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

American Housing Programs, Office of 

Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th 

Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 

20410–8000; telephone number 202– 

401–7914 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339.’’ 

Dated: May 12, 2016. 

Camille E. Acevedo, 

Associate General Counsel for Legislation and 

Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11747 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0051; FRL–9946–51– 

Region 10] 

Extension of the Attainment Date for 

the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour PM2.5

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a 1- 

year extension of the attainment date for 

the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment 

area to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to 

December 31, 2016, on the basis that the 

State has met the criteria for such an 

extension under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2016–0051 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information that is restricted by statute 

from disclosure. Certain other material, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at http://

www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 

10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. The EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Spenillo at (206) 553–6125, or 

email address spenillo.justin@epa,gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for the Proposed Action 

II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment 

Date 

III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year 

Extension 

A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015 

B. Oakridge Requirements and 

Commitments in the Applicable SIP 

IV. Summary of Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for the Proposed Action 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued 

its final action to revise the PM2.5

NAAQS to establish revised 24-hour 

standards (71 FR 61144). In that action, 

we promulgated identical revised 

primary and secondary PM2.5 standards 

designed to protect public health and 

welfare that specified a 24-hour PM2.5

average concentration of 35 mg/m3. 

Specifically, the 2006 standards require 

that the 3-year average of the annual 

98th percentile concentration may not 

exceed 35 mg/m3. 

On November 13, 2009, the EPA 

issued a final rule designating all areas 

throughout the country for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, effective December 

14, 2009 (74 FR 58688). In that action, 

the EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon 

and a small surrounding area as a 

nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA) 

based on monitor values at the 

Willamette Activity Center in Oakridge. 

As a result of this nonattainment area 

designation, Oregon is required to 

prepare and submit to the EPA a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to 

meet attainment plan requirements and 

to bring the Oakridge NAA into 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The State submitted an 

attainment plan submission for the 

Oakridge NAA to the EPA by letter 

dated December 12, 2012 (2012 

Oakridge Plan). 

On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 428, holding that the EPA 

erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS only pursuant to the provisions 

of subpart 1 of the Act, rather than the 

particulate matter specific provisions of 

subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). 

The Court did not vacate the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, but remanded it to the EPA 

with instructions to promulgate a new 

implementation rule for the PM2.5

NAAQS in accordance with the 

requirements of both subpart 1 and 

subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent 

with the Court’s remand decision, the 

EPA withdrew its March 2012 

Implementation Guidance 

recommending that states rely on the 

2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for 

development of attainment plans for the 

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

EPA withdrew the guidance it initially 

provided to states for meeting 

attainment plan requirements for 

purposes of areas designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, such as the Oakridge 

NAA. 

On June 2, 2014, in response to the 

NRDC decision that it implement the 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to subpart 4, the 

EPA promulgated the ‘‘PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule’’ (79 FR 31566). In that 

action, the EPA classified all areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

as ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment areas. 

That rule also provided guidance to 

states on how to meet the subpart 4 

requirements and set a deadline of 

December 31, 2014 for states to submit 

any revisions to previously submitted 

attainment plan submissions, as 

necessary to meet subpart 4 

requirements. Thus, the EPA classified 

the Oakridge NAA as a Moderate 

nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS and provided an 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31203 

opportunity for the state to revise the 

2012 Oakridge Plan. 

A Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment 

area’s ambient air quality status is 

determined in accordance with 

Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50. To show 

attainment of the current 24-hour and 

annual standards for PM2.5, data from 

the most recent three consecutive years 

prior to the area’s attainment date must 

show that PM2.5 concentrations over the 

prior three year period are at or below 

the levels of the standards. A complete 

year of air quality data, as described in 

part 50, Appendix N, is comprised of all 

four calendar quarters with each quarter 

containing data from at least 75 percent 

of the scheduled sampling days. 

The EPA begins processing and 

analyzing data related to the attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS after the applicable 

attainment date for the affected areas. 

Current EPA regulations, under 40 CFR 

part 58, set the deadline for the state to 

certify its air quality data in the Air 

Quality System (AQS) database by May 

1 of the following year. Under section 

179(c), the EPA is required to determine 

as expeditiously as practicable, but not 

later than 6 months after the applicable 

attainment date, whether a 

nonattainment area has attained the 

relevant NAAQS. In the case of a state 

with an area that qualifies for an 

extension of the attainment date under 

section 188(d), however, the EPA has 

discretion instead to extend the 

attainment date for an area if the state 

requests the extension and meets the 

statutory criteria for such an extension. 

II. Criteria for an Extension of the 

Attainment Date 

CAA section 188(d) allows states to 

apply for, and the EPA the discretion to 

grant, a 1-year extension to the statutory 

attainment date for Moderate PM10

(particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of a nominal 10 micrometers) 

nonattainment areas. Section 188(d) 

establishes two criteria that the EPA 

must consider to grant a requested 

attainment date extension: (1) The state 

has complied with all requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the area in 

the applicable implementation plan, 

and (2) no more than one exceedance of 

the 24-hour NAAQS level for PM10 has 

occurred in the area in the year 

preceding the extension year and the 

annual mean concentration of PM10 in 

the area for such year is less than or 

equal to the level of the annual 

standard. Section 188(d) also provides 

for the possibility that the EPA may 

grant a second 1-year extension if the 

Moderate area meets the specified 

criteria. No more than two 1-year 

attainment date extensions may be 

granted for a single nonattainment area. 

The provisions of section 188(d) thus 

allow a state an opportunity to 

demonstrate that a Moderate area 

should continue to be classified as 

Moderate and not reclassified to 

Serious, even if the area has monitor 

data exceeding the level of the 

applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

calendar year preceding the otherwise 

applicable attainment date. Although 

section 188(d) provides the criteria for 

such an extension, the EPA believes that 

there are some ambiguities in the 

statutory language that warrant 

interpretation. Thus, in this action the 

EPA is proposing to interpret the 

requirements of section 188(d) in 

evaluating the extension request from 

the State. 

The most significant issue that the 

EPA must address is how to interpret 

the air quality requirement of section 

188(d)(2) in light of the fact that the 

statutory language refers to PM10 rather 

than to PM2.5, and the fact that the air 

quality requirement is phrased as ‘‘no 

more than one exceedance’’ of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS in the year prior to 

the otherwise applicable attainment 

date. Based upon the NRDC decision, 

there can be no doubt that the EPA must 

interpret the references to PM10 in 

section 188(d)(2) to encompass PM2.5. 

Given that fact, however, the EPA 

cannot read the ‘‘no more than one 

exceedance’’ requirement to apply 

literally to the PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the distinct differences in the form of 

the PM10 NAAQS and the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The statutory language addressing 

PM10 in CAA section 188 explicitly sets 

ambient air quality conditions for an 

attainment date extension in terms that 

relate factually to the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS that was in effect at the time of 

the 1990 Amendments of the CAA, 

which has a statistical form that is 

substantially different from the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement in 

188(d)(2) states that an extension may 

be granted if ‘‘no more than one 

exceedance of the 24-hour national 

ambient air quality standard level for 

PM10 has occurred in the area in the 

year preceding the Extension Year, and 

the annual mean concentration of PM10

in the area for such year is less than or 

equal to the standard level.’’ Given the 

form of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, the 

requirement that an area have no more 

than one ‘‘exceedance’’ meant that there 

could be no more than one monitored 

value over the numerical level of the 

NAAQS. Such an approach is logical 

when the form of the 24-hour NAAQS 

allows one exceedance per year, on 

average, over a three year period. By 

having no more than one exceedance, 

the state was meeting the NAAQS in 

that last year, even if it did not yet meet 

the requirements for attainment over the 

requisite three year period. In other 

words, the state would be close to 

attaining the NAAQS, thus making one 

year extension a potentially appropriate 

way provide additional time for a state 

to come into attainment without the 

need for a reclassification to Serious and 

additional SIP planning efforts. By 

contrast, the form of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is a 98th percentile-based 

form and not a ‘‘one expected 

exceedance’’ form as is the PM10

NAAQS. Under the form of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, there can be a 

number of exceedances of the numerical 

level of the NAAQS that are permitted 

and are not considered a violation of the 

NAAQS. Thus, under the form of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS an area 

could be close to attaining the NAAQS 

in the year prior to the attainment date, 

even if there were one or more dates 

with monitored ‘‘exceedances.’’ 

Therefore the statutory language 

requires some interpretation with regard 

to how it applies to the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For this action, the EPA is proposing 

to interpret section 188(d) for purposes 

of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a way that 

is equivalent to the ‘‘no more than one 

exceedance’’ condition that Congress 

imposed for purposes of the PM10

NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA 

interprets the requirement to 

demonstrate that the area had ‘‘no more 

than one exceedance’’ of the level of the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to mean that the 

state must demonstrate that the area had 

‘‘clean data’’ in the year proceeding the 

extension year. Thus, a state seeking an 

attainment date extension for a 

Moderate nonattainment area for a 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be required 

to demonstrate that the area had 

monitor data showing no monitored 

violations of the NAAQS in light of the 

statistical form of that particular 

standard (i.e., for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 98th percentile value 

did not exceed 35 mg/m3) in the 

calendar year prior to the applicable 

attainment date for the area. 

An additional issue that the EPA must 

address concerning the air quality 

requirement of section 188(d)(2) is 

whether a state seeking an extension for 

purposes of a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

only, must nevertheless meet the 

portion of section 188(d)(2) that refers to 

the annual ambient air quality of such 

an area. The EPA notes that statutory 

language of section 188(d) does provide 

that a state seeking an extension of a 

Moderate area attainment date must 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31204 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

have not more than one exceedance of 

the 24-hour NAAQS ‘‘and’’ meet an 

annual ambient level requirement as 

well. The EPA believes that reading this 

provision to require a state to meet both 

tests, even when the state has an area 

that is designated nonattainment only 

for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

seeking an extension of only the 

attainment date for such NAAQS, is not 

a logical interpretation of the provision. 

Such a reading would be logical were 

the area at issue designated 

nonattainment for both the 24-hour 

NAAQS and the annual NAAQS, but 

not if designated nonattainment only for 

one of those standards. 

The EPA is proposing to interpret 

section 188(d) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to require a state only to 

establish that it meets the air quality 

requirement with respect to the 24-hour 

NAAQS when seeking an extension of 

the attainment date only for the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes this 

interpretation of section 188(d)(2) is 

appropriate for two main reasons. First, 

while most PM10 nonattainment areas 

were designated nonattainment for 

either just the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS or 

for both the 24-hour and annual PM10

NAAQS, the majority of current PM2.5

nonattainment areas are, in contrast, 

designated for either the 24-hour or the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and should 

arguably only need to demonstrate clean 

data for the NAAQS for which the area 

is designated nonattainment. For those 

few PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

designated for both 24-hour and annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA believes it also 

is appropriate that a state must only 

demonstrate clean data for the specific 

NAAQS for which the state is seeking 

an attainment date extension because 

such an approach is consistent with the 

statute’s overall approach to designating 

nonattainment areas and implementing 

control strategies for each separate PM2.5

NAAQS. Second, if an area is 

designated as nonattainment for both 

the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards 

and receives an extension for one 

standard while still working toward a 

later attainment date for the other 

standard, the EPA maintains that public 

health protection would not be delayed 

because the state would still be subject 

to the ongoing mandate to adopt and 

implement measures to ensure 

expeditious attainment of the other 

standard. 

Section 188(d)(1) of the Act also 

provides that the state must have ‘‘. . . 

complied with all requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the area in 

the applicable implementation plan.’’ 

As with section 188(d)(2), the EPA 

believes that there are some ambiguities 

in the statutory language that warrant 

interpretation in order to evaluate the 

State’s extension request. The EPA 

proposes to interpret this provision to 

mean that the state has submitted a SIP 

submission to address the attainment 

plan requirements for the applicable 

PM2.5 NAAQS and that the state has 

implemented the control measures in 

the SIP submission. This proposed 

interpretation is based on the plain 

language of section 188(d) that does not 

explicitly require that the state comply 

with all requirements applicable to the 

area in the CAA, but merely requires 

that the state comply with all 

requirements in the applicable SIP. In 

other words, the EPA believes that 

section 188(d)(1) should be interpreted 

to mean that so long as the state has 

submitted the necessary attainment plan 

for the area for the applicable PM2.5

NAAQS and is implementing the 

control measures in the submission, the 

fact that the EPA has not yet acted on 

such submission to make it an approved 

part of the applicable SIP should not be 

a barrier to the state obtaining an 

extension of the attainment date under 

section 188(d)(1). 

Under this proposed interpretation, 

therefore, the state has to demonstrate 

that it has submitted an attainment plan 

to the EPA for the relevant PM2.5

NAAQS and that the state is 

implementing control measures in that 

SIP submission. Because the extension 

at issue under section 188(d) is an 

extension of a Moderate area attainment 

date, it follows that the control 

measures in the attainment plan 

submission would be those measures 

that the State intended to meet the 

RACM and RACT requirements. The 

EPA interprets the requirement of 

section 188(d)(1) that the state have 

complied with the ‘‘requirements and 

commitments’’ of the applicable 

implementation plan to mean that the 

state must be implementing the control 

measures in the submitted attainment 

plan. The state must have adopted and 

submitted the attainment plan SIP 

revision to the EPA, but the state can 

qualify for the extension even if the EPA 

has not yet taken action on the SIP 

submission. 

In sum, in order for the EPA to make 

a decision on whether to grant a 1-year 

attainment date extension, the state is 

required to submit sufficient 

information to demonstrate that it has 

both complied with all requirements 

and commitments in the applicable 

implementation plan, and that it had 

‘‘clean’’ air quality data in the 

attainment year, as explained above. 

Any decision made by the EPA to 

extend the attainment date for an area 

would be based on facts specific to the 

nonattainment area at issue. 

Section 188(d) does not specify the 

process by which the EPA should 

evaluate and act upon requests from 

states for an extension of the Moderate 

PM2.5 area attainment date. However, 

the EPA believes that an attainment date 

extension should only be granted after 

the EPA provides notice in the Federal 

Register and an opportunity for the 

public to comment. Requiring noticeand-comment rulemaking allows for 

appropriate evaluation of the relevant 

criteria and facts in order to assure that 

the extension is granted or denied after 

full evaluation. This process also is 

consistent with past practice by the EPA 

in granting attainment date extensions 

for PM2.5 areas. If this proposal is 

finalized, then the nonattainment area 

would remain classified as Moderate for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS throughout the 

2016 calendar year. After the December 

31, 2016 attainment date, the EPA will 

evaluate air quality data and other 

relevant information to determine 

whether the area has attained the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2016 

attainment date. 

III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year 

Extension 

On December 14, 2015, the State of 

Oregon submitted a request to extend 

the Moderate area attainment date for 

the Oakridge NAA for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 

to December 31, 2016. This request 

contained documentation intended to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

criteria for a 1-year attainment date 

extension for this area pursuant to CAA 

section 188(d). On February 11, 2016, 

the Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) submitted an Oakridge 

Extension Request Follow-up, that 

provides the final quality-assured air 

quality data for 2015 and 

documentation of efforts to implement 

the 2012 Oakridge plan during the 

2015–16 winter. The EPA is evaluating 

this request in light of its statutory 

interpretations of section 188(d) with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015 

The LRAPA implements the CAA on 

behalf of the State in the Oakridge NAA. 

The LRAPA monitors ambient PM2.5 at 

one monitoring site in the Oakridge 

NAA at the Willamette Activity Center, 

the area of expected highest 

concentrations. The air monitor began 

operation in 1989 and has monitored 

continuously to the present. The 

monitor is a Federal Reference Method 

sampler, sampling every third day. The 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31205 

EPA has previously approved the State’s 

monitoring network including the PM2.5

network for Oakridge. The EPA verified 

in 2010 and 2013 that the PM2.5 sample 

collection and filter handling 

procedures met Federal requirements 

for quality assurance and control. The 

LRAPA reviews and certifies all data 

from this monitor for compliance with 

these procedures and submits the data 

to the ODEQ. The ODEQ then submits 

the certified data to the EPA AQS data 

system. 

The ODEQ submitted complete 

certified PM2.5 monitor data for calendar 

year 2015 into the EPA AQS data system 

before February 28, 2016. Likewise, the 

state has submitted certified data for 

calendar years 2013 and 2014 to the 

EPA AQS data system. Thus, the EPA 

AQS data system contains sufficient 

data for the EPA to evaluate whether the 

Oakridge NAA attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory 

attainment date of December 31, 2015, 

but also the requisite data to determine 

whether the Oakridge NAA was meeting 

the NAAQS in calendar year 2015 in 

order to qualify for a one year extension 

under section 188(d). 

As explained above, the EPA is 

interpreting the air quality criterion of 

section 188(d)(2) in order to reflect the 

different form of the NAAQS for the 

PM10 NAAQS in effect at the time of the 

1990 Amendments to the CAA versus 

the form of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Under this proposed interpretation, a 

state could qualify for a one year 

extension of the Moderate area 

attainment date if the monitor data 

reflects that the area has ambient air 

quality that is at or below the level of 

the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

calendar year preceding the otherwise 

applicable attainment date, i.e., for the 

calendar year prior to the requested 

extension year. The three year average 

of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour 

PM2.5 values for 2013–2015 in the 

Oakridge NAA is 37 mg/m3 and thus the 

EPA cannot find that the area has 

attained the 24-hour standards for this 

3-year period. However, the 98th 

percentile value for the single year of 

2015 in this area is 28.9 mg/m3, which 

is below the level of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. 

Because the Oakridge NAA is 

designated nonattainment only for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the State 

only seeks a one year extension of the 

attainment date with respect to this 

NAAQS. As explained above, the EPA is 

interpreting the air quality criterion of 

section 188(d) to apply only with 

respect to the specific NAAQS for 

which a state seeks an extension. Thus, 

for a state seeking an extension of an 

attainment date for an area designated 

nonattainment only for the 24-hour 

NAAQS, section 188(d) does not require 

the EPA to evaluate the ambient air 

quality in the area with respect to the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Under 

this proposed approach, the monitored 

annual ambient level of PM2.5 in the 

Oakridge NAA is not germane to the 

EPA’s evaluation the extension request. 

However, the EPA notes that the annual 

design value for the Oakridge monitor is 

9.2 mg/m3 for the 2012–2014 period and 

the preliminary design value is 9.6 mg/ 

m3 for the 2013–2015 period. Thus, 

even if the annual ambient monitored 

PM2.5 level were relevant to this 

extension request, the monitored PM2.5

level in the Oakridge NAA is well below 

the 15 mg/m3 level of the 2006 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 12 mg/m3

level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For these reasons, the EPA is 

proposing to find that the State meets 

the ambient air quality criterion for a 1- 

year attainment date extension for the 

Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 

188(d)(2). 

B. Oakridge Requirements and 

Commitments in the Applicable SIP 

On December 12, 2012, the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) submitted a SIP revision to 

address attainment plan requirements 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Oakridge NAA (2012 Oakridge Plan). 

The State intended this SIP submission 

to meet the statutory requirements for 

an attainment plan for purposes of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS based upon the statutory 

requirements and the EPA guidance for 

those requirements available at that 

time. Although the EPA anticipates that 

the state may elect to make an 

additional SIP submission to revise and 

update the 2012 Oakridge Plan, to date 

the State has not done so. 

The State developed the 2012 

Oakridge Plan in order to address the 

ambient PM2.5 problem in this area 

through a control strategy designed to 

focus on the dominant sources of 

emissions in the area. The State has 

concluded that the violations of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Oakridge NAA are primarily due to 

emissions of direct PM2.5 from 

residential wood combustion (RWC) 

from winter time home heating. 

Oakridge is a small rural community 

located in a valley of the western slope 

of the Cascade mountain range. 

Therefore, the State has ascertained that 

reducing emissions of PM2.5 to prevent 

violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS rests 

primarily on RWC curtailment. 

The 2012 Oakridge Plan included new 

control measures to address RWC 

emissions by requiring the curtailment 

of RWC during times when elevated 

levels of PM2.5 are predicted or occur. 

The RWC curtailment control measure 

was adopted, and is enforceable as a 

City of Oakridge ordinance. This 

ordinance, in addition to Oregon’s statewide Heat Smart program, also requires 

the replacement of old uncertified wood 

stoves with EPA certified stoves when 

houses containing uncertified wood 

stoves are sold, and requires the 

installation of EPA certified wood 

stoves in new construction. The State 

provided documentation in the 

attainment date extension request to 

demonstrate the implementation of the 

Oakridge RWC curtailment ordinance. 

Subsequent to the submission of the 

2012 Oakridge Plan submission, the City 

of Oakridge enacted revisions on 

November 15, 2012 and again on 

October 15, 2015 to strengthen the RWC 

ordinance which included lowering the 

threshold for triggering a curtailment or 

‘‘burn ban,’’ imposing a more stringent 

opacity limit, and requiring that only 

dry, seasoned wood be burned for RWC. 

The State plans to submit a SIP revision 

to the EPA in December 2016 that will 

include the most recent RWC ordinance 

revisions. The State and LRAPA 

provided evidence of the adoption and 

implementation of the new revised 

ordinance in support of the extension 

request. Although the State has not yet 

submitted the ordinance revisions to the 

EPA for evaluation, and thus the 

revisions are not yet part of the 

applicable implementation plan, the 

Agency nevertheless considers these 

revisions an important part of the State’s 

strategy for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the Oakridge NAA. 

As explained above, the EPA is 

proposing to interpret the compliance 

with applicable implementation plan 

criterion of section 188(d)(1) to require 

that a state have made a submission 

intended to meet the attainment plan 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and that the state be implementing the 

control measures in that attainment plan 

submission. Under this proposed 

interpretation, a state could qualify for 

a 1-year extension of the Moderate area 

attainment date if the state has 

submitted an attainment plan for the 

relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and 

demonstrates that it is actively 

implementing the commitments and 

requirements of the attainment plan at 

the time of attainment date extension 

request. 

The State developed and submitted 

the 2012 Oakridge Plan to the EPA for 

evaluation. The State also submitted 

information to establish that the control 

measures in the 2012 Oakridge Plan are 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31206 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

in effect and are being implemented by 

the LRAPA at this time as part of the 

attainment date extension request. The 

EPA has reviewed the control measures 

of the submitted 2012 Oakridge Plan 

and the documentation of 

implementation submitted as part of the 

extension request. The docket provides 

documentation of this including the 

official extension request that describes 

supplemental strategies currently 

underway, an expanded city ordinance 

that enhances controls designed to 

reduce emissions from residential home 

heating, and local strategies and efforts 

to reduce emissions. Based upon this 

information, the EPA believes that the 

State and the LRAPA are complying 

with the requirements and 

commitments of the applicable 

implementation plan, as contemplated 

by section 188(d)(1). 

For these reasons, the EPA is 

proposing to find that the State meets 

the compliance with the applicable 

implementation plan criterion for a 1- 

year attainment date extension for the 

Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 

188(d)(1). 

IV. Summary of Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

State has met the criteria for receiving 

a 1-year extension to the Moderate area 

attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as 

provided in section 188(d) of the Act. 

The State is implementing the 

requirements and commitments in the 

applicable attainment plan for the PM2.5

NAAQS in the area, and the 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5 air quality 

value for 2015 is below 35 mg/m3. 

Accordingly, the State has established 

that it meets the criteria of section 

188(d) as the EPA is proposing to 

interpret those requirements for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is therefore proposing to exercise 

the discretion granted to the 

Administrator by section 188(d) of the 

CAA to extend the Moderate area 

attainment date for the Oakridge NAA 

from December 31, 2015 to December 

31, 2016. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 9, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11628 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0164; FRL–9946– 

358–Region 9] 

Determination of Attainment of the 1- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard in the San Joaquin 

Valley Nonattainment Area in 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. This proposed 

determination is based on the most 

recent three-year period (2012–2014) of 

sufficient, quality-assured, and certified 

data. Preliminary data for 2015 are 

consistent with continued attainment of 

the standard in the San Joaquin Valley. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0164 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

lee.anita@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the EPA’s full public comment 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS