical substances which were the 

subject of premanufacture notices 

(PMNs). This action would require 

persons who intend to manufacture 

(defined by statute to include import) or 

process any of the chemical substances 

for an activity that is designated as a 

significant new use by this proposed 

rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before 

commencing that activity. The required 

notification would provide EPA with 

the opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit 

the activity before it occurs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 13, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0388, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS