49592 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teree Henderson, Office of the 

Administrator, Office of Small Business 

Programs (mail code: 1230A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

2222; fax number: 202–566–0548; email 

address: henderson.teree@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule? 

The Agency has published a direct 

final rule in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, approving the DBE program 

revisions, because EPA views the 

revisions as noncontroversial and 

anticipates no adverse comment. The 

Agency provided reasons for the 

approval and additional supplementary 

information in the preamble to the 

direct final rule. If EPA receives no 

adverse comment, the Agency will not 

take further action on this proposed 

rule. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

the Agency will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. The 

EPA would then address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

does not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. For further 

information, please contact the persons 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 33 

Environmental protection, Grant 

programs. 

Dated: July 15, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17509 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0004: FRL–9949–69– 

Region 10] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Attainment Plan for 

Oakridge, Oregon PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2012, the 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) submitted, on behalf of 

the Governor of Oregon, a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

to address violations of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter (PM2.5) for the Oakridge PM2.5

nonattainment area (2012 SIP 

submission). The Lane Regional Air 

Protection Agency (LRAPA) in 

coordination with ODEQ developed the 

2012 SIP submission for purposes of 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. On February 22, 2016, the 

ODEQ withdrew certain provisions of 

the 2012 SIP submission (2016 SIP 

withdrawal). The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated 

whether the remaining portions of the 

Oakridge 2012 SIP submission meet the 

applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements. Based on this evaluation, 

the EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

remaining portions of the 2012 SIP 

submission. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0004 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 and Waste, 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: 

Christi Duboiski at (360) 753–9081, 

duboiski.christi@epa.gov, or the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area 

Nonattainment SIP Requirements 

II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and the 

EPA’s Evaluation 

III. Consequences of Disapproved SIP 

Provisions 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA 

promulgated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including annual standards of 15.0 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-hour 

(or daily) standards of 65 mg/m3 based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations (62 

FR 38652). The EPA established the 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 49593 

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/m3 and retained the level of the 

annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 mg/m3 (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 across the United 

States with respect to the revised 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In 

that November 2009 action, the EPA 

designated Oakridge, Oregon, and a 

small surrounding area as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (Oakridge NAA), 

requiring Oregon to prepare and submit 

to the EPA an attainment plan for the 

Oakridge NAA to meet the 2006 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 24- 

hour standards (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. 

B. 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 Natural 

Resources Defense Council 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-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 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 NRDC 

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 NAAQS as 

‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas. The 

final rule also established December 31, 

2014 as the new deadline for the states 

to submit any additional SIP 

submissions related to attainment for 

the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The ODEQ submitted an attainment 

plan for the Oakridge NAA on December 

12, 2012. The plan included measures 

intended to demonstrate attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 

2014. In this notice the EPA evaluates 

the State’s existing attainment plan 

submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

to determine whether it meets the 

applicable statutory requirements. The 

applicable statutory requirements 

include not only the applicable 

requirements of subpart 1, but also the 

applicable requirements of subpart 4. 

This interpretation is consistent with 

the NRDC Court’s decision that the EPA 

must implement the PM2.5 NAAQS 

consistent with the requirements of 

subpart 4. 

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area 

Nonattainment SIP Requirements 

With respect to the requirements for 

attainment plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the EPA notes that the general 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements are found in subpart 1, 

and the moderate area planning 

requirements specifically 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 attainment planning. 

Specifically, the General Preamble 

explains that requirements applicable to 

moderate area attainment plan SIP 

submissions are set forth in subpart 4, 

but such SIP submissions must also 

meet the general attainment 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). 

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 interpretations of the 

statutory requirements that apply to 

moderate and serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas (NAAs) under 

subparts 1 and 4. 

The CAA requirements of subpart 1 

for attainment plans include: (i) The 

section 172(c)(1) requirements for 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) and attainment 

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

requirement to demonstrate reasonable 

further progress (RFP); (iii) the section 

172(c)(3) requirement for emissions 

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

requirements for a nonattainment new 

source review (NSR) permitting 

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

requirement for contingency measures. 

The CAA subpart 4 requirements for 

moderate areas are generally comparable 

with the subpart 1 requirements and 

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

NSR permit program requirements; (ii) 

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

attainment demonstration; (iii) the 

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

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

requirements for RFP and quantitative 

milestones. In addition, under subpart 4 

the moderate area attainment date is as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than the end of the 6th calendar year 

after designation. 

II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and 

the EPA’s Evaluation 

The LRAPA, in coordination with 

ODEQ, developed the 2012 SIP 

submission for the Oakridge NAA that 

was subsequently adopted by the State 

and submitted by the ODEQ to the EPA. 

The following describes the relevant 

contents of the 2012 SIP submission, the 

2016 SIP withdrawal, and the EPA’s 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
49594 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

evaluation of the remaining SIP 

provisions. 

The 2012 SIP submission included 

provisions that address the 

requirements of an attainment plan for 

a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area 

including RACT/RACM, emissions 

inventories, modeling, attainment 

demonstration, transportation 

conformity and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets, RFP and contingency 

measures. 

The 2016 SIP withdrawal included 

the State’s withdrawal of the following 

2012 SIP submission provisions: 

• OAR 340–200–0040—General Air 

Pollution Procedures and Definitions; 

the adopted and amended version of the 

rules and Redline/strikeout version of 

the adopted and amended rules. 

• The LRAPA’s Title 29—Designation 

of Air Quality Areas; the adopted and 

amended version of the rules and 

redline/strikeout version of the adopted 

and amended rules except: 

Æ 29–0010(10)—Oakridge PM2.5

Nonattainment Area definition 

Æ 29–0030 Designation of 

Nonattainment Areas 

• Title 38—Major New Source Review 

• Smoke Management Directive 

The state withdrew OAR–340–200– 

0040, portions of the LRAPA Title 29, 

Title 38 and the Smoke Management 

Directive because they were not 

intended to be included in the SIP 

submission. 

State Nonattainment Area Description 

and Designation 

The 2012 SIP submission contained 

revised portions of the LRAPA Title 29, 

‘‘Designation of Air Quality Areas’’ (29– 

0010(10) and 29–0030) adopted on 

October 18, 2012 that identify and 

describe the Oakridge PM2.5 area and 

lists the Oakridge PM2.5 area as 

nonattainment. The area described as 

the Oakridge PM2.5 nonattainment area 

in the LRAPA Title 29 is consistent with 

the federal nonattainment area 

designated at 40 CFR 81.338. We 

propose to approve the State’s area 

description and listing as 

nonattainment. 

Emissions Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

the development of emissions 

inventories for nonattainment areas. In 

addition, the planning and associated 

modeling requirements set forth in CAA 

section 189(a) make the development of 

an accurate and up-to-date emissions 

inventory a critical element of any 

viable attainment plan. EPA guidance 

specifies the best practices for 

developing emission inventories for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations’’). The 2012 

SIP submission contains planning 

inventories of emission sources and 

emission rates for the base year of 2008 

and the projected attainment year of 

2014. The LRAPA chose the year 2008 

as the base year because it is one of the 

three years used to designate the area as 

nonattainment as well as the middle 

year of the five year period, 2006–2010, 

used for the determining the base year 

design value. Additionally, the LRAPA 

determined that high-quality emission 

information was already available from 

the National Emission Inventory for 

2008. The LRAPA developed the base 

year emissions inventory for the 

nonattainment area. Table 1 provides 

information on the worst case winter 

season day, most relevant to attainment 

planning, as well as the typical winter 

season day. Annual emissions for 

primary PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and 

NH3 can be found in the docket in the 

LRAPA’s SIP submission. The LRAPA 

determined the precursor emissions for 

a typical winter day accounted for less 

than 6 percent of the total PM. The 2012 

SIP submission listed total emissions of 

direct PM2.5 on a typical winter day at 

525 pounds per day (lbs/day). The 

source categories contributing to the 

typical winter day total were identified 

as follows: Area sources, primarily 

RWC, emit 479 pounds per day (lbs/

day); mobile sources, including 

railroads and re-entrained road dust 

emit 44.7 lbs/day; and permitted 

stationary sources emit 0.5 lbs/day. 

TABLE 1—2008 OAKRIDGE; TYPICAL SEASON DAY AND WORST-CASE DAY PM2.5 EMISSIONS

[lbs/day] 

Source sector 

PM2.5 lbs/per day 

Typical season 

day 

Worst case 

day 

Permitted Point ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.5 0.9 

Stationary Area ........................................................................................................................................................ 479.5 480 

Onroad ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38.7 65.1 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................................................... 6.0 6.0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 525 552 

The EPA has reviewed the base year 

emission inventory and believes it 

satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

2008 emissions of the relevant 

pollutants in the Oakridge NAA. Thus, 

the EPA proposes to approve the base 

year emission inventory in the 2012 SIP 

submittal. 

2014 Projected Attainment Inventory for 

the Nonattainment Area 

The 2012 SIP submittal included a 

projected 2014 attainment year 

emissions inventory that supported 

attainment by December 2014. The 2014 

attainment year emissions inventory 

included the same source categories as 

the 2008 base year. Emissions in the 

2014 attainment year inventory were 

adjusted to account for emissions 

increases due to anticipated growth 

between 2008 and 2014 and emissions 

decreases from implementation of the 

control strategies identified in the 

RACM analysis. 

Due to the fact that the Oakridge NAA 

failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

December 31, 2014 attainment date 

projected in the 2012 SIP submission, 

the EPA presumes that the attainment 

year emission inventory was not 

accurate. The quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

from the Willamette Activity Center 

monitoring site from 2012 through 2014, 

yields a design value of 40 mg/m3 and 

confirms that the area did not attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2014. Thus, the EPA 

proposes to disapprove the projected 

2014 attainment year inventory in the 

2012 SIP submission. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 49595 

Federal Requirement for RACM, 

Including RACT 

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 language of section 172(c) 

requires that attainment plans provide 

for the implementation of RACM 

(including RACT) to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, 

what constitutes RACM and RACT is 

related to what is necessary for 

attainment in a given area. 

Subpart 4 also requires states to 

develop attainment plans that evaluate 

potential control measures and impose 

RACM and RACT on sources within a 

moderate nonattainment area that are 

necessary to expeditiously attain the 

NAAQS. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires 

that moderate nonattainment plans 

provide for implementation of RACM 

and RACT no later than four years after 

the area is designated as nonattainment. 

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 

determining which control measures 

constitute RACM and RACT for 

purposes of meeting the statutory 

requirements of subpart 4. 57 FR 13540– 

41. 

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. Accordingly, a RACM and 

RACT analysis is a process to identify 

emissions sources, evaluate potential 

emissions controls, and impose those 

control measures and technologies that 

are reasonable and necessary to bring 

the area into attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, but by no 

later than the applicable attainment date 

for the area. However, the EPA has longapplied a policy that states evaluate the 

combined effect of reasonably available 

control measures that were not 

necessary to demonstrate attainment by 

the statutory attainment, and if they 

collectively advance the attainment date 

by at least one-year the measures should 

be adopted to satisfy the statutory 

requirement that attainment be as 

expeditious as practicable (80 FR 

15369). 

Identification of RACM and RACT 

The LRAPA provided a RACM and 

RACT analysis in Appendix J of the 

2012 SIP submission. The submission 

explained that residential wood 

combustion (RWC) sources (e.g., 

woodstoves, fireplaces, pellet stoves) 

account for 86% of emissions on worstcase winter days when exceedance of 

the NAAQS is most likely to occur. The 

other contributing sources were 

identified as road dust (5%), 

transportation (7.9%) and industrial and 

other unidentified area sources (1.1%). 

The LRAPA also conducted a speciation 

analysis, included in Appendix E of the 

2012 SIP submission, which 

demonstrated that 96% of total 

particulate matter is from organic and 

elemental carbon, with significantly 

smaller amounts of secondary inorganic 

aerosols including nitrate (0.4%), sulfate 

(1%) and ammonium (.03%). Based on 

these and other analyses, the LRAPA 

concluded that RWC was the major 

contributor to PM2.5 concentrations on 

worst-case winter days and focused its 

RACM analysis on this source category. 

Emissions from RWC for winter home 

heating has been a long-standing air 

pollution problem for the Oakridge 

NAA, first identified when EPA 

designated the area nonattainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS. The Oakridge 

nonattainment area PM10 SIP adopted a 

control strategy that specifically 

addressed emissions from RWC (64 FR 

12751). In the 2012 SIP submission for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the LRAPA 

likewise focused on RWC emissions and 

described a suite of control measures 

that included measures in effect from 

the previous approved PM10 attainment 

plan as well as new measures 

specifically intended to address PM2.5. 

While the LRAPA described several 

control measures in the 2012 PM2.5 SIP 

submission, it only relied on emission 

reductions from measures implemented 

after the base year of 2008. These 

measures are: 

• RWC curtailment during adverse 

meteorological conditions and air 

quality advisories are issued: Oakridge 

City ordinance 889; 

• Motor vehicle emission reductions 

due to federal emissions requirements; 

and, 

• Woodstove change outs of 

uncertified stoves to EPA certified 

stoves since 2008. 

In its RACT analysis, the LRAPA 

identified two industrial stationary 

sources in the nonattainment area, a 

rock crusher and ready-mix concrete 

plant, which are described as minor 

sources of direct and precursor 

emissions for purposes of PM2.5. The 

LRAPA asserts that these two small 

sources together emit less than one ton 

per year of PM2.5 emissions and 

contribute less than 1% to the 2008 base 

year emission inventory. The EPA 

National Emission Inventory data for the 

Oakridge NAA as presented in 

Appendix D of the 2012 SIP submission 

(attachment 3.3d, pages 207–210) 

identified precursor emissions for the 

base year of 2008. That data show there 

are no precursor emissions from 

industrial sources in the Oakridge NAA. 

In the 2012 SIP submission, the 

LRAPA reviewed the two stationary 

sources and determined that the air 

pollution control technology installed 

on these sources are the current 

standard for the industry. The rock 

crusher controls emissions of PM2.5

using water spray. The concrete batch 

plant uses baghouse controls to reduce 

PM2.5 emissions. The SIP submission 

did not propose or contain any 

additional control technologies for 

purposes of meeting RACT based on the 

existing particulate matter control 

measures and the minimal contribution 

to PM2.5 concentrations from the two 

small stationary sources. Operating 

permits for these two sources were not 

included in the 2012 SIP submission. 

The EPA’s Evaluation of RACM 

Including RACT 

The measures selected and 

implemented by the LRAPA to meet 

RACM including RACT requirements 

did not provide for attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date in 

the 2012 SIP submission of December 

31, 2014. In addition, the RWC 

curtailment program included in the 

2012 SIP submission, identified as 

Oakridge City Ordinance 889, was 

rescinded and is no longer in effect. A 

new replacement ordinance, Oakridge 

City Ordinance 914 has not yet been 

submitted to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. Based on the foregoing, the 

suite of control measures in the 2012 

SIP submission do not represent RACM 

and RACT and fail to meet the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) and 

section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

disapprove the RACM and RACT 

provisions of the 2012 SIP submission. 

Attainment Demonstration and 

Modeling 

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

PM2.5 moderate area SIP 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 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
49596 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

impracticable. In the attainment 

demonstration of the 2012 SIP 

submission, the LRAPA described how 

the attainment plan would provide the 

emissions reductions needed to bring 

the Oakridge NAA into attainment with 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS no later 

than December 31, 2014. 

All attainment demonstrations must 

project air quality below the standard 

using air quality modeling. The ODEQ 

submitted a modeled demonstration that 

is consistent with the recommendations 

contained in the 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.’’ States should base 

modeling 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. 

The LRAPA used a proportional ‘‘rollforward’’ model to project air quality 

levels into the future. The linear model 

the LRAPA used for the Oakridge NAA 

considered the concentrations of 

individual chemical species analyzed 

from the PM2.5 filters. The model does 

not account for secondary chemistry 

because inert species comprise more 

than 97% of the total PM2.5 in the 

Oakridge NAA. The EPA believes that 

the roll-forward model is an appropriate 

approach for the Oakridge NAA due to 

the limited number of emission sources 

and source categories, the limited 

contribution of secondary aerosol, and 

the even dispersal of emission sources 

across the area. The LRAPA determined 

the emission changes of each species 

from the base year to a future attainment 

year based on emissions growth or 

emissions reduction from trends in 

technology and population, and 

considering both national control 

measures (such as Tier 2 gasoline 

vehicle standards), and control 

measures included as part of the SIP 

submission. These emission changes 

and resulting changes in ambient 

chemical species levels were summed to 

estimate future year projected PM2.5

concentrations. 

The attainment demonstration starts 

with estimating the baseline design 

value for PM2.5. The procedure for its 

calculation is presented in Appendix N 

to 40 CFR 50, ‘‘Interpretation of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Particulate Matter,’’ EPA Guidance 

on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment 

of Air Quality Goals for O3, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze,’’ and the June 28, 2011, 

memorandum from Tyler Fox to 

Regional Air Program Managers, 

‘‘Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 Modeled 

Attainment Test.’’ Ambient PM2.5

concentrations from 2006 to 2010 were 

used to calculate a baseline design value 

of 39.5 mg/m3. Detailed methods on the 

baseline design value calculation are in 

Appendix G of the 2012 SIP submission. 

Quality-assured and certified ambient 

air monitoring data from the Willamette 

Activity Center monitoring site from 

2012 through 2014, yields a design 

value of 40 mg/m3 and confirms that the 

area did not attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2014. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the attainment 

demonstration portion of the 2012 SIP 

submission because the area failed to 

attain by the projected attainment date. 

Reasonable Further Progress 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 

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 before the date by 

which the standard is to be attained. 

Second, CAA section 189(c) requires 

that attainment plans for the PM2.5

NAAQS to include ‘‘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.’’ 

In the 2012 SIP submission, the 

LRAPA did not address RFP and 

quantitative milestone requirements. 

The 2012 SIP submission projected 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

within five years of designation, or by 

December 31, 2014. However, the 

Oakridge NAA failed to attain by 

December 31, 2014. The attainment plan 

control measures therefore did not 

achieve the necessary emission 

reductions that would have been 

necessary to demonstrate RFP or meet 

quantitative milestones, assuming such 

requirements were addressed in the 

2012 SIP submittal. Accordingly, the 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the RFP 

and quantitative milestones elements for 

the 2012 SIP submission. 

Contingency Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires 

that an attainment plan provide for 

implementation of specific contingency 

measures in the event that an area fails 

to attain a standard by its applicable 

attainment date, or fails to meet RFP. 

These measures should consist of other 

available control measures not included 

in the control strategy and must be fully 

adopted rules or 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, and 

should provide for emission reductions 

equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP 

(57 FR 13498). 

While the LRAPA discussed 

contingency measures in the 2012 SIP 

submission, the ordinance enacting the 

contingency measures was not included 

in the SIP submission. Because the 

regulatory text of the contingency 

measures was not included in the 2012 

SIP submission, the EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the 2012 SIP submission 

with respect to the contingency measure 

requirements of the CAA. 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

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 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). 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 the FTA 

to demonstrate that their long-range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) conform 

to applicable SIPs. This demonstration 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 49597 

1On April 1, 1996 the US Department of 

Transportation published a notice in the Federal 

Register describing the criteria to be used to 

determine which highway projects can be funded 

or approved during the time that the highway 

sanction is imposed in an area. (See 61 FR 14363). 

2Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 

transportation conformity include reasonable 

further progress plans and attainment 

demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101). 

3EPA would give a protective finding if the 

submitted control strategy SIP contains adopted 

control measures or written commitments to adopt 

enforceable control measures that fully satisfy the 

emissions reductions requirements relevant to the 

statutory provision for which the implementation 

plan revision was submitted, such as reasonable 

further progress or attainment (40 CFR 93.101 and 

93.120(a)(2) and (3)). The submitted attainment 

plan for the Oakridge NAA does not contain all 

necessary controls to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and therefore is not eligible for a protective 

finding. 

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. 

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, the EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

One of the adequacy criteria requires 

that motor vehicle emissions budgets 

when considered together with all other 

emissions sources, are consistent with 

the applicable requirements for 

reasonable further progress, attainment 

or maintenance (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(iv)). In this case the 

applicable requirement is attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

Oakridge NAA failed to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 

2014, and the submitted motor vehicle 

emissions budgets therefore do not meet 

the aforementioned adequacy criterion. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the submitted budgets. 

III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP 

This section explains the 

consequences of a disapproval of a SIP 

under the CAA. The Act provides for 

the imposition of sanctions and the 

promulgation of a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails 

to submit and the EPA approve a plan 

revision that corrects the deficiencies 

identified by the EPA in its disapproval. 

The Act’s Provisions for Sanctions 

If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a 

required SIP submission, such as an 

attainment plan submission, or a 

portion thereof, CAA section 179(a) 

provides for the imposition of sanctions 

unless the deficiency is corrected within 

18 months of the final rulemaking of 

disapproval. The first sanction would 

apply 18 months after the EPA 

disapproves the SIP submission, or 

portion therefore. Under EPA’s 

sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the 

first sanction imposed would be 2:1 

offsets for sources subject to the new 

source review requirements under 

section 173 of the Act. If the state has 

still failed to submit a SIP submission 

to correct the identified deficiencies for 

which the EPA proposes full or 

conditional approval 6 months after the 

first sanction is imposed, the second 

sanction will apply. The second 

sanction is a prohibition on the 

approval or funding certain highway 

projects.1

Federal Implementation Plan Provisions 

That Apply if a State Fails To Submit 

an Approvable Plan 

In addition to sanctions, if the EPA 

finds that a state failed to submit the 

required SIP revision or finalizes 

disapproval of the required SIP revision, 

or a portion thereof, the EPA must 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the date of the finding if the 

deficiency has not been corrected 

within that time period. 

Ramifications Regarding Conformity 

One consequence if EPA finalizes 

disapproval of a control strategy SIP 

submission is a conformity freeze.2 If we 

finalize the disapproval of the 

attainment demonstration SIP without a 

protective finding, a conformity freeze 

will be in place as of the effective date 

of the disapproval (40 CFR 

93.120(a)(2)).3 The Oakridge NAA is an 

isolated rural area as defined in the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

93.101). As such it does not have a 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO), and there is no long range 

transportation plan or TIP that would be 

subject to a freeze. However the freeze 

does mean that no projects in the 

Oakridge NAA may be found to conform 

until another attainment demonstration 

SIP is submitted and the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets are found adequate or 

the attainment demonstration is 

approved. 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

Proposed Approval 

We propose to approve the following 

elements of the 2012 SIP submission: 

• Description of the Oakridge NAA 

and listing as nonattainment, and 

• The base year 2008 emission 

inventory to meet the section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for emissions inventories. 

Proposed Disapproval 

We propose to disapprove the 

following elements of the 2012 SIP 

submission: 

• The attainment year emission 

inventory to meet the section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for emissions inventories, 

• the section 172(c)(1) requirement 

for reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), including reasonably 

available control technology (RACT), 

• the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement 

for an attainment demonstration, 

• Transportation conformity and 

MVEB, 

• Section 172(c)(2) and section 189(c) 

requirements for RFP and quantitative 

milestones, and 

• Section 172(c)(9) requirement for 

contingency measures. 

V. 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 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 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) 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 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
49598 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 18, 2016. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17714 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 720, 721, and 723 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0650; FRL–9944–47] 

RIN 2070–AJ94 

Significant New Uses of Chemical 

Substances; Updates to the Hazard 

Communication Program and 

Regulatory Framework; Minor 

Amendments to Reporting 

Requirements for Premanufacture 

Notices 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes to 

the existing regulations governing 

significant new uses of chemical 

substances under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) to align these 

regulations with revisions to the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard 

Communications Standard (HCS), 

which are proposed to be cross 

referenced, and with changes to the 

OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard 

and the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) respirator certification 

requirements pertaining to respiratory 

protection of workers from exposure to 

chemicals. EPA is also proposing 

changes to the significant new uses of 

chemical substances regulations based 

on issues that have been identified by 

EPA and issues raised by public 

commenters for Significant New Use 

Rules (SNURs) previously proposed and 

issued under these regulations. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing a minor 

change to reporting requirements for 

premanufacture notices (PMNs) and 

other TSCA section 5 notices. EPA 

expects these changes to have minimal 

impacts on the costs and burdens of 

complying, while updating the 

significant new use reporting 

requirements to assist in addressing any 

potential effects to human health and 

the environment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0650, 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 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand deliver or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at: http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Jim 

Alwood, Chemical Control Division, 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8974; email address: 

alwood.jim@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture (defined 

by TSCA to include import), process, or 

use chemical substances subject to 

regulations in 40 CFR part 721. The 

following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Manufacturers or processors of 

chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 

and 324), e.g., chemical manufacturing, 

and petroleum and coals manufacturing. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 

2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine 

that a use of a chemical substance is a 

‘‘significant new use.’’ EPA must make 

this determination by rule after 

considering all relevant factors, 

including those listed in TSCA section 

5(a)(2). Such rules are called 

‘‘significant new use rules’’ (SNURs). 

Once EPA determines that a use of a 

chemical substance is a significant new 

use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires 

persons to submit a significant new use 

notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days 

before they manufacture or process the 

chemical substance for that use (15 

U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). Section 5(a)(1)(A) 

of TSCA requires persons to notify EPA 

at least 90 days before manufacturing a 

new chemical substance for commercial 

purposes (under TSCA manufacture 

includes import). Section 3(9) of TSCA 

defines a ‘‘new chemical substance’’ as 

any substance that is not on the TSCA 

Inventory of Chemical Substances 

compiled by EPA under section 8(b) of 

TSCA. 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing changes to general 

requirements for SNURs in 40 CFR part 

721, Significant New Uses of Chemical 

Substances. Most of the proposed 

changes are changes to the standard 

significant new uses for new chemical 

SNURs identified in subpart B which 

apply to chemical substances when they 

are cited in subpart E. Other proposed 

changes are procedural changes to the 

general provisions in subpart A that 

apply to all SNURs. EPA is also 

clarifying in the preamble of this 

proposed rule some definitions 

contained in 40 CFR part 721 and 

proposing a minor change to reporting 

requirements for TSCA section 5 notices 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS