27540 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 

2021, and effective September 15, 2021, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in FAA 

Order JO 7400.11. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 10, 2021, and 

effective September 15, 2021, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASW TX E5 Rocksprings Four Square 

Ranch Airport, TX [Remove] 

* * * * * 

ASW TX E5 Sonora Canyon Ranch, TX 

[Remove] 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 2, 

2022. 

Martin A. Skinner, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09679 Filed 5–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0125; FRL–9489–01– 

R10] 

Air Plan Approval; OR; Oakridge PM10

Redesignation to Attainment and 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to redesignate 

the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment 

area (Oakridge NAA or Oakridge area) to 

attainment for the 1987 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

particulate matter of 10 microns or less 

(PM10 NAAQS). EPA also proposes to 

approve the Oakridge PM10 maintenance 

plan for the area demonstrating 

continued compliance with the PM10

NAAQS through with the Lane Regional 

Clean Air Agency (LRAPA), submitted 

to EPA on January 13, 2022, along with 

the redesignation request for inclusion 

into the Oregon State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). EPA also proposes to 

approve revisions to LRAPA’s rules to 

reflect the redesignation. Additionally, 

EPA proposes to approve the PM10

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

included in the maintenance plan and 

inform the public that we are starting 

the adequacy process for the proposed 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, 

including a public comment period. 

Finally, EPA proposes to take final 

agency action on the wildfire 

exceptional event request submitted by 

ODEQ on July 22, 2021 and concurred 

on by EPA on April 1, 2022. EPA 

proposes these actions pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0125, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not 

electronically submit any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which 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. 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-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christi Duboiski (15–H13), EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), 

Seattle WA, 98101, at (360) 753–9081, 

or duboiski.christi@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ is used, it refers to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

Redesignation to Attainment 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Submittal 

A. Attainment Determination 

B. Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

1. CAA Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

2. Part D of Title I Requirements 

3. Fully Approved SIP Under CAA Section 

110(k) 

C. Improvement in Air Quality Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

4. Contingency Plan 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 27541 

1See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992. 

2We note that the January 13, 2022 submittal also 

includes the Oakridge PM2.5 redesignation and 

maintenance plan and revisions to the Lane County 

Code, which EPA will address in a separate action. 

3See 40 CFR part 50 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

4AQS is EPA’s official repository of ambient air 

data. 

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

F. State Rule Changes To Reflect the 

Redesignation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background 

EPA revised the NAAQS for 

particulate matter on July 1, 1987, 

replacing standards for total suspended 

particulates, particulate less than 30 

microns in diameter, with new 

standards applying only to PM10 (52 FR 

24634). In 1987, EPA established two 

PM10 standards, an annual standard and 

a 24-hour standard. In 2006, the 24-hour 

PM10 standards were retained but the 

annual standards were revoked, 

effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 

61144, October 17, 2006). On January 

15, 2013 and December 18, 2020, EPA 

announced that it was again retaining 

the PM10 NAAQS as a 24-hour standard 

of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) (78 FR 3086 and 85 FR 82684). An 

area attains the 24-hour PM10 standard 

when the expected number of days per 

calendar year with a 24-hour 

concentration exceeding the standard 

(referred to as an exceedance), is equal 

to or less than one. Oregon’s January 13, 

2022, submittal of the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan addresses the 1987 

24-hour PM10 standard, as originally 

promulgated, and as reaffirmed on 

December 18, 2020. 

On December 21, 1993, EPA 

designated the Oakridge, Oregon urban 

growth boundary as nonattainment for 

PM10 and classified it as moderate under 

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA (58 FR 

67334). The nonattainment area 

designation and classification became 

effective on January 20, 1994, with an 

attainment date for the area of December 

31, 2000. 

The nonattainment designation of the 

Oakridge NAA required Oregon to 

prepare and submit an attainment plan 

to meet statutory and regulatory 

requirements. On December 9, 1996, 

ODEQ submitted an attainment plan 

(1996 attainment plan) to EPA, and on 

March 15, 1999, EPA approved the 

attainment plan (64 FR 12751). The 

1996 attainment plan consisted of an 

attainment year emission inventory, 

control measures that meet reasonably 

available control measures/technology 

(RACM/RACT), attainment 

demonstration, motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEBs), demonstration of 

reasonable further progress (RFP), 

quantitative milestones and contingency 

measures. In addition, on July 26, 2001, 

EPA finalized a determination that the 

Oakridge NAA attained the PM10

NAAQS (Determination of Attainment) 

by the December 31, 2000, attainment 

date (66 FR 38947). 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

Redesignation to Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided that: (1) EPA 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) EPA 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP and applicable Federal 

air pollutant control regulations and 

other permanent and enforceable 

reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved 

a maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA; and (5) the state has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. In this proposed action, EPA will 

review CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

requirements (2) and (5) together as part 

of our evaluation of Oregon’s 

redesignation request. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the ‘‘General 

Preamble,’’ 1 and has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: (1) 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter 

the ‘‘Calcagni Memo’’); (2) ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

and (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

These documents are included in the 

Docket for this proposed action. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s 

Submittal 

EPA proposes to redesignate the 

Oakridge NAA to attainment for the 

1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 

proposes to approve into the Oregon SIP 

the associated Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan. EPA’s proposed 

approval of the redesignation request 

and maintenance plan is based upon 

EPA’s determination that the area 

continues to attain the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met for 

the area. Sections III.A through D of this 

document describe how Oregon’s 

January 13, 2022, submittal satisfies the 

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10

standard. In addition, EPA proposes to 

approve revisions to LRAPA’s rules to 

reflect the redesignation of the Oakridge 

PM10 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

nonattainment areas.2

Oregon’s submittal also addresses 

transportation conformity, MVEBs and 

emissions from wildfire-influenced 

PM10 concentrations recorded in the 

Oakridge NAA in 2020. EPA proposes to 

approve the MVEBs and proposes to 

approve the exclusion of data associated 

with the wildfire exceptional events that 

affected data in September of 2020 for 

purposes of showing continued 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

A. Attainment Determination 

To redesignate an area from 

nonattainment to attainment, the CAA 

requires EPA to determine that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). An area 

has attained the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS if the average number of 

expected exceedances per year is less 

than or equal to one, when averaged 

over a three-year period.3 A state must 

demonstrate that an area has attained 

the PM10 NAAQS through submittal of 

ambient air quality data from an 

ambient air monitoring network for 

PM10 to EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) (40 CFR 58.15 and 58.16(a)). 

Three years of representative data 

should be used (40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix K, 2.3(b)). 

The Exceptional Events Rule 

Congress has recognized that it may 

not be appropriate for EPA to use 

certain monitoring data collected by the 

ambient air quality monitoring network 

and maintained in EPA’s AQS 

database 4 in certain regulatory 

determinations. Thus, in 2005, Congress 

provided the statutory authority for the 

exclusion of data influenced by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
27542 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5Under CAA section 319(b), an exceptional event 

means an event that (i) affects air quality; (ii) is not 

reasonably controllable or preventable; (iii) is an 

event caused by human activity that is unlikely to 

recur at a particular location or a natural event; and 

(iv) is determined by EPA under the process 

established in regulations promulgated by EPA in 

accordance with section 319(b)(2) to be an 

exceptional event. For the purposes of section 

319(b), an exceptional event does not include (i) 

stagnation of air masses or meteorological 

inversions; (ii) a meteorological event involving 

high temperatures or lack of precipitation; or (iii) 

air pollution relating to source noncompliance. 

6 72 FR 13560 (March 22, 2007). 

7 81 FR 68216 (October 3, 2016). We refer herein 

to the 2016 revision as the ‘‘Exceptional Events 

Rule.’’ 

8 40 CFR 50.14(b)(4). 

9As noted above, EPA excluded data for 

September 11, 2020 through September 16, 2020 

from this design value because the Agency 

determined concentrations recorded on those dates 

satisfied the requirements of the Exceptional Events 

Rule. 

10Calcagni Memo, 3; Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 

438 (6th Cir. 2001); and Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 

(6th Cir. 1998). 

11See the General Preamble for further 

explanation of these requirements. 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992). 

‘‘exceptional events’’ meeting specific 

criteria by adding section 319(b) to the 

CAA.5 To implement this 2005 CAA 

amendment, EPA promulgated the 2007 

Exceptional Events Rule.6 The 2007 

Exceptional Events Rule created a 

regulatory process codified at 40 CFR 

parts 50 and 51 (§§ 50.1, 50.14 and 

51.930). These regulatory sections, 

which superseded EPA’s previous 

guidance on handling data influenced 

by events, contain definitions, 

procedural requirements, requirements 

for air agency demonstrations, criteria 

for EPA’s approval of the exclusion of 

event-affected air quality data from the 

data set used for regulatory decisions, 

and requirements for air agencies to take 

appropriate and reasonable actions to 

protect public health from exceedances 

or violations of the NAAQS. In 2016, 

EPA promulgated a comprehensive 

revision to the 2007 Exceptional Events 

Rule.7 Under the Exceptional Events 

Rule, for example, if a state 

demonstrates to EPA’s satisfaction that 

emissions from a wildfire smoke event 

caused a specific air pollution 

concentration in excess of the PM10

NAAQS at a particular air quality 

monitoring location and otherwise 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

50.14, EPA must exclude that data from 

use in determinations of exceedances 

and violations.8

The Oakridge NAA Exceptional Event 

Demonstrations and Concurrences 

The CAA allows for the exclusion of 

air quality monitoring data from design 

value calculations when there are 

NAAQS exceedances caused by events, 

such as wildfires, that meet the criteria 

for an exceptional event identified in 

EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule at 40 

CFR 50.1, 50.14 and 51.930. For the 

purposes of this proposed action, on 

July 22, 2021, ODEQ submitted an 

exceptional events demonstration for 

the purpose of showing that PM10

concentrations recorded at the Oakridge 

Willamette Center monitor from 

September 11, 2020 through September 

16, 2020 were influenced by wildfires. 

EPA concurred on this request on April 

1, 2022. 

EPA found that Oregon’s 

demonstration met the Exceptional 

Events Rule criteria and determined that 

the wildfire event had regulatory 

significance for purposes of calculating 

the area’s most recent design value to 

demonstrate the area continues to attain 

the standard in order to redesignate the 

area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

As such, EPA proposes to take final 

regulatory action on the concurred 

dates, as detailed in the docket for this 

action, as exceptional events to be 

removed from the data set used for 

regulatory purposes. For this proposed 

action, EPA will rely on the calculated 

values that exclude the event-influenced 

data for the purpose of demonstrating 

continued attainment of the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS. Further details on 

Oregon’s analyses and EPA’s 

concurrences can be found in the docket 

for this regulatory action. 

While EPA may agree with Oregon’s 

request to exclude event influenced air 

quality monitoring data from regulatory 

decisions, these regulatory actions 

require EPA to provide an opportunity 

for public comment on the claimed 

exceptional event and all supporting 

data prior to EPA taking final agency 

action. This proposed action provides 

the public with an opportunity to 

comment on the claimed exceptional 

event, all supporting documents and 

EPA’s concurrence with Oregon’s 

request. 

Evaluation of Current Attainment 

As noted previously, on July 26, 2001, 

EPA finalized a Determination of 

Attainment for the Oakridge NAA based 

upon quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 1998–2000 design value period (66 

FR 38947). There were no exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM10 standard during 

this period. Therefore, the expected 

exceedance rate was 0.0, which 

demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS. 

For this proposed action, EPA 

reviewed the most recent PM10 ambient 

air monitoring data in the Oakridge area 

for the monitoring design value period 

of 2018–2020. Consistent with the 

requirements at 40 CFR part 50, this 

ambient monitoring data in EPA’s AQS 

has been quality-assured, qualitycontrolled and certified by ODEQ. The 

24-hour PM10 design value for 2020 was 

0.7, therefore, the average number of 

expected exceedances averaged over a 

three-year period is less than or equal to 

one.9 Thus, EPA concludes that the 

Oakridge area continues to demonstrate 

continued attainment of the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS during the threeyear period ending on December 31, 

2020. 

B. Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the 

CAA require EPA to determine that the 

area has a fully approved applicable SIP 

under section 110(k) that meets all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 (general SIP requirements) and part 

D (SIP requirements for nonattainment 

areas) for the purposes of redesignation. 

We interpret this to mean that, for a 

redesignation request to be approved, 

the state must have met all requirements 

that applied to the subject area prior to, 

or at the time of, submitting a complete 

redesignation request. EPA may rely on 

prior SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request 10 as well as any 

additional measure it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action. 

1. CAA Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP. These requirements include, but 

are not limited to the following: (1) 

Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted 

by the state after reasonable public 

notice and hearing; (2) provisions for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate procedures needed to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) 

implementation of a source permit 

program; (4) provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(PSD); (5) provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

for NSR permit programs; (6) provisions 

for air pollution modeling; and (7) 

provisions for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development.11

We note that SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Similarly, EPA 

believes that the other CAA section 

110(a)(2) (and part D) requirements that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 27543 

12See 75 FR 36023, 36026 (June 24, 2010) and 

citations within. 

13The LRAPA portion of the federally-approved 

Oregon SIP can be viewed at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sips-or/epa-approved-regulations-oregon-sip. 

14See, e.g., 83 FR 24034 (May 24, 2019) and 84 

FR 26347 (June 6, 2019). 

15See 40 CFR 51.160, 51.161, 51.165, and 51.166. 

See also EPA’s proposed approval of Oregon 

nonattainment NSR program (March 22, 2017, 82 

FR 14654, 14663) and EPA’s final approval (October 

11, 2017, 82 FR 47122). 

are not connected with nonattainment 

plan submittals and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation because the area will still 

be subject to these requirements after it 

is redesignated. EPA considers the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) (and part D) 

requirements that relate to a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification as the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of the conformity SIP 

requirement for redesignations.12

EPA has reviewed the Oregon SIP and 

concludes that it meets the general SIP 

requirements under section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable for the purposes of 

redesignation.13 On several occasions, 

Oregon has submitted, and EPA has 

approved, provisions of Oregon’s SIP as 

demonstrating compliance with CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements.14 These 

requirements are, however, statewide 

requirements that are not linked to the 

PM10 nonattainment status of the 

Oakridge NAA. In addition, there are no 

outstanding or disapproved applicable 

SIP submittals with respect to the 

Oakridge portion of the SIP that would 

prevent redesignation of the Oakridge 

NAA for the PM10 NAAQS. Therefore, 

we conclude that ODEQ and LRAPA 

have met all general SIP requirements 

for the Oakridge NAA that are 

applicable for purposes of redesignating 

the area to attainment of the PM10

NAAQS. 

2. Part D of Title I Requirements 

Before a PM10 nonattainment area 

may be redesignated to attainment, the 

state must have fulfilled the applicable 

requirements of part D of Title I of the 

CAA, which sets forth the basic 

nonattainment plan requirements 

applicable to all areas designated 

nonattainment. The general 

requirements are followed by a series of 

subparts specific to each pollutant. 

Subpart 1 of part D establishes the 

general requirements applicable to all 

NAAs, while subpart 4 of part D 

establishes specific requirements 

applicable to PM10 NAAs. The General 

Preamble provides that the applicable 

requirements of subpart 1 (CAA section 

172) are, in relevant part, 172(c)(3) 

(emissions inventory), 172(c)(5) (new 

source review permitting program), 

172(c)(7) (the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2)), and 172(c)(9) 

(contingency measures). It is also worth 

noting that we interpreted the 

requirements of section 172(c)(2) (RFP) 

and 172(c)(6) (other measures) as being 

irrelevant to a redesignation request 

because they only have meaning for an 

area that is not attaining the standard. 

See Calcagni Memo and the General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13530, 13564, dated 

April 16, 1992. Finally, Oregon has not 

sought to exercise the options that 

would trigger CAA section 172(c)(8) 

(equivalent techniques). Thus, these 

provisions are also not relevant to this 

redesignation request. 

The requirements of CAA section 

172(c) and 189(a) regarding attainment 

of the PM10 NAAQS, and the 

requirements of section 172(c) regarding 

RFP, imposition of RACM, the adoption 

of contingency measures, and the 

submittal of an emission inventory have 

been satisfied through our March 15, 

1999, approval of the Oakridge PM10 SIP 

(64 FR 12751). Additionally, on July 26, 

2001, EPA published a finding of 

attainment for the Oakridge PM10 area 

(66 FR 38947). EPA found that the 

Oakridge NAA attained the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS by the moderate PM10

attainment date of December 31, 2000. 

CAA section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires 

source permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA first approved 

the requirements of the part D, subpart 

1 NSR permit program for LRAPA on 

December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747, 

80748). Subsequently, LRAPA revised 

its rules to meet additional part D, 

subpart 4 NSR requirements 

promulgated by EPA (81 FR 58010, 

August 24, 2016) and to align with 

ODEQ’s rules.15 EPA approved LRAPA’s 

rules on October 5, 2018 (83 FR 50274). 

Once the Oakridge NAA is 

redesignated to attainment, the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) requirements of part C of the Act 

will apply. LRAPA’s PSD regulations 

are codified in Title 29 (Designation of 

Air Quality Areas), Title 38 (New 

Source Review) and Title 50 (Ambient 

Air Standards and PSD Increments) in 

conjunction with other provisions 

including but not limited to LRAPA’s 

rules in Titles 12, 31, 34, 35, 40, and 42. 

We most recently approved revisions to 

LRAPA’s PSD program on October 5, 

2018 (83 FR 50274). EPA finds that 

LRAPA’s PSD provisions meet all 

applicable Federal requirements for any 

area designated unclassifiable or 

attainment, and these provisions will 

become fully effective in the Oakridge 

area upon redesignation to attainment. 

CAA section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP 

to meet the applicable provisions of 

CAA section 110(a)(2). As noted above, 

we find that the Oregon SIP meets the 

CAA section 110(a)(2) applicable 

requirements. For purposes of 

redesignation to attainment for the 1987 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS, EPA proposes to 

find that LRAPA has met all the 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of Title I of the CAA in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. 

3. Fully Approved SIP Under CAA 

Section 110(k) 

Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out 

provisions governing EPA’s review of 

SIP submittals. In order for an area to 

qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the 

area must be fully approved under 

section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed 

in Sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of this 

document, for purposes of redesignation 

to attainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS, EPA has fully approved all 

applicable requirements of Oregon’s SIP 

for the Oakridge area in accordance with 

CAA section 110(k). Therefore, the 

criterion for redesignation, set forth at 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), is satisfied. 

C. Improvement in Air Quality Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

In order to approve a redesignation to 

attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of 

the CAA requires EPA to determine that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

emissions reductions that are permanent 

and enforceable, and that the 

improvement is from the 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

implementation of applicable Federal 

air pollution control regulations, and 

other permanent and enforceable 

reductions. 

The Oakridge 1996 attainment plan 

addressed attainment planning 

requirements for the Oakridge moderate 

NAA, including control measures to 

satisfy the RACM requirement and a 

demonstration that attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS would be achieved by the 

required dates. The federally-approved 

1996 attainment plan included 

woodstove change-outs, a voluntary 

residential woodsmoke curtailment 

program, commitment to reduce winter 

road sanding, and the paving of 

unpaved roads to reduce emissions of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
27544 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16A statewide mandate approved by EPA on 

October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122). 

17See 83 FR 5537, February 8, 2018. 18See 64 FR 12751 (March 15, 1999). 

19See Calcagni Memo at 8. 

20ODEQ’s PM10 emission inventory includes 

emissions within the larger Oakridge-Westfir PM2.5

nonattainment area boundary (not the smaller 

Oakridge urban growth boundary). EPA believes 

this is appropriate in this instance (except for when 

calculating the motor vehicle emissions) because 

the Oakridge PM10 nonattainment area encompasses 

the vast majority of the population and activity 

within the Oakridge-Westfir PM2.5 NAA. 

21PM10 precursor emissions should also be 

included depending upon the contribution of the 

secondarily-formed particulate matter to high 

ambient PM10 concentrations in the area. In this 

instance, an inventory of PM10 precursor emissions 

is not required because PM10 precursor controls 

were not relied upon to achieve attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS in the Oakridge planning area (64 FR 

12751, March 15, 1999), nor are they relied upon 

PM10 in the Oakridge NAA. EPA’s 

approval of this SIP made these control 

strategies federally enforceable. 

The historical PM10 air pollution 

problem in the Oakridge area has been 

emissions from residential wood 

combustion. Since 1993, as funding 

allowed, the Oakridge area has 

experienced emission reduction benefits 

from changing-out uncertified 

woodstoves for cleaner burning and 

more efficient home heating units. More 

recently, EPA approved the Oregon Heat 

Smart Program 16 and the Oakridge City 

Air Pollution Control Ordinance 920 

(Oakridge Ordinance 920) 17 into the 

Oregon SIP. Both prohibit the 

installation and ban the sale of nonEPA-certified devices in new or existing 

buildings. In addition to the initial 

woodstove change-outs provided for in 

the 1996 attainment plan, these SIP 

strengthening control strategies provide 

for permanent and enforceable PM10

reductions in the Oakridge NAA. 

Since 1989, LRAPA, in cooperation 

with the City of Oakridge, has 

implemented a residential woodsmoke 

curtailment program in the Oakridge 

NAA. Oakridge Ordinance 815, State 

effective August 26, 1996 and federallyapproved in the 1999 attainment plan, 

prohibited visible emission from a solid 

fuel burning device during a Red 

Advisory (when the PM10 levels are 

forecast by LRAPA to be greater than or 

equal to 120 mg/m3) unless granted a 

sole source or economic need 

exemption. Oakridge Ordinance 815 is 

superseded by the federally-approved 

Oakridge Ordinance 920, which is more 

protective of the PM10 NAAQS. In 

addition to the existing residential 

woodsmoke curtailment program, 

Oakridge Ordinance 920 provides 

further strengthening of the control 

measures while maintaining the 

integrity of the prior ordinance. 

Oakridge Ordinance 920 strengthens 

the SIP by prohibiting the burning of 

any fuel other than ‘‘seasoned wood,’’ 

which is defined as any species of wood 

that has been sufficiently dried to 

contain 20 percent or less moisture by 

weight, and prohibiting the burning of 

specified materials such as plastic, 

rubber products, petroleum-treated 

materials and other materials which 

normally emit dense smoke, noxious 

odors, or hazardous air contaminants in 

a solid fuel burning device. EPA 

proposes to remove the City of Oakridge 

Ordinance 815 from the Oregon SIP 

because it is superseded by the 

federally-approved Oakridge Ordinance 

920, which strengthens the PM10 SIP 

and ensures the woodstove curtailment 

program continues to be permanent and 

enforceable. 

The second largest source of PM10

emissions in the Oakridge NAA is road 

dust, of which winter road sanding and 

unpaved road dust are contributors. To 

reduce road sanding emissions the 

Oregon Department of Transportation 

(ODOT) has been using an anti-icing 

chemical, calcium magnesium acetate 

(CMA), instead of grit, within the City 

of Oakridge since 1995. ODOT 

continues to commit to using these 

chemicals into the future (See the 

September 20, 2021, letter from Jim 

Gamble, District 5 Manager, ODOT, 

included in the docket for this action). 

In addition, between 1991 and 1995 all 

of Oakridge’s unpaved roads, 

approximately 2.5 miles, and numerous 

unpaved commercial driveways and 

parking lots were paved.18

Based on the foregoing evaluation of 

these control measures, EPA proposes to 

determine that the improvement in air 

quality is reasonably attributable to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable 

implementation plan and other 

permanent and enforceable reductions. 

Therefore, the criterion for 

redesignation set forth at CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is satisfied. 

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires 

that, for a nonattainment area to be 

redesignated to attainment, EPA must 

fully approve a maintenance plan for 

the area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A. The maintenance 

plan must demonstrate continued 

attainment of the relevant NAAQS in 

the area for at least 10 years after our 

approval of the redesignation. Eight 

years after redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating attainment for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. The maintenance plan must also 

contain a contingency plan to ensure 

prompt correction of any violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. See CAA 

sections 175A(a), (b) and (d). The 

Calcagni Memo provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, stating that a 

maintenance plan should include the 

following elements: (1) An attainment 

emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration showing attainment for 

10 years following redesignation; (3) a 

commitment to maintain and operate an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network; (4) verification of continued 

attainment; and (5) a contingency plan 

to prevent or correct future violations of 

the NAAQS. In this proposed action, 

EPA will review requirements (3) and 

(4) together as part of our evaluation of 

LRAPA’s maintenance plan for the 

Oakridge area. 

In conjunction with Oregon’s request 

to redesignate the Oakridge area to 

attainment, Oregon submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for maintenance of 

the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS through 

2035. EPA proposes to approve 

LRAPA’s PM10 maintenance plan for the 

Oakridge area. The following paragraphs 

describe how each of the maintenance 

plan elements are addressed in the 

maintenance plan. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

As discussed in the General Preamble 

(See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) and 

the Calcagni Memo, PM10 maintenance 

plans should include an attainment 

emission inventory to identify the level 

of emissions in the area sufficient to 

maintain the PM10 NAAQS. The 

maintenance plan attainment inventory 

should be consistent with EPA’s 

emissions inventory requirements and 

most recent guidance on emissions 

inventories for nonattainment areas 

available at the time and should 

represent emissions during the time 

period associated with the monitoring 

data showing attainment.19 The 

inventory must also be comprehensive, 

including emissions from stationary 

point sources, area sources, mobile 

sources, and must be based on actual 

emissions during the appropriate 

season, if applicable. 

The Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan 

includes a 2015 PM10 attainment 

emission inventory (2015 attainment 

inventory) based on typical season and 

worst-case day actual emissions from all 

direct primary PM10 sources (point, 

area, on-road mobile and nonroad 

mobile sources.20 21 The year 2015 is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 27545 

to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. While 

not required, the maintenance plan includes an 

inventory of PM10 precursor emissions in Appendix 

II (‘‘PM10 Emission Inventory for 2015 Base Year’’). 

22See ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ May 2017, 

available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_

rev.pdf. 

23See Calcagni Memo, pages 9–10. 

representative of the level of emissions 

during the time period when the 

Oakridge area’s monitoring data shows 

attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. The 2015 maintenance plan 

attainment inventory is based on 

emission reduction strategies that were 

implemented as of 2015. These are 

summarized in Table 1, along with 

future year projected emissions for a 

2035 ‘‘horizon year’’ (a future year at 

least 10 years from the approval date of 

the maintenance plan), and two interim 

years of 2025 and 2030. 

Oregon’s 2015 attainment inventory 

relies on methods and assumptions 

presented in detail in Appendix II of the 

Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan 

(‘‘Emision Inventory for 2015 Base 

Year’’). The 2015 attainment inventory 

is based on typical season and worstcase day (episodic) emissions. The 

typical season day emissions represent 

an average daily emission value 

occurring from November 1 through the 

end of February. This four-month time 

period is considered to be the 

particulate matter season and is when 

the PM10 standard has historically been 

exceeded. EPA considers the 

preparation of the typical season day 

inventory and worst-case day inventory, 

as opposed to an annual average daily 

inventory, appropriate given that the 

elevated PM10 concentrations in 

Oakridge exhibit clear seasonal or 

episodic patterns. The worst-case day 

emissions represent a day during the 

PM season when emissions generating 

activity is at its highest due to 

meteorological factors like temperature. 

However, residential woodburning and 

other area source emissions on worstcase days are lower than on typical 

season days in the inventory due to 

woodburning curtailments and outdoor 

burning bans. 

Residential wood combustion 

emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces 

and pellet stoves continue to be the 

major source of PM10 emissions for both 

typical season days and worst-case 

winter days contributing to exceedances 

of the NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—OAKRIDGE PM10 MAINTENANCE PLAN EMISSIONS INVENTORIES

[In pounds per day] 

Source category 2015 

Attainment 

2025 

Interim 

2030 

Interim 

2035 

Maintenance 

Difference 

from 2015 

and 2035 

PM10 Typical Season Day 

Point ..................................................................................... 0.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 

Area ...................................................................................... 444.8 364.2 364.0 363.5 ¥81.3 

On-road ................................................................................ 142.1 131.0 133.2 132.8 ¥9.3 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 

Total .............................................................................. 589.8 506.1 508.1 507.2 ¥82.6 

PM10 Worst-Case Day 

Point ..................................................................................... 0.0 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 

Area ...................................................................................... 334.5 250.9 233.8 216.5 ¥118.0 

On-road ................................................................................ 158.5 144.1 146.5 146.0 ¥12.5 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 0 

Total .............................................................................. 495.9 411.6 396.9 379.1 ¥116.8 

Based on our review of the 

documentation provided in the 

maintenance plan, we propose to find 

that the 2015 direct PM10 attainment 

emission inventory is based on 

reasonable assumptions and 

methodologies, and that the inventory is 

comprehensive and based on the most 

accurate and current information 

available to LRAPA at the time it was 

developed. Based on our review of the 

2015 emissions inventory Oregon 

provided in its January 13, 2022 

submittal, we propose to find that 

LRAPA prepared an adequate 

attainment inventory for the Oakridge 

area.22

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

CAA section 175A requires a state 

seeking redesignation to attainment to 

submit a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for a period 

of at least 10 years following 

redesignation. A state can make this 

demonstration by either showing that 

future emissions of a pollutant or its 

precursors will not exceed the level of 

the attainment (base year) inventory, or 

by modeling to show that the future mix 

of sources and emission rates will not 

cause a violation of the NAAQS.23

In its maintenance demonstration for 

the Oakridge area, LRAPA elected to 

demonstrate maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for at least 10 years following 

redesignation using the attainment year 

inventory method. LRAPA developed 

projected inventories, provided in Table 

1 of this document, to show that the 

Oakridge area will remain in attainment 

through the year 2035. These projected 

inventories, covering interim years 2025 

and 2030 and a horizon year of 2035, 

show that future emissions of direct 

PM10 throughout the nonattainment area 

will remain at or below the 2015 

attainment emissions for the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS. 

The projected emissions inventories 

in the Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan 

address four major source categories: 

Point, area, on-road mobile and nonroad 

mobile. Oregon estimated future year 

emission inventories using the latest 

socioeconomic growth indictors and 

applying emissions reduction benefits 

from adopted control strategies when 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
27546 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

24See EPA’s February 22, 2022 approval of 

Oregon’s 2021 Annual Monitoring Network Plan, in 

the docket for this action. 

appropriate. A detailed description of 

the 2015 attainment year inventory and 

the 2025, 2030 and 2035 projected 

inventories can be found in Appendix 

III of LRAPA’s January 13, 2022, PM10

maintenance plan submittal, which is in 

the docket for this action. 

As discussed in the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan, direct PM10

emissions estimates for stationary point 

sources reflect actual emissions for both 

industrial point sources in Oakridge. 

The Oakridge Sand & Gravel ready-mix 

concrete plant and rock crusher did not 

operate in Oakridge in 2015, resulting in 

actual 2015 emissions that were zero. In 

addition, the ready-mix concrete plant 

air discharge permit was terminated on 

January 24, 2014, resulting in zero 

emissions in the 2015 and projected 

year emission inventories. Future year 

emissions were therefore based on the 

January 2011 PM10 emissions at this 

source. 

Areawide sources occur over a wide 

geographic area with the most 

significant emissions resulting from 

residential wood combustion sources 

such as fireplaces, woodstoves and 

pellet stoves. These residential wood 

heating devices are commonly used to 

heat homes in Oakridge since natural 

gas is not available in this area. The 

permanent and enforceable residential 

wood combustion control strategies are 

discussed in Section III.C. of this 

document. The only other area source 

category with potentially significant 

emissions is outdoor burning, which is 

banned in Lane County from NovemberFebruary. Emissions for these categories 

are derived using various surveys, 

emission factors and other 

methodologies. 

Emissions from on-road mobile 

sources (exhaust, brake wear and tire 

wear), which include passenger 

vehicles, buses, and trucks, were 

estimated using MOVES2014a. Traffic 

growth in Vehicle-Miles Traveled 

(VMT) was based on transportation 

modeling by the Lane Council of 

Governments (LCOG) and ODOT. 

LRAPA confirmed re-entrained road 

dust calculations for both paved and 

unpaved roads using AP–42 protocols. 

Federal control measures included in 

the MOVES2014a modeling are all 

Federal measures that affect the fleets 

and fuels used in future years once 

implemented by EPA. 

The nonroad emissions from railroads 

were calculated using the EPA 

NONROAD2008a emission protocol. 

The National Emissions Inventories 

(NEIs) for Lane County indicate a 

significant decrease in locomotive 

emissions from 2008 to 2014 (42.63 

tons/year and 19.62 tons/year, 

respectively). The 2015 PM10 railroad 

emissions have been adjusted to reflect 

the locomotive emission reductions as 

seen in the 2014 NEI data. Future year 

emissions are based on the adjusted 

2014 and 2017 NEI data. All other 

Oakridge nonroad mobile sources are 

categorized by LRAPA as insignificant 

during the PM10 winter season. 

EPA has reviewed the documentation 

provided by Oregon for developing the 

projected 2025, 2030 and 2035 

emissions inventories for the Oakridge 

PM10 NAA. Based on our review, EPA 

finds that the projected inventories were 

developed using appropriate 

procedures, comprehensively address 

all source categories in the Oakridge 

area, and sufficiently account for PM10

projected actual emissions. These 

inventories indicate a decrease in PM10

emissions throughout the maintenance 

period. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

determine that the projected emissions 

inventories in the maintenance plan 

sufficiently demonstrate that the 

Oakridge PM10 area will continue to 

attain the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard 

throughout the maintenance period. 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Once a nonattainment area has been 

redesignated to attainment, the state 

must continue to operate an appropriate 

air quality monitoring network, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to 

verify the attainment status of the area. 

The maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operation of air 

quality monitors that will provide such 

verification. 

LRAPA notes in the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan that it currently 

operates a regulatory monitor (the 

Willamette Center monitor since 1989) 

in the Oakridge NAA. LRAPA commits 

to continue operating a regulatory 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and the Oregon SIP 

through the year 2035 in order to verify 

continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS and track the progress of the 

maintenance plan. LRAPA also states 

that it will continue to operate the PM10

monitoring network in accordance with 

the approved Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan (ANP). Any modification 

to the monitoring network will be done 

in consultation with ODEQ and with the 

approval of EPA Region 10 (See 40 CFR 

58.14(b)). EPA will work with ODEQ 

and LRAPA each year through the air 

monitoring network review process to 

determine the adequacy of the 

monitoring network.24

Oregon remains obligated to continue 

to quality-assure monitoring data and 

enter all data into AQS in accordance 

with Federal guidelines. LRAPA will 

review the air monitoring results each 

year to verify continued attainment. 

LRAPA will determine annually if 

exceptional events influenced the 

continued attainment of the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS and need to be 

documented. If needed, ODEQ and 

LRAPA will coordinate and provide 

exceptional events documentation to 

EPA Region 10 for review. 

It should be noted that LRAPA 

included in the Oakridge maintenance 

plan a discussion on the use of PM2.5

monitoring as a surrogate for PM10

monitoring in the future. See Section 4.2 

of the Oakridge maintenance plan. Since 

any change to the monitoring network 

would occur in the future, EPA is not 

proposing to approve LRAPA 

discontinuing the PM10 monitor, nor is 

EPA making a determination whether 

the use of a PM2.5 surrogate monitor 

would be appropriate or consistent with 

40 CFR part 58 requirements as part of 

this action. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan 

contains adequate provisions for 

continued operation of an air quality 

monitoring network and a commitment 

to annually verify continued attainment 

of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for 

the Oakridge area. 

4. Contingency Plan 

CAA section 175A(d) requires that a 

maintenance plan also include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area to attainment. For the 

purposes of CAA section 175A, a state 

is not required to have fully adopted 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the state 

in order for the maintenance plan to be 

approved. However, the contingency 

plan is an enforceable part of the SIP 

and should ensure that contingency 

measures are adopted expeditiously 

once they are triggered. The 

maintenance plan should discuss the 

measures to be adopted and a schedule 

and procedure for adoption and 

implementation. The contingency plan 

must require that the state will 

implement all measures contained in 

the part D nonattainment plan for the 

area prior to redesignation. The state 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 27547 

25See Calcagni Memo at 12. 

26LRAPA implements an advisory system that 

designates days as green, yellow, or red when 24- 

hour PM levels reach certain designated thresholds. 

During a red advisory day, LRAPA prohibits the use 

of any solid fuel space heating device that emits 

visible emissions into the air outside of the building 

housing the device unless a specific exemption has 

been granted. 

27Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional 

Events, October 3, 2016, 81 FR 68216. 

28Transportation-related emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) or nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) must also be specified in PM10 areas if EPA 

or the state find that transportation-related 

emissions of one or both of these precursors within 

the nonattainment area are a significant contributor 

to the PM10 nonattainment problem and has so 

notified the MPO and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), or the applicable SIP 

revisions or SIP revision submittal establishes an 

approved or adequate budget for such emissions as 

part of the reasonable further progress, attainment 

or maintenance strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii). 

Neither of these conditions apply to the Oakridge 

PM10 nonattainment area. 29See 40 CFR 93.109(g). 

should also identify the specific 

indicators, or triggers, which will be 

used to determine when the 

contingency plan will be 

implemented.25

The Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan 

outlines the procedures for the adoption 

and implementation of contingency 

measures to further reduce emissions 

should a violation of the PM10 NAAQS 

or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 

mg/m3) occur. It is expected that the 

PM2.5 NAAQS would be exceeded 

before the PM10 NAAQS, thus more 

quickly triggering the implementation of 

the contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan. If there is a violation 

of either standard, after consideration of 

any exceptional events, the following 

contingency strategies, or equivalent, 

will be implemented by LRAPA and the 

City of Oakridge: 

• Stricter green-yellow-red advisory 

program,26 with more red advisory days 

each winter, by reducing the red 

advisory thresholds by 3 mg/m3 PM10. 

This is projected to increase the average 

number of potential red advisory days 

by three to five additional days per year. 

• Prohibition of fireplace use on 

yellow advisory days (in addition to the 

existing prohibition on red advisory 

days). 

While these measures do not need to 

be fully adopted by LRAPA prior to the 

occurrence of a NAAQS violation, 

LRAPA commits to adopting and 

implementing the necessary 

contingency measures as expeditiously 

as possible, but not later than one year 

after a violation based on confirmed 

quality assured data. 

LRAPA will evaluate all appropriate 

data including air quality data, 

meteorological data, evaluation of wood 

smoke programs and information on 

unusual weather events (e.g., wildfires 

or winter power outages) and other data 

to determine the cause of the violation. 

LRAPA will perform this evaluation 

within three months of the 

determination of a violation. Where 

appropriate, LRAPA will follow EPA’s 

exceptional events rules and guidance if 

it is determined that an exceptional 

event contributed to the violation.27

Based on our analysis of Oregon’s 

submittal, we propose to find that the 

contingency measure provisions 

provided in the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan are sufficient and 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

175A(d). 

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by CAA section 176(c). EPA’s 

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A requires that transportation 

plans, programs, and projects conform 

to SIPs and establishes the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they conform. Conformity to a SIP 

means that transportation activities will 

not produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. Thus, 

EPA’s conformity rule requires a 

demonstration that emissions from a 

Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 

(MPO’s) Regional Transportation Plan 

and Transportation Improvement 

Program, involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval, are consistent with the 

MVEB(s) contained in a control strategy 

SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 

CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A 

MVEB is the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance area. 

PM10 maintenance plan MVEBs are 

generally established for specific years 

and specific pollutants or precursors.28

The maintenance plan submittal should 

identify MVEBs for transportation 

related PM10 emissions (motor vehicle 

emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, tire 

wear and re-entrained road dust) in the 

last year of the maintenance period. 

Budgets may also be specified for 

additional years during the maintenance 

period. 

It should be noted that Oakridge is 

considered an isolated rural 

nonattainment area within the meaning 

of 40 CFR 93.109(g), so transportation 

conformity determinations are only 

required when a non-exempt Federal 

Highway Administration or Federal 

Transit Administration funded project is 

funded or approved.29

With respect to previously established 

MVEBs, we note for the 1996 attainment 

plan, Oregon had previously adopted 

PM10 MVEBs for 2003. These budgets 

were 178.8 pounds per day of direct 

PM10. This budget has continued to 

apply for conformity determinations 

since 2003. In addition, as determined 

in the 1996 attainment plan approval, 

major sources of PM10 precursors do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels in 

excess of the PM10 NAAQs in the 

Oakridge NAA. Therefore, the Oakridge 

PM10 maintenance plan includes direct 

PM10 MVEBs that reflect the total onroad PM10 emissions for the attainment 

year (2015), and the projected PM10

emissions for two interim years (2025 

and 2030) and the last year of the 

maintenance plan (2035). See Table 2, 

below. 

The MVEBs reflect the total on-road 

PM10 worst-case day emissions (a sum 

of primary exhaust, brake wear, tire 

wear and re-entrained paved and 

unpaved road dust), plus a portion of 

the available safety margin to 

accommodate technical uncertainties 

due to model updates and inputs into 

the EPA MOVES model and travel 

forecasting models as well as potential 

changes to regional transportation plans. 

A safety margin is the amount by which 

the total projected PM10 emissions from 

all sources are less than the total 

emissions that would satisfy the 

NAAQS for the 2015 base year. With the 

safety margin applied to the future year 

MVEB, the budgets still demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. 

Oregon used the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator model, 

MOVES2014a, during the development 

of the maintenance plan and executed it 

with locally developed inputs 

representative of wintertime calendar 

year 2015 conditions and future 

projections in order to appropriately 

calculate the budgets. MOVES2014a was 

the accepted model when this work 

began. EPA recently released MOVES3, 

but since sufficient work had taken 

place on this SIP with MOVES2014a, we 

are accepting that mobile model in this 

submittal (86 FR 1106, 1108, January 7, 

2021). Traffic growth in VMT for the 

Oakridge NAA is based on 

transportation modeling by Lane 

County, LCOG and ODOT. The mobile 

source emissions, in total, were 

modeled to steadily decrease between 

2015 and 2035 as a result of cleaner 

vehicles and cleaner fuels. The MVEBs 

are based on the control measures in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
27548 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

30See 40 CFR 93.118. 

31See EPA memorandum titled, ‘‘EPA Region 10 

Adequacy Review of Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets in Oakridge PM10 Maintenance Plan’’, 

dated April 6, 2022. 

32On January 13, 2022, Oregon also submitted 

LRAPA Title 29 Sections 0020, 0050–0090, 0300 

and 0320. Oregon made no changes to these 

sections, except for the State effective date. EPA has 

reviewed these rules and approved them in a 

previous action (83 FR 50274, March 23, 2018). 

maintenance plan and consistent with 

maintaining the PM10 NAAQS. 

The mobile source emissions budgets 

for the years 2015, 2025, 2030 and 2035 

are provided in Table 2 of this proposed 

action. According to EPA’s conformity 

rule, the emissions budget acts as a 

ceiling on emissions in the year for 

which it is defined or until a SIP 

revision modifies the budget.30

TABLE 2—PM10 MVEBS FOR THE OAKRIDGE PM10 NAA 

Motor vehicle emissions budgets 

Year 

2015 2025 2030 2035 

PM10 (lbs/day) .................................................................................................. 138.9 147.4 156.8 164.7 

For MVEBs to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

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

EPA’s process for determining adequacy 

of a budget consists of three basic steps: 

(1) Notifying the public of a SIP 

submittal; (2) providing the public the 

opportunity to comment on the budget 

during a public comment period; and (3) 

making a finding of adequacy or 

inadequacy. The process for 

determining the adequacy of a 

submitted budget is codified at 40 CFR 

93.118(f). EPA can notify the public by 

either posting an announcement that 

EPA has received SIP budgets on EPA’s 

adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), 

or via a Federal Register notice of 

proposed rulemaking when EPA 

reviews the adequacy of an 

implementation plan budget 

simultaneously with its review and 

action on the SIP itself (40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2)). 

Today, we are notifying the public 

that EPA will be reviewing the adequacy 

of the 2015, 2025, 2030 and 2035 

budgets in the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan. The public has a 30- 

day comment period as described in the 

DATES section of this notice. After this 

comment period, EPA will indicate 

whether the budgets are adequate via 

the final rulemaking on this proposed 

action or on the adequacy website, 

according to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii). 

The details of EPA’s evaluation of the 

budget for compliance with the budget 

adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) 

are provided in a separate memorandum 

included with the docket for this 

rulemaking.31 As noted earlier, the 

public comment period for EPA’s 

adequacy finding will be concurrent 

with the public comment period for this 

proposed action on the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan. 

Based on the information presented in 

the Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan 

and our adequacy review to date, we 

propose to find that Oregon has 

evaluated the appropriate pollutants 

and appropriately established MVEBs 

for direct PM10 emissions. EPA has 

reviewed the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan’s MVEBs and found 

them to be consistent with the control 

measures in the SIP and consistent with 

maintenance of the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS within the Oakridge area 

through 2035. We propose to approve 

the MVEBs in the Oakridge PM10

maintenance plan as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA 

regulations. 

F. State Rule Changes To Reflect the 

Redesignation 

Oregon adopted maintenance plans 

for both the Oakridge PM10 area and 

Oakridge PM2.5 area in the same state 

rulemaking package and submitted them 

as a single SIP submittal to EPA. This 

single submittal includes changes to 

LRAPA rules to reflect the anticipated 

redesignation of both areas. Today’s 

action addresses the Oakridge PM10

area, and we are addressing the 

Oakridge PM2.5 area in a separate action. 

In today’s action EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions to LRAPA’s Title 29 

Designation of Air Quality Areas, 

Section 29–0030(1) Designation of 

Nonattainment Areas and Section 29– 

0040(2)(b) Designation of Maintenance 

Areas. These revisions will remove the 

Oakridge PM10 nonattainment areas 

from the list of PM10 nonattainment 

areas and add them to the list of PM10

maintenance areas within the federallyapproved Oregon SIP.32

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA proposes to redesignate the 

Oakridge, Oregon PM10 NAA, and 

proposes to approve the associated 

maintenance plan for the area. If this 

proposal is finalized, the designation 

status of the Oakridge, Oregon PM10

NAA, under 40 CFR part 81 will be 

revised to attainment upon the effective 

date of that final action. 

EPA proposes to approve and 

incorporate by reference into the Oregon 

SIP, the submitted revisions to LRAPA 

Title 29 Sections 29–0030(1) and 29– 

0040(2)(b) state effective November 18, 

2021. EPA also proposes to approve the 

State’s request to remove from 

incorporation by reference City of 

Oakridge Ordinance 815, state effective 

August 15, 1996. 

In addition, EPA proposes to take 

final agency action on Oregon’s 

exceptional event demonstration for the 

Oakridge PM2.5 monitor as discussed in 

this action. 

Finally, we propose to find that the 

Oakridge PM10 maintenance plan’s 

MVEBs meet applicable CAA 

requirements for maintenance plans and 

transportation conformity requirements. 

With this action, we are starting the 

adequacy process for these proposed 

MVEBs and opening a public comment 

period. 

We note that the January 13, 2022 

submittal also includes the Oakridge 

PM2.5 redesignation and maintenance 

plan, revisions to the Lane County Code, 

and additional revisions to LRAPA’s 

Title 29 rules, which EPA will address 

in a separate action. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA proposes to 

include in a final rule, regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

provisions described in section IV of 

this preamble. EPA is also proposing to 

remove regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA proposes to remove the City 

of Oakridge Ordinance 815, state 

effective August 15, 1996, from the 

incorporation by reference as described 

in section IV of this preamble. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available through 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 27549 

1Tare weights are used in URCS to calculate gross 

ton-mile costs, while loss and damage data are used 

to calculate the total variable shipment costs of each 

rail movement. The Railroad Cost Program User 

Manual is available on the Board’s website at 

www.stb.gov/reports-data/uniform-rail-costingsystem/. 

https://www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region 10 Office (please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submittal 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submittals, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve a 

State plan as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

already 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: April 25, 2022. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09254 Filed 5–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

49 CFR Part 1249 

[Docket No. EP 769] 

Uniform Railroad Costing System 

(URCS) Data Reporting 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board proposes a rule to codify a 

longstanding voluntary practice 

whereby Class I carriers, through the 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR), have annually reported tare 

weight and loss and damage data for use 

in the Board’s Uniform Railroad Costing 

System. Under the Board’s proposal, 

Class I carriers may choose whether to 

provide tare weight and loss and 

damage data through AAR or file the 

data individually. 

DATES: Comments are due by June 13, 

2022. Reply comments are due by June 

28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may 

be filed with the Board via e-filing. 

Written comments and replies will be 

posted to the Board’s website at 

www.stb.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245–0333. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board 

is authorized, under 49 U.S.C. 11161, to 

maintain cost accounting rules for rail 

carriers. In 1989, the Board’s 

predecessor, the Interstate Commerce 

Commission, adopted the Uniform 

Railroad Costing System (URCS) as its 

general purpose costing system. 

Adoption of the Unif. R.R. Costing Sys. 

as a Gen. Purpose Costing Sys. for All 

Regul. Costing Purposes, 5 I.C.C.2d 894 

(1989), 54 FR 38910 (September 21, 

1989). The Board uses URCS for a 

variety of regulatory functions. URCS is 

used in rate reasonableness proceedings 

as part of the initial market dominance 

determination, and at later stages is 

used in parts of the Board’s 

determination as to whether the 

challenged rate is reasonable, and, when 

warranted, the maximum rate 

prescription. URCS is also used to, 

among other things, develop variable 

costs for making cost determinations in 

abandonment proceedings, to provide 

the railroad industry and shippers with 

a standardized costing model, to cost 

the Board’s Carload Waybill Sample to 

develop industry cost information, and 

to provide interested parties with basic 

cost information regarding railroad 

industry operations. 

As a longstanding practice, the 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) has collected from Class I 

carriers, and voluntarily provided 

annually to the Board, tare weight and 

loss and damage data for use in URCS. 

While the Board appreciates AAR’s 

longstanding voluntary practice, to 

ensure the continued availability of the 

data, which are essential components of 

URCS,1 the Board proposes to formalize 

that reporting requirement and require 

Class I carriers to provide tare weight 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS