Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0004-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oakridge, OR; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
Posted Date: 2016-07-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49592-49598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17714]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0004: FRL-9949-69-Region 10]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for 
Oakridge, Oregon PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2012, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality (ODEQ) submitted, on behalf of the Governor of Oregon, a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission to address violations of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 
micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) for the Oakridge 
PM2.5 nonattainment area (2012 SIP submission). The Lane 
Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) in coordination with ODEQ 
developed the 2012 SIP submission for purposes of attaining the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 22, 2016, the ODEQ withdrew 
certain provisions of the 2012 SIP submission (2016 SIP withdrawal). 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated whether the 
remaining portions of the Oakridge 2012 SIP submission meet the 
applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. Based on this evaluation, 
the EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the 
remaining portions of the 2012 SIP submission.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0004 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 
10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The 
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski at (360) 753-9081, 
duboiski.christi@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
    A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
    C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP 
Requirements
II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and the EPA's Evaluation
III. Consequences of Disapproved SIP Provisions
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action

A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS, including annual standards of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-
hour (or daily) standards of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average 
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (62 FR 38652). The EPA 
established the

[[Page 49593]]

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous 
health studies demonstrating the serious health effects associated with 
exposures to PM2.5. To provide guidance on the CAA 
requirements for state and tribal implementation plans to implement the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA promulgated the ``Final Clean Air 
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) 
(hereinafter, the ``2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule'').
    On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and retained the level of 
the annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (71 FR 
61144). Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required by the CAA to promulgate designations for areas throughout the 
United States; this designation process is described in section 
107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated areas 
across the United States with respect to the revised 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that November 2009 action, the 
EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon, and a small surrounding area as 
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (Oakridge 
NAA), requiring Oregon to prepare and submit to the EPA an attainment 
plan for the Oakridge NAA to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. On March 2, 2012, the EPA issued ``Implementation Guidance for 
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' to provide guidance on the development 
of SIPs to demonstrate attainment with the 24-hour standards (March 
2012 Implementation Guidance). The March 2012 Implementation Guidance 
explained that the overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule provided effective and appropriate 
guidance on statutory requirements for the development of SIPs to 
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the March 
2012 Implementation Guidance instructed states to rely on the 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule in developing SIPs to demonstrate 
attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4

    On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision in 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, holding that 
the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant 
to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of 
Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-matter-
specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). The 
Court did not vacate the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule but 
remanded the rule with instructions for the EPA to promulgate new 
implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance 
with the requirements of subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent with 
the Court's remand decision, the EPA withdrew its March 2012 
Implementation Guidance which relied on the 2007 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule to provide guidance for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Prior to the January 4, 2013 NRDC decision, states had worked 
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in accordance with the EPA regulations and guidance derived from 
subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. The EPA considered this 
history in issuing the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 
Classification and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014) that 
identified the initial classification under subpart 4 for areas 
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas. The final 
rule also established December 31, 2014 as the new deadline for the 
states to submit any additional SIP submissions related to attainment 
for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The ODEQ submitted an attainment plan for the Oakridge NAA on 
December 12, 2012. The plan included measures intended to demonstrate 
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2014. In 
this notice the EPA evaluates the State's existing attainment plan 
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to determine whether it 
meets the applicable statutory requirements. The applicable statutory 
requirements include not only the applicable requirements of subpart 1, 
but also the applicable requirements of subpart 4. This interpretation 
is consistent with the NRDC Court's decision that the EPA must 
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with the requirements 
of subpart 4.

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP Requirements

    With respect to the requirements for attainment plans for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA notes that the general nonattainment 
area planning requirements are found in subpart 1, and the moderate 
area planning requirements specifically for particulate matter are 
found in subpart 4. The EPA has a longstanding general guidance 
document that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA commonly 
referred to as the ``General Preamble'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 
The General Preamble addresses the relationship between subpart 1 and 
subpart 4 requirements and provides recommendations to states for 
meeting statutory requirements for particulate matter attainment 
planning. Specifically, the General Preamble explains that requirements 
applicable to moderate area attainment plan SIP submissions are set 
forth in subpart 4, but such SIP submissions must also meet the general 
attainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the extent these 
provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,'' 
the more specific subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538). Additionally, 
the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements rule (80 FR 
15340, March 23, 2015), to clarify our interpretations of the statutory 
requirements that apply to moderate and serious PM2.5 
nonattainment areas (NAAs) under subparts 1 and 4.
    The CAA requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (i) 
The section 172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), reasonably available control technology (RACT) and 
attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to 
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); (iii) the section 
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories; (iv) the section 
172(c)(5) requirements for a nonattainment new source review (NSR) 
permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for 
contingency measures.
    The CAA subpart 4 requirements for moderate areas are generally 
comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) The section 
189(a)(1)(A) NSR permit program requirements; (ii) the section 
189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (iii) the 
section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c) 
requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. In addition, under 
subpart 4 the moderate area attainment date is as expeditiously as 
practicable but no later than the end of the 6th calendar year after 
designation.

II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and the EPA's Evaluation

    The LRAPA, in coordination with ODEQ, developed the 2012 SIP 
submission for the Oakridge NAA that was subsequently adopted by the 
State and submitted by the ODEQ to the EPA. The following describes the 
relevant contents of the 2012 SIP submission, the 2016 SIP withdrawal, 
and the EPA's

[[Page 49594]]

evaluation of the remaining SIP provisions.
    The 2012 SIP submission included provisions that address the 
requirements of an attainment plan for a moderate PM2.5 
nonattainment area including RACT/RACM, emissions inventories, 
modeling, attainment demonstration, transportation conformity and motor 
vehicle emissions budgets, RFP and contingency measures.
    The 2016 SIP withdrawal included the State's withdrawal of the 
following 2012 SIP submission provisions:
     OAR 340-200-0040--General Air Pollution Procedures and 
Definitions; the adopted and amended version of the rules and Redline/
strikeout version of the adopted and amended rules.
     The LRAPA's Title 29--Designation of Air Quality Areas; 
the adopted and amended version of the rules and redline/strikeout 
version of the adopted and amended rules except:
[cir] 29-0010(10)--Oakridge PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 
definition
[cir] 29-0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas
 Title 38--Major New Source Review
 Smoke Management Directive

    The state withdrew OAR-340-200-0040, portions of the LRAPA Title 
29, Title 38 and the Smoke Management Directive because they were not 
intended to be included in the SIP submission.

State Nonattainment Area Description and Designation

    The 2012 SIP submission contained revised portions of the LRAPA 
Title 29, ``Designation of Air Quality Areas'' (29-0010(10) and 29-
0030) adopted on October 18, 2012 that identify and describe the 
Oakridge PM2.5 area and lists the Oakridge PM2.5 
area as nonattainment. The area described as the Oakridge 
PM2.5 nonattainment area in the LRAPA Title 29 is consistent 
with the federal nonattainment area designated at 40 CFR 81.338. We 
propose to approve the State's area description and listing as 
nonattainment.

Emissions Inventory

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires the development of emissions 
inventories for nonattainment areas. In addition, the planning and 
associated modeling requirements set forth in CAA section 189(a) make 
the development of an accurate and up-to-date emissions inventory a 
critical element of any viable attainment plan. EPA guidance specifies 
the best practices for developing emission inventories for 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see ``Emissions Inventory 
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations''). 
The 2012 SIP submission contains planning inventories of emission 
sources and emission rates for the base year of 2008 and the projected 
attainment year of 2014. The LRAPA chose the year 2008 as the base year 
because it is one of the three years used to designate the area as 
nonattainment as well as the middle year of the five year period, 2006-
2010, used for the determining the base year design value. 
Additionally, the LRAPA determined that high-quality emission 
information was already available from the National Emission Inventory 
for 2008. The LRAPA developed the base year emissions inventory for the 
nonattainment area. Table 1 provides information on the worst case 
winter season day, most relevant to attainment planning, as well as the 
typical winter season day. Annual emissions for primary 
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and 
NH3 can be found in the docket in the LRAPA's SIP 
submission. The LRAPA determined the precursor emissions for a typical 
winter day accounted for less than 6 percent of the total PM. The 2012 
SIP submission listed total emissions of direct PM2.5 on a 
typical winter day at 525 pounds per day (lbs/day). The source 
categories contributing to the typical winter day total were identified 
as follows: Area sources, primarily RWC, emit 479 pounds per day (lbs/
day); mobile sources, including railroads and re-entrained road dust 
emit 44.7 lbs/day; and permitted stationary sources emit 0.5 lbs/day.

   Table 1--2008 Oakridge; Typical Season Day and Worst-Case Day PM2.5
                                Emissions
                                [lbs/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 PM2.5 lbs/per day
                                         -------------------------------
              Source sector               Typical season
                                                day       Worst case day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitted Point.........................             0.5             0.9
Stationary Area.........................           479.5             480
Onroad..................................            38.7            65.1
Nonroad.................................             6.0             6.0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             525             552
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the base year emission inventory and believes 
it satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for a comprehensive, 
accurate and current inventory of actual 2008 emissions of the relevant 
pollutants in the Oakridge NAA. Thus, the EPA proposes to approve the 
base year emission inventory in the 2012 SIP submittal.

2014 Projected Attainment Inventory for the Nonattainment Area

    The 2012 SIP submittal included a projected 2014 attainment year 
emissions inventory that supported attainment by December 2014. The 
2014 attainment year emissions inventory included the same source 
categories as the 2008 base year. Emissions in the 2014 attainment year 
inventory were adjusted to account for emissions increases due to 
anticipated growth between 2008 and 2014 and emissions decreases from 
implementation of the control strategies identified in the RACM 
analysis.
    Due to the fact that the Oakridge NAA failed to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2014 attainment date 
projected in the 2012 SIP submission, the EPA presumes that the 
attainment year emission inventory was not accurate. The quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data from the Willamette 
Activity Center monitoring site from 2012 through 2014, yields a design 
value of 40 [micro]g/m\3\ and confirms that the area did not attain the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2014. Thus, the EPA 
proposes to disapprove the projected 2014 attainment year inventory in 
the 2012 SIP submission.

[[Page 49595]]

Federal Requirement for RACM, Including RACT

    The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under 
subpart 1 include section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation of 
all RACM (including RACT). The language of section 172(c) requires that 
attainment plans provide for the implementation of RACM (including 
RACT) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, what 
constitutes RACM and RACT is related to what is necessary for 
attainment in a given area.
    Subpart 4 also requires states to develop attainment plans that 
evaluate potential control measures and impose RACM and RACT on sources 
within a moderate nonattainment area that are necessary to 
expeditiously attain the NAAQS. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that 
moderate nonattainment plans provide for implementation of RACM and 
RACT no later than four years after the area is designated as 
nonattainment. As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are not 
defined within subpart 4. Nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify 
how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, the 
EPA's longstanding guidance in the General Preamble provides 
recommendations for determining which control measures constitute RACM 
and RACT for purposes of meeting the statutory requirements of subpart 
4. 57 FR 13540-41.
    For both RACM and RACT, the EPA notes that an overarching principle 
is that if a given control measure is not needed to attain the relevant 
NAAQS in a given area as expeditiously as practicable, then that 
control measure would not be required as RACM or RACT because it would 
not be reasonable to impose controls that are not in fact needed for 
attainment purposes. Accordingly, a RACM and RACT analysis is a process 
to identify emissions sources, evaluate potential emissions controls, 
and impose those control measures and technologies that are reasonable 
and necessary to bring the area into attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable, but by no later than the applicable attainment date for 
the area. However, the EPA has long-applied a policy that states 
evaluate the combined effect of reasonably available control measures 
that were not necessary to demonstrate attainment by the statutory 
attainment, and if they collectively advance the attainment date by at 
least one-year the measures should be adopted to satisfy the statutory 
requirement that attainment be as expeditious as practicable (80 FR 
15369).

Identification of RACM and RACT

    The LRAPA provided a RACM and RACT analysis in Appendix J of the 
2012 SIP submission. The submission explained that residential wood 
combustion (RWC) sources (e.g., woodstoves, fireplaces, pellet stoves) 
account for 86% of emissions on worst-case winter days when exceedance 
of the NAAQS is most likely to occur. The other contributing sources 
were identified as road dust (5%), transportation (7.9%) and industrial 
and other unidentified area sources (1.1%). The LRAPA also conducted a 
speciation analysis, included in Appendix E of the 2012 SIP submission, 
which demonstrated that 96% of total particulate matter is from organic 
and elemental carbon, with significantly smaller amounts of secondary 
inorganic aerosols including nitrate (0.4%), sulfate (1%) and ammonium 
(.03%). Based on these and other analyses, the LRAPA concluded that RWC 
was the major contributor to PM2.5 concentrations on worst-
case winter days and focused its RACM analysis on this source category.
    Emissions from RWC for winter home heating has been a long-standing 
air pollution problem for the Oakridge NAA, first identified when EPA 
designated the area nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS. The 
Oakridge nonattainment area PM10 SIP adopted a control 
strategy that specifically addressed emissions from RWC (64 FR 12751). 
In the 2012 SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 
LRAPA likewise focused on RWC emissions and described a suite of 
control measures that included measures in effect from the previous 
approved PM10 attainment plan as well as new measures 
specifically intended to address PM2.5. While the LRAPA 
described several control measures in the 2012 PM2.5 SIP 
submission, it only relied on emission reductions from measures 
implemented after the base year of 2008. These measures are:
     RWC curtailment during adverse meteorological conditions 
and air quality advisories are issued: Oakridge City ordinance 889;
     Motor vehicle emission reductions due to federal emissions 
requirements; and,
     Woodstove change outs of uncertified stoves to EPA 
certified stoves since 2008.
    In its RACT analysis, the LRAPA identified two industrial 
stationary sources in the nonattainment area, a rock crusher and ready-
mix concrete plant, which are described as minor sources of direct and 
precursor emissions for purposes of PM2.5. The LRAPA asserts 
that these two small sources together emit less than one ton per year 
of PM2.5 emissions and contribute less than 1% to the 2008 
base year emission inventory. The EPA National Emission Inventory data 
for the Oakridge NAA as presented in Appendix D of the 2012 SIP 
submission (attachment 3.3d, pages 207-210) identified precursor 
emissions for the base year of 2008. That data show there are no 
precursor emissions from industrial sources in the Oakridge NAA.
    In the 2012 SIP submission, the LRAPA reviewed the two stationary 
sources and determined that the air pollution control technology 
installed on these sources are the current standard for the industry. 
The rock crusher controls emissions of PM2.5 using water 
spray. The concrete batch plant uses baghouse controls to reduce 
PM2.5 emissions. The SIP submission did not propose or 
contain any additional control technologies for purposes of meeting 
RACT based on the existing particulate matter control measures and the 
minimal contribution to PM2.5 concentrations from the two 
small stationary sources. Operating permits for these two sources were 
not included in the 2012 SIP submission.

The EPA's Evaluation of RACM Including RACT

    The measures selected and implemented by the LRAPA to meet RACM 
including RACT requirements did not provide for attainment of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date in the 2012 SIP 
submission of December 31, 2014. In addition, the RWC curtailment 
program included in the 2012 SIP submission, identified as Oakridge 
City Ordinance 889, was rescinded and is no longer in effect. A new 
replacement ordinance, Oakridge City Ordinance 914 has not yet been 
submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. Based on the 
foregoing, the suite of control measures in the 2012 SIP submission do 
not represent RACM and RACT and fail to meet the requirements of 
section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Accordingly, we 
are proposing to disapprove the RACM and RACT provisions of the 2012 
SIP submission.

Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

    Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a PM2.5 moderate area 
SIP contain either a demonstration that the plan will provide for 
attainment by the applicable attainment date, or a demonstration that 
attainment by such date is

[[Page 49596]]

impracticable. In the attainment demonstration of the 2012 SIP 
submission, the LRAPA described how the attainment plan would provide 
the emissions reductions needed to bring the Oakridge NAA into 
attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS no later than 
December 31, 2014.
    All attainment demonstrations must project air quality below the 
standard using air quality modeling. The ODEQ submitted a modeled 
demonstration that is consistent with the recommendations contained in 
the EPA's modeling guidance document ``Guidance on the Use of Models 
and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 
for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (EPA-454/B-07-002, 
April 2007) and the June 28, 2011, memorandum from Tyler Fox to 
Regional Air Program Managers, ``Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 
Modeled Attainment Test.'' States should base modeling on national 
(e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., Western Regional Air Partnership) or local 
modeling, or a combination thereof, if appropriate. The April 2007 
guidance indicates that states should review supplemental analyses, in 
combination with the modeling analysis, in a ``weight of evidence'' 
assessment to determine whether each area is likely to achieve timely 
attainment.
    The LRAPA used a proportional ``roll-forward'' model to project air 
quality levels into the future. The linear model the LRAPA used for the 
Oakridge NAA considered the concentrations of individual chemical 
species analyzed from the PM2.5 filters. The model does not 
account for secondary chemistry because inert species comprise more 
than 97% of the total PM2.5 in the Oakridge NAA. The EPA 
believes that the roll-forward model is an appropriate approach for the 
Oakridge NAA due to the limited number of emission sources and source 
categories, the limited contribution of secondary aerosol, and the even 
dispersal of emission sources across the area. The LRAPA determined the 
emission changes of each species from the base year to a future 
attainment year based on emissions growth or emissions reduction from 
trends in technology and population, and considering both national 
control measures (such as Tier 2 gasoline vehicle standards), and 
control measures included as part of the SIP submission. These emission 
changes and resulting changes in ambient chemical species levels were 
summed to estimate future year projected PM2.5 
concentrations.
    The attainment demonstration starts with estimating the baseline 
design value for PM2.5. The procedure for its calculation is 
presented in Appendix N to 40 CFR 50, ``Interpretation of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,'' EPA Guidance on 
the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 
Air Quality Goals for O3, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' and 
the June 28, 2011, memorandum from Tyler Fox to Regional Air Program 
Managers, ``Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 Modeled Attainment 
Test.'' Ambient PM2.5 concentrations from 2006 to 2010 were 
used to calculate a baseline design value of 39.5 [micro]g/m\3\. 
Detailed methods on the baseline design value calculation are in 
Appendix G of the 2012 SIP submission.
    Quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data from the 
Willamette Activity Center monitoring site from 2012 through 2014, 
yields a design value of 40 [micro]g/m\3\ and confirms that the area 
did not attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 
2014. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment 
demonstration portion of the 2012 SIP submission because the area 
failed to attain by the projected attainment date.

Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

    For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, two statutory provisions 
apply regarding RFP and quantitative milestones. First, under subpart 
1, CAA section 172(c)(2) requires attainment plans to provide for RFP, 
which is defined in CAA section 171(l) as ``such annual incremental 
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required 
by [Part D of Title I] or may reasonably be required by the 
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable 
national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' 
Reasonable further progress is a requirement to assure that states make 
steady, incremental progress toward attaining air quality standards, 
rather than deferring implementation of control measures and thereby 
emission reductions until before the date by which the standard is to 
be attained. Second, CAA section 189(c) requires that attainment plans 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS to include ``quantitative milestones 
which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated 
to attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress . . . 
toward attainment by the applicable date.''
    In the 2012 SIP submission, the LRAPA did not address RFP and 
quantitative milestone requirements. The 2012 SIP submission projected 
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS within five years of 
designation, or by December 31, 2014. However, the Oakridge NAA failed 
to attain by December 31, 2014. The attainment plan control measures 
therefore did not achieve the necessary emission reductions that would 
have been necessary to demonstrate RFP or meet quantitative milestones, 
assuming such requirements were addressed in the 2012 SIP submittal. 
Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the RFP and 
quantitative milestones elements for the 2012 SIP submission.

Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan 
provide for implementation of specific contingency measures in the 
event that an area fails to attain a standard by its applicable 
attainment date, or fails to meet RFP. These measures should consist of 
other available control measures not included in the control strategy 
and must be fully adopted rules or measures that take effect without 
any further action by the state or the EPA. Contingency measures should 
also contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule, and 
should provide for emission reductions equivalent to one year's worth 
of RFP (57 FR 13498).
    While the LRAPA discussed contingency measures in the 2012 SIP 
submission, the ordinance enacting the contingency measures was not 
included in the SIP submission. Because the regulatory text of the 
contingency measures was not included in the 2012 SIP submission, the 
EPA is proposing to disapprove the 2012 SIP submission with respect to 
the contingency measure requirements of the CAA.

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means 
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a 
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely 
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity 
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, 
and the FHWA and the FTA to demonstrate that their long-range 
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) 
conform to applicable SIPs. This demonstration

[[Page 49597]]

is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from 
existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal 
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) contained in a SIP.
    For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the 
EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). One of the adequacy 
criteria requires that motor vehicle emissions budgets when considered 
together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with the 
applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment or 
maintenance (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)). In this case the applicable 
requirement is attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
The Oakridge NAA failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS by December 31, 2014, and the submitted motor vehicle emissions 
budgets therefore do not meet the aforementioned adequacy criterion. 
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to disapprove the submitted budgets.

III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP

    This section explains the consequences of a disapproval of a SIP 
under the CAA. The Act provides for the imposition of sanctions and the 
promulgation of a federal implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails to 
submit and the EPA approve a plan revision that corrects the 
deficiencies identified by the EPA in its disapproval.

The Act's Provisions for Sanctions

    If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a required SIP submission, such 
as an attainment plan submission, or a portion thereof, CAA section 
179(a) provides for the imposition of sanctions unless the deficiency 
is corrected within 18 months of the final rulemaking of disapproval. 
The first sanction would apply 18 months after the EPA disapproves the 
SIP submission, or portion therefore. Under EPA's sanctions 
regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction imposed would be 2:1 
offsets for sources subject to the new source review requirements under 
section 173 of the Act. If the state has still failed to submit a SIP 
submission to correct the identified deficiencies for which the EPA 
proposes full or conditional approval 6 months after the first sanction 
is imposed, the second sanction will apply. The second sanction is a 
prohibition on the approval or funding certain highway projects.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply if a State Fails To 
Submit an Approvable Plan

    In addition to sanctions, if the EPA finds that a state failed to 
submit the required SIP revision or finalizes disapproval of the 
required SIP revision, or a portion thereof, the EPA must promulgate a 
FIP no later than 2 years from the date of the finding if the 
deficiency has not been corrected within that time period.

Ramifications Regarding Conformity

    One consequence if EPA finalizes disapproval of a control strategy 
SIP submission is a conformity freeze.\2\ If we finalize the 
disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP without a protective 
finding, a conformity freeze will be in place as of the effective date 
of the disapproval (40 CFR 93.120(a)(2)).\3\ The Oakridge NAA is an 
isolated rural area as defined in the transportation conformity rule 
(40 CFR 93.101). As such it does not have a metropolitan planning 
organization (MPO), and there is no long range transportation plan or 
TIP that would be subject to a freeze. However the freeze does mean 
that no projects in the Oakridge NAA may be found to conform until 
another attainment demonstration SIP is submitted and the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets are found adequate or the attainment demonstration is 
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 
transportation conformity include reasonable further progress plans 
and attainment demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101).
    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

Proposed Approval

    We propose to approve the following elements of the 2012 SIP 
submission:
     Description of the Oakridge NAA and listing as 
nonattainment, and
     The base year 2008 emission inventory to meet the section 
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories.

Proposed Disapproval

    We propose to disapprove the following elements of the 2012 SIP 
submission:
     The attainment year emission inventory to meet the section 
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories,
     the section 172(c)(1) requirement for reasonably available 
control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control 
technology (RACT),
     the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement for an attainment 
demonstration,
     Transportation conformity and MVEB,
     Section 172(c)(2) and section 189(c) requirements for RFP 
and quantitative milestones, and
     Section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would

[[Page 49598]]

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 18, 2016.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-17714 Filed 7-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P