72714 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

[FR Doc. 2016–25441 Filed 10–20–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0004; FRL–9954–32– 

Region 10] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Attainment Plan for 

Oakridge, Oregon PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final 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 

(PM2.5) for the Oakridge PM2.5

nonattainment area (2012 SIP 

submission). The Lane Regional Air 

Protection Agency (LRAPA), in 

coordination with the 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 

2012 SIP submission meet the 

applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements. Based on this evaluation, 

the EPA is finalizing partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the remaining 

portions of the 2012 SIP submission. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0004. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information the disclosure 

of which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and 

Waste, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101. The EPA 

requests that, if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

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 by using the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Final Action 

III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On July 28, 2016, the EPA proposed 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove the attainment plan 

submitted by the ODEQ on December 

12, 2012 (81 FR 49592). An explanation 

of the CAA attainment planning 

requirements, a detailed analysis of the 

submittal, and the EPA’s reasons for 

proposing partial approval and partial 

disapproval were provided in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking, and will not be 

restated here. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule ended on 

August 29, 2016. The EPA received no 

comments on the proposal. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA is finalizing approval of the 

following elements of the 2012 SIP 

submission: 

• Description of the Oakridge PM2.5

nonattainment area and listing of the 

area as nonattainment, and 

• The base year 2008 emission 

inventory submitted to meet the CAA 

section 172(c)(3) requirement for 

emissions inventories. 

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

the following elements of the 2012 SIP 

submission: 

• The attainment year emission 

inventory submitted to meet the CAA 

section 172(c)(3) requirement for 

emissions inventories, 

• the reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), including reasonably 

available control technology (RACT), 

submitted to meet the CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) requirements 

for control measures for moderate 

nonattainment areas, 

• the attainment demonstration 

submitted to meet the CAA section 

189(a)(1)(B) requirement for a 

demonstration that the plan will 

provide for attainment by the applicable 

attainment date, 

• the motor vehicle emissions budget 

(MVEB) submitted to meet CAA section 

176 requirement for transportation 

conformity, 

• the demonstration of reasonable 

further progress (RFP) and quantitative 

milestones submitted to meet section 

172(c)(2) and 189(c) requirements for 

RFP and quantitative milestones, and 

• the contingency measures 

submitted to meet the section 172(c)(9) 

requirement for the implementation of 

measures to be undertaken, without 

further action by the state or EPA, if the 

area fails to make RFP or attain the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date. 

III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP 

This section explains the 

consequences of a disapproved SIP 

submission required 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 

Once 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 thereof. Under the EPA’s 

sanctions regulations at 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 CAA. 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


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72715 

2Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 

transportation conformity rules include reasonable 

further progress plans and attainment 

demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101). 

3The EPA 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. 

Federal Implementation Plan Provisions 

That Apply if a State Fails To Submit 

an Approvable Plan 

In addition to sanctions, once 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 two years 

from the date of the finding—if the 

deficiency has not been corrected 

within that time period. 

Ramifications Regarding Conformity 

One consequence of the EPA’s action 

finalizing disapproval of a control 

strategy SIP submission is a conformity 

freeze.2 If the EPA finalizes 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 PM2.5

nonattainment area 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 PM2.5

nonattainment area 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. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

regulations described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

and/or in hard copy at the appropriate 

EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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 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 it 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 20, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA). 

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: October 6, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart MM—Oregon 

■ 2. In 52.1970 (c), amend Table 4—EPA 

Approved Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) Rules for Oregon by: 

■ A. Revising the heading for Title 29; 

and 

■ B. Revising entries 29–0010 and 29– 

0030. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 4—EPA APPROVED LANE REGIONAL AIR PROTECTION AGENCY (LRAPA) RULES FOR OREGON

LRAPA 

citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Title 29—Designation of Air Quality Areas 

29–0010 ....... Definitions ....................................... 10/18/2012 10/21/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except 1–5, 7–9, and 11–15. 

29–0030 ....... Designation of Nonattainment 

Areas.

10/18/2012 10/21/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–25296 Filed 10–20–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0145; FRL–9954–15– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; North 

Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution 

Control Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of North Dakota 

on January 28, 2013 and April 22, 2014. 

The revisions are to Article 33–15 Air 

Pollution Control rules of the North 

Dakota Administrative Code. The 

revisions include amendments to 

update the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) rules and the 

definition of ‘‘volatile organic 

compounds’’; to add particulate matter 

less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(PM2.5) methods of measurement; to 

modify the PM2.5 state ambient air 

quality standard, permissible open 

burning rule, and permit fee processes; 

and, to remove permitting fees for 

sources that operate an air monitoring 

site. The revisions also make clarifying 

changes. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0145. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

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 through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6252, 

dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In our notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on August 25, 2016 (81 FR 

53438), EPA proposed to approve 

revisions to Article 33–15 Air Pollution 

Control rules of the North Dakota 

Administrative Code submitted by the 

State of North Dakota on January 28, 

2013 and April 22, 2014. In this 

rulemaking, we are taking final action 

on revisions submitted in the January 

28, 2013 submittal to update the PSD 

rules; add PM2.5 methods of 

measurement; revise permit fee 

processing; remove permitting fees for 

sources that operate an air monitoring 

site; and make clarifying changes. The 

North Dakota State Health Council 

adopted those amendments on August 

14, 2012 (effective January 1, 2013). In 

addition, we are also taking final action 

on revisions submitted in the April 22, 

2014 submittal to update the PSD rules 

and the definition of ‘‘volatile organic 

compounds’’; revise the PM2.5 state 

ambient air quality standard and 

permissible open burning rule; and 

clarify excess emissions reporting 

requirements. The North Dakota State 

Health Council adopted those 

amendments on February 11, 2014 

(effective April 1, 2014). The reasons for 

our approval are provided in detail in 

the proposed rule. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received no comments on our 

proposed rule. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons expressed in the 

proposed rule, EPA is approving 

revisions to sections of the State’s Air 

Pollution Control rules from the January 

28, 2013 and April 22, 214 submittals. 

A comprehensive summary of the 

revisions in North Dakota’s Air 

Pollution Control rules organized by the 

EPA’s action, reason for ‘‘no action’’ and 

submittal date are provided in Table 1 

and Table 2 below. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES