Finding of Attainment and Approval of Attainment Plan for Klamath Falls, Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area, 21814-21830 [2016-08384]
Download as PDF
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21814
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions
only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits would justify their costs.
In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that
this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
The benefits of similar demonstration
projects have been well established over
the years through the successful
completion and dissemination of the
results of similar projects. For example,
the projects first funded in FY 2007 to
demonstrate collaborative practices that
lead to postsecondary education and
employment of youth with disabilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
have served as a rich source of practices
for the VR field. These proposed
priorities, requirements, and definitions
would promote projects that would
serve as models in developing and
implementing work-based learning
strategies for students with disabilities
that could be replicated by other State
VR agencies so that such agencies could
improve postsecondary education and
competitive integrated employment
outcomes for students with disabilities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps
ensure that: The public understands the
Department’s collection instructions,
respondents can provide the requested
data in the desired format, reporting
burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department
can properly assess the impact of
collection requirements on respondents.
These proposed priorities contain
information collection requirements that
are approved by OMB under the
Disability Innovation Fund program—
Transition Work-Based Learning Model
Demonstrations 1820–0018; this
proposed regulation does not affect the
currently approved data collection.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 8, 2016.
Michael K. Yudin,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2016–08492 Filed 4–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0005: FRL–9944–89–
Region 10]
Finding of Attainment and Approval of
Attainment Plan for Klamath Falls,
Oregon Fine Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a
finding of attainment by the attainment
date for the Klamath Falls, Oregon
nonattainment area (the area) based
upon quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that the area
has monitored attainment of the 2006
24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) based on the 2012–2014 data
available in the EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS) database. The proposed
finding of attainment does not
constitute a redesignation to attainment.
Redesignations require states to meet a
number of criteria including EPA
approval of a state plan to maintain the
air quality standard for 10 years after
redesignation.
The EPA also proposes to approve
revisions to Oregon’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of
the Klamath Falls Fine Particulate
Matter Attainment Plan (attainment
plan) and approve and incorporate by
reference associated revisions to the
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR),
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
submitted by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on
December 12, 2012. The purpose of the
attainment plan was to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December
2014 attainment date included in the
plan, which the area met based on
2012–2014 monitoring data.
The attainment plan addressed the
nonattainment planning requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The
attainment plan included
comprehensive base year and
attainment year emissions inventories
for direct PM2.5 emissions and all
particulate matter precursors, analysis
and selection of reasonably available
control measures and reasonably
available control technologies (RACM
and RACT), demonstrated attainment
through selected permanent and
enforceable control strategies, included
required contingency measures, and
addressed reasonable further progress
and quantitative milestone requirements
through the attainment demonstration.
The attainment plan’s strategy for
controlling direct and precursor PM2.5
emissions relied primarily on an
episodic woodstove curtailment
program and a program to change-out
uncertified woodstoves. Additional
emissions reductions came from control
measures and activities associated with
industrial sources and motor vehicles.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2013–0005 at https://
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
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Justin A. Spenillo at (206) 553–6125,
spenillo.justin@epa.gov, or the above
EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is 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 Standard
B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit
Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4
C. CAA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
Requirements
D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter History
II. Finding of Attainment and Clean Data
Determination
III. Analysis of Oregon’s Submittal
Previously Approved Attainment Plan
Elements
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Control Measures—Oregon Rules and
Klamath County Ordinance
C. Classifications
Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for
Approval
D. Attainment Date
E. Attainment Demonstration
F. Modeling
G. Characterization of Klamath Falls Air
Shed
H. Reasonably Available Control Measures/
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT/RACM)
I. Contingency Measures
J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and
Quantitative Milestones
Additional Elements
K. Conformity Requirements
L. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event
Demonstration and Concurrence
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21815
I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed
Action
A. History of the PM2.5 Standard
On July 18, 1997, the EPA established
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including an
annual standard of 15.0 mg/m 3 based on
a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily)
standard of 65 mg/m 3 based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations (62 FR 38652). The EPA
established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
based on significant evidence and
numerous health studies demonstrating
the serious health effects associated
with exposures to PM2.5. To provide
guidance on the CAA requirements for
state and tribal implementation plans to
implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA promulgated the ‘‘Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72
FR 20586, April 25, 2007) (hereinafter,
the ‘‘2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’).
On October 17, 2006, the EPA
strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
to 35 mg/m 3 and retained the level of the
annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 mg/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 as either attainment/
unclassifiable or nonattainment with
respect to the revised 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that
November 2009 action, the EPA
designated Klamath Falls, Oregon, as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, requiring Oregon to
prepare and submit an attainment plan
for the Klamath Falls area to meet the
revised 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 revised 24-hour
standard (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.
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21816
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
B. Effect of the 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 NRDC 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-matterspecific 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 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Prior to the January 4, 2013 Court
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 standards as
moderate. The final rule also established
December 31, 2014 as the deadline for
the states to submit any additional SIP
elements related to attainment.
The ODEQ submitted an attainment
plan for Klamath Falls on December 12,
2012. The plan included measures to
demonstrate attainment in December
2014. Concurrent with the December 31,
2014 deadline for submitting any
supplements necessary to address
possible subpart 4 elements, Klamath
Falls came into attainment based on
2012–2014 monitoring data. Leading up
to December 31, 2014 deadline, both the
ODEQ and the EPA followed monitoring
data closely to ensure that the area was
meeting targets consistent with the
modeling demonstration submitted in
the attainment plan. Because the area
was on a path toward attainment by
December 2014 and the submitted
attainment plan substantively addressed
the specific PM2.5 problems in the
airshed, the ODEQ did not submit a
supplement to its attainment plan.
Therefore, the EPA evaluated the State’s
existing attainment plan submission for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to determine
that it met not only the applicable
requirements of subpart 1, but also the
applicable requirements of subpart 4.
This approach is consistent with the
Court’s decision that the EPA must
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS consistent
with the requirements of subpart 4. In
this notice, the EPA reviews the ODEQ’s
attainment plan submitted to comply
with the requirements of subpart 1 and
provides an evaluation of why we
believe the submittal also satisfies
subpart 4 requirements, including the
applicable attainment date, and an
analysis of all sources of particulate
matter emissions and PM2.5 precursors
for control strategies.
C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area
Nonattainment Requirements
With respect to the requirements for
attainment plans, the EPA notes that the
general nonattainment area planning
requirements are found in subpart 1,
and the moderate area planning
requirements 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 nonattainment planning.
Specifically, the General Preamble
explains that requirements applicable to
moderate area nonattainment SIPs are
set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs
must also meet the general
nonattainment 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,
April 16, 1992). 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 interpretation of
the statutory requirements that apply to
Moderate and Serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas (NAAs) under
subparts 1 and 4.
The requirements of subpart 1 for
attainment plans include: (1) The
section 172(c)(1) requirements for
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonably available control
technology (RACT) and attainment
demonstrations; (2) the section 172(c)(2)
requirement to demonstrate reasonable
further progress (RFP); (3) the section
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
inventories; (4) the section 172(c)(5)
requirements for a nonattainment new
source review (NSR) permitting
program; and (5) the section 172(c)(9)
requirement for contingency measures.
The subpart 4 requirements for
moderate areas are generally comparable
with the subpart 1 requirements and
include: (1) The section 189(a)(1)(A)
NSR permit program requirements; (2)
the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirements for
attainment demonstration; (3) the
section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for
RACM; and (4) the section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and quantitative
milestones. In addition, under subpart 4
the moderate area attainment date is no
later than the end of the 6th calendar
year after designation.
The EPA evaluated the ODEQ’s
attainment plan for the Klamath Falls
area for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS
and believes that the State’s submission
satisfies the relevant requirements of
both subpart 1 and subpart 4, as
discussed below.
D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter
History
The Klamath Falls area has a history
of successfully addressing particulate
matter for over 25 years. In 1987, the
EPA designated Klamath Falls a
nonattainment area for PM10—
particulate matter ten micrometers and
smaller. The ODEQ prepared a PM10
attainment plan for the Klamath Falls
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1991.
The ODEQ revised and re-submitted the
plan in 1995, and the EPA approved it
on April 14, 1997 (62 FR 18047). The
area’s monitor began attaining the
standard in 1992 and has not exceeded
the standard since that time. In 2002,
the ODEQ submitted a redesignation
request and maintenance plan for PM10.
This plan demonstrated that the
necessary control strategies were in
place to maintain the PM10 NAAQS and
the EPA approved the plan on October
21, 2003 (68 FR 60036). The attainment
and maintenance plans relied on a
mandatory episodic woodstove
curtailment program and a large
woodstove change-out program to
reduce emissions from the primary
contributor of particulate matter in the
area. Additional measures provided
control on industrial emissions and are
discussed later in this notice. The area
has continued to maintain the PM10
NAAQS.
In 1997, the EPA revised the
particulate standard to include PM2.5
(particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in
diameter and smaller) at a daily
standard of 65 mg/m3. Due to the same
set of control measures that it used to
address exceedances of the PM10
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
standard, Klamath Falls successfully
remained below the PM2.5 standard
promulgated in 1997. When the EPA
tightened the PM2.5 standard from 65mg/
m3 to 35mg/m3 in 2006, Klamath Falls
was found to be exceeding the new
standard. The EPA subsequently
designated the area as nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in
November 2009, prompting the
adoption of more stringent control
measures and submission of the
attainment plan in 2012.
II. Finding of Attainment and Clean
Data Determination
Pursuant to sections 179(c) and
188(b)(2) of the Act, the EPA has the
responsibility of determining within six
months of the applicable attainment
date whether nonattainment areas
attained the NAAQS based on certified
air quality data. The EPA reviewed the
PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data from
the Peterson School regulatory monitor
(AQS site 41–035–0004 POC1),
consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, as
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database for the Klamath Falls
area. For purposes of determining
attainment by the attainment date, the
EPA considered data recorded in the
AQS database, certified as meeting
quality assurance requirements, and
determined to have met data
completeness requirements. On the
basis of this review, the EPA has
concluded that the Klamath Falls area
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
during the 2012–2014 monitoring
period—https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/
values.html. Specifically, under the EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 24-hour
primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS
are met when the 98th percentile 24hour concentration is less than or equal
to 35 mg/m3. The design value (the
metrics calculated in accordance with
40 CFR part 50, appendix N, for
determining compliance with the
NAAQS) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for the years 2012–2014 at the
Peterson School monitor was 34 mg/m3,
meeting the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date
established in the 2012 attainment plan.
As a result, the EPA proposes to
determine that the area has attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the area has clean data
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
This determination is based upon
quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data
showing that the area has monitored
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 2012–2014 monitoring data,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
discussed above. Under a Clean Data
Determination (CDD), the requirements
for the area to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated RACM, RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any
other planning SIP requirements related
to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS would be suspended for so long
as the area continues to meet this
NAAQS. If EPA subsequently
determines that the area is in violation
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
basis for the suspension of the specific
requirements, set forth at 40 CFR
51.1004(c), would no longer exist and
the area would thereafter have to
address the pertinent requirements.
Although a CDD suspends the
requirement for submission of certain
attainment planning elements, it does
not relieve the EPA of its responsibility
to take action on a state’s SIP
submission. As described in this action,
the EPA is proposing to fully approve
the remaining elements of the Klamath
Falls nonattainment plan as meeting the
requirements of the CAA.
The proposed finding of attainment
by the attainment date and clean data
determination that the air quality data
shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the
redesignation of the area to attainment.
This proposed action, if finalized, will
not constitute a redesignation to
attainment under section 107(d)(3) of
the CAA, because the state must have an
approved maintenance plan for the area
as required under section 175A of the
CAA, and a determination that the area
has met the other requirements for
redesignation in order to be
redesignated to attainment. The
designation status of the area will
remain nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as the
EPA determines that the area meets the
CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. Analysis of Oregon’s Submittal
In accordance with Sections 172(c)
and 189 of the CAA, the attainment plan
that the ODEQ submitted for the
Klamath Falls area included
comprehensive base year and
attainment year emissions inventories
that addressed direct particulate matter
emissions and all particulate matter
precursors, analyzed RACM and RACT,
demonstrated attainment through
selected permanent and enforceable
control strategies, included required
contingency measures, and addressed
reasonable further progress and
quantitative milestone requirements
through the attainment demonstration.
The attainment plan’s strategy for
controlling direct and precursor PM2.5
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21817
emissions relied primarily on an
episodic woodstove curtailment
program and the change-out of
uncertified woodstoves. Additional
emissions reductions came from control
measures and activities associated with
industrial sources, motor vehicles, and
public education.
The rule revisions submitted by the
ODEQ and the ordinances passed by
Klamath County support the
implementation of these control
measures in a manner that is both
permanent and enforceable. The EPA
approved, on August 25, 2015, the
baseline emissions inventory and
control measures associated with this
attainment plan (80 FR 51470). By
including these measures in the SIP, the
state has made them permanent and
enforceable, and with the EPA’s
approval of these control measures on
August 25, 2015, the measures have
become federally enforceable. This
submittal also addresses transportation
conformity budgets and the EPA’s
proposed approval to exclude data from
wildfire exceptional events affecting
data on September 25, 2009 (for
purposes of the attainment
demonstration), August 25, 2012,
August 28, 2012, August 31, 2012, July
30, 2013, and August 5, 2013 (for
purposes of the finding of attainment)
that affected the regulatory monitor in
Klamath Falls.
Previously Approved Attainment Plan
Elements
A. Emissions Inventory
The baseline emission inventory
requirements were approved in an
action completed on August 25, 2015
(80 FR 51470). The approved emissions
inventory covered direct PM2.5 and
precursors to the formation of PM2.5
(nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3),
and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) to meet the
comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement of CAA section 172(c) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
emissions inventory applicable to the
attainment demonstration and the
attainment year inventory will be
discussed in the Modeling and
Attainment Demonstration sections of
this notice.
B. Control Measures—Oregon Rules and
Klamath County Ordinance
The December 12, 2012 attainment
plan submitted by the ODEQ included
revisions to a number of administrative
rules to implement the attainment plan
for the Klamath Falls area. These
revisions consisted of updates to
identify the Klamath Falls
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
21818
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment area and to adopt local
and state measures to ensure permanent
and enforceable control strategies and
contingency measures, as described in
the attainment plan, to bring the area
back into attainment in the event the
area failed to meet RFP or failed to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Specifically, the ODEQ
revised rules in OAR 340, Divisions 200,
204, 225, 240, 262, and 264. The EPA
already provided notice and comment
on these rules, except for the
contingency measures, and proposed to
approve the rules on December 30, 2014
(79 FR 78372) and finalized the action
on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51470).
These control measures were relied
upon by Klamath Falls to attain the
standard by 2014 and will remain in
place for continued maintenance of the
standard. Further details on these
control measures can be found in the
docket for this action within the
Klamath Falls attainment plan submittal
as well as in the proposed and final
Federal Register notices approving
these measures.
C. Classifications
The applicable attainment planning
requirements under subpart 4 (section
189(a) and (b)) depend on whether the
nonattainment area is classified as
moderate or serious. In response to the
Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, the
EPA finalized on June 2, 2014, initial
classifications of all current 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as
moderate (79 FR 31566). Thus, the
attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ
for the Klamath Falls area is evaluated
pursuant to the moderate area
requirements of subpart 4.
Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for
Approval
D. Attainment Date
The CAA requirements of subpart 4
include a demonstration that a
nonattainment area will meet applicable
NAAQS within the timeframe provided
in the statute (Section 189(c)(1)). For the
2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, an
attainment plan must show that a
moderate nonattainment area will attain
the standard as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of
the sixth calendar year after the area’s
designation, which in the case of
Klamath Falls is December 31, 2015. In
the Klamath Falls attainment plan the
ODEQ demonstrated that attainment by
December 2014 was as expeditious as
practicable based on the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and
that the attainment date could not be
advanced by a year or more with
additional reasonable measure (e.g.
RACM). The EPA is proposing to
approve the attainment date of
December 2014 as submitted by the
ODEQ, which the area successfully met
as confirmed by quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data.
E. Attainment Demonstration
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a
moderate area nonattainment plan
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 impracticable. In the attainment
demonstration section of the Klamath
Falls PM2.5 attainment plan, the ODEQ
described how its chosen control
strategies would provide the emissions
reductions needed to bring the area into
attainment no later than December 2014.
Quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data
confirm that the area has attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 2014.
TABLE 1—ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION STRATEGIES FOR THE KLAMATH FALLS AREA
Projected air
quality
benefit
(μg/m3)
Control strategies
Baseline Design Value 2008 ..................................................................................................................................................................
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated) ................................................................................................................................................
• Woodstove curtailment—lower thresholds and increased enforcement.
• Shorter open burning window
Woodstove Change-out Programs .........................................................................................................................................................
Heat Smart—woodstove change-out upon sale of home ......................................................................................................................
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) particleboard and hardboard ................................................................................
Public Awareness ...................................................................................................................................................................................
New fireplace standards ........................................................................................................................................................................
Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions ..........................................................................................................................................
• Diesel Retrofits
• Low Emission Vehicle Program
• Fuel Economy
Road Paving ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Future Design Value 2014 .....................................................................................................................................................................
45.1
9.6
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
Minimal
Minimal
34.6 *
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* The individual emission reduction estimates in this table are derived from the modeled Future Design Value in 2014. The air quality benefit
for individual control measures were assessed in isolation and are presented as such in Table 1. Because the control strategies interact nonlinearly, the final design value is not a simple subtraction of the individual measures’ benefits from the baseline design value. When all control strategies are simulated together, their benefit is less than it would appear because, for instance, the curtailment ordinance has a smaller benefit
when stoves have been changed out to be cleaner.
Using the values in Table 1, results
from the roll-forward modeling showed
that the control strategies would achieve
a future year design value of 35 mg/m3
with a relative response factor (RRF) of
0.717, as explained in more detail in the
modeling discussion. In order to
provide a buffer to ensure attainment,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
the ODEQ, Klamath Falls, and Klamath
County implemented additional
measures which yielded a modeled
design value of 34.6 mg/m3 with an RRF
of 0.667. As noted in the RACM/RACT
discussion later in this document, more
than 95% of the projected control
strategy air quality benefits came from
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Klamath Falls Clean Air Ordinance
wood smoke curtailment program (the
Ordinance), woodstove change-out
program, and the Heat Smart program.
The ODEQ and Klamath County relied
on the Ordinance and the woodstove
change-out program to successfully
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
woodstove curtailment program restricts
residential wood burning on days when
the ambient PM2.5 levels are close to
exceeding the standard. Additional
reductions came from the control of
industrial sources and from continuing
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions
from cleaner motor vehicles, as
described later in this document.
The ODEQ included a number of
supplemental analyses in the attainment
plan for a weight of evidence
demonstration of attainment, as
recommended by the EPA’s modeling
guidance. Attachments 3.3 b–e, g–o, w,
and y of the submitted plan (located in
the docket) describe the Klamath Falls
airshed, the source sector contributions,
and the ability of emission controls to
reduce PM2.5 concentrations.
The ODEQ identified wood burning
emissions as the most significant source
sector in the emissions inventory and
thus the key source sector to attainment
with its readily available emissions
reductions. Accordingly, in formulating
an emissions control strategy, the ODEQ
conducted detailed wood burning
surveys for the Klamath Falls area,
assessed the contribution of secondary
organic aerosol to overall PM2.5, used
locally-derived estimates for how well
wood burners follow the yellow and red
curtailment requirements, assessed the
impact of prescribed burning on
wintertime PM2.5, and used the best
available emission factors for wood
burning devices. This level of analysis
is consistent with other moderate
nonattainment areas where wood
burning is a significant issue.
In addition to demonstrating
attainment using the roll-forward
model, the ODEQ also conducted an
unmonitored area analysis (UMAA) to
demonstrate that other parts of the
nonattainment area would also meet the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This
analysis used data from seven monitors
in the area for a saturation survey in
2010–2011 to develop a map of PM2.5
concentration relative to the main
monitor at the Peterson School. The
UMAA calculated the PM2.5 from point
sources at 1.2 kilometer intervals in the
nonattainment area and added this
calculation to the projected
concentration from all other sources.
Results from the UMAA showed that the
Peterson Area monitor is the area of
highest neighborhood-scale
concentration, such that one could
reasonably infer that unmonitored areas
of the nonattainment area were in
attainment based on a finding of
attainment at the Peterson Area monitor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
F. Modeling
All attainment demonstrations must
project air quality below the standard
using standard modeling techniques.
The ODEQ submitted a modeled
demonstration that is consistent with
the recommendations contained in
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.’’ Modeling
should be based 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.
To determine which control strategies
to implement, the ODEQ began by
characterizing the area’s emissions.
Along with developing the 2008
baseline emissions inventory, the ODEQ
also conducted a series of analyses to
better understand particulate matter in
Klamath Falls. This included
conducting and reviewing studies,
analyzing filter samples, and modeling.
For modeling attainment in Klamath
Falls, the ODEQ used a roll-forward
model as the basis for projecting future
design values and the effect of control
strategies. A standard roll-forward
model assumes all sources contribute to
the Peterson School monitor in
proportion to their weight in the
emissions inventory. This is a
reasonable assumption for most source
categories which were mostly direct
PM2.5 because they are relatively welldistributed within the nonattainment
area, but for certain source categories
such as large point sources, prescribed
burning, and road dust, this assumption
is not always accurate. For these three
source categories, effective primary
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission
rates were derived from additional
analyses including AERMOD
atmospheric dispersion modeling for
large point sources, positive matrix
factorization (PMF) modeling for road
dust, and analysis of historical
prescribed burning and its impact on
PM2.5 at the Peterson School monitor.
The ODEQ developed several emissions
inventories for modeling, one for the
current emissions for the baseline year
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21819
of 2008 and two for the attainment year
of 2014. The projected 2014 attainment
year inventory accounts for all changes
(i.e. vehicle fleet turnover, population
changes) that were expected to occur
from 2008 to 2014, except for the locally
imposed control strategies. The ODEQ
then applied each local control strategy
to the 2014 modeling inventory in
isolation, and as a group, as part of
developing the control 2014 inventory
for modeling. When each of these
modeling inventories was run through
the model, the ODEQ was able to
estimate the relative change in PM2.5
resulting from each control strategy in
isolation and from all control strategies
at the same time. See Table 1 in the
Attainment Demonstration section.
The relative change in modeled,
species-specific PM2.5 concentrations at
the Peterson School monitor between
the 2014 control strategy run and the
2008 baseline is referred to as a Relative
Response Factor (RRF). The ODEQ
calculated RRFs separately for each
chemical component of PM2.5, per the
EPA modeling guidance. The RRFs for
ammonium, sulfate, nitrate, and
particle-bound water were held at 1.0
(i.e. constant), which is a conservative
assumption implying that there will be
no reduction in precursor emissions.
However, NOX emissions are projected
to decline from 2,236 tons per year (tpy)
in 2008 to 1,810 tpy in 2014, VOC
emissions are projected to decline from
2,910 tpy in 2008 to 2,645 in 2014, and
ammonia emission inventories are
projected to remain fairly level at 244
tpy in 2008 and 247 tpy in 2014. The
RRF for organic carbon and elemental
carbon are allowed to fluctuate based on
projected emissions and the model, but
the RRF for organic aerosol does not
account for changes in secondary
organic aerosol because a chemical box
model analysis conducted by the ODEQ
and Portland State University
(Appendix A–6–1 of the attainment
plan) found that contributions from both
biogenic and anthropogenic secondary
organic aerosol (SOA) sources were
minor (less than 1% and 3%,
respectively, of total design value
PM2.5). By keeping the RRF constant for
secondary PM2.5, the ODEQ took a
conservative approach in modeling
emission reductions because the
emissions inventory values for most
secondary PM2.5 precursors were
projected to decline between 2008 and
2014 due to control measures already in
place. In the attainment plan
submission, SO2 emission inventories
were projected to increase slightly from
110 tpy in 2008 to 136 tpy in 2014.
However, it is important to note that
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21820
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
32.2 tpy of projected growth in the SO2
emissions inventory was due to the
anticipated addition of the Klamath
Falls Bioenergy facility that was
expected to be built by 2014. This
facility has since withdrawn its
application for a site certification and
will not be constructed. Removing these
projected emissions results in a net
decrease of 6.2 tpy in overall projected
SO2 emissions from 2008 to 2014.
The ODEQ applied the speciesspecific RRFs to the baseline 2006–2010
monitored data based on the EPA’s
guidance to estimate 2014 design
values. The modeling projected an
attainment date of December 2014
which the area achieved. The EPA
carefully evaluated the ODEQ’s
modeling demonstration and concluded
that it adequately meets the current EPA
modeling requirements, and uses
acceptable modeling techniques to
project attainment by the December
2014 attainment date.
In addition, the EPA believes that the
attainment demonstration modeling
submitted by the ODEQ meets subpart 4
requirements. First, section 189(a)(1)(B)
provides that for a moderate
nonattainment area, a state must submit
either a demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is
impracticable. The applicable
attainment date for moderate areas in
section 188(c)(1) of subpart is as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year
after the area’s designation, or, as
applied to Klamath Falls, December
2015. The ODEQ’s modeling
demonstrated attainment by December
2014, which is a year earlier than the
December 2015 attainment deadline.
Second, the modeling relied upon by
the ODEQ included both direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors. The ODEQ’s
weight of evidence analysis is further
supported by quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that the area
has monitored attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the
2012–2014 data. For these reasons, the
EPA proposes to find that the ODEQ’s
modeling is consistent with EPA’s
guidance and meets the attainment
demonstration requirements of subparts
1 and 4.
G. Characterization of the Klamath Falls
Air Shed
In evaluating the Klamath Falls
attainment plan under the requirements
of subpart 4, control of direct PM2.5 and
precursors must be considered.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
According to CAA section 302(g) the
term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air
pollution agent or combination of such
agents, including any physical,
chemical, biological, radioactive
(including source material, special
nuclear material, and by product
material) substance or matter which is
emitted into or otherwise enters the
ambient air. Such term includes any
precursors to the formation of any air
pollutant, to the extent the
Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the
particular purpose for which the term
‘‘air pollutant’’ is used. The provisions
of subpart 4 do not define the term
‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of particulate
matter, nor do they explicitly require
the control of any specifically identified
precursor. However, the EPA has long
recognized the scientific basis for
concluding that SO2, NOX, VOC, and
ammonia are precursors to PM10 and to
PM2.5.1
The EPA’s interpretation of section
189(e) and section 172 indicates that
consideration of all precursors is
necessary for PM2.5 attainment plans,
and RACM/RACT requirements
explicitly require the evaluation of
available control measures for direct
PM2.5 emissions and precursor
emissions from stationary, area, and
mobile sources in order to attain as
expeditiously as practicable. Section
189(e) requires the control of
appropriate precursors from major
stationary sources, unless the
Administrator determines that precursor
emissions from such major stationary
sources do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment in the area.2
While subpart 4 expressly requires
control of precursors from major
stationary sources where direct PM from
major sources is controlled unless
certain conditions are met, other sources
of precursors may also need to be
controlled for the purposes of
demonstrating attainment as
expeditiously as practicable in a given
area. Thus, a state should evaluate all
economically and technologically
feasible control measures for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions,
and should adopt those measures that
are deemed reasonably available, i.e.,
those constituting RACM and RACT
1 See EPA’s 2007 PM
2.5 Implementation Rule at
issue in the NRDC v. EPA case in which EPA
discussed that emissions of SO2, NOX, VOCs and
ammonia are factual and scientific precursors to
PM2.5. 72 FR 20586, at 20589–97. April 25, 2007.
2 EPA notes that it has already addressed the
requirements of subpart 4 for precursors,
specifically within the context of the requirements
of section 189(e), in the General Preamble. See 57
FR at 13539 and 13541–2, April 16, 1992.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
controls for sources located in the area.
The EPA has interpreted subpart 4 to
require analysis for control of precursors
from all source categories in a given
nonattainment area, unless there is a
demonstration that controlling a
precursor or precursors is not necessary
for expeditious attainment of the
NAAQS in the area. This notice will
demonstrate that additional precursor
controls beyond those discussed in
Oregon’s 2012 attainment plan
submission will not affect expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS in the
Klamath Falls area; moreover the area is
already attaining the NAAQS with
existing controls and additional
precursor controls are unnecessary for
expeditious attainment.
As discussed in the EPA’s 1992
General Preamble, in the event that a
state’s attainment plan includes controls
on major stationary sources for PM10 in
order to achieve timely attainment in
the area, section 189(e) requires controls
of all PM10 precursors for major
stationary sources located within the
area, unless there is a showing that such
sources do not contribute significantly
to violations in the area (57 FR 13541,
April 16, 1992). Thus, the EPA’s
existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors
in attainment plans for PM10, as set out
in the General Preamble, contemplates
that states may develop attainment
plans that regulate only those precursors
that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e.,
states may determine that only certain
precursors need be regulated for
attainment purposes. Id.; see also Assoc.
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). The EPA
believes that application of this same
approach to PM2.5 precursors under
subpart 4 is appropriate and reasonable
at this time. Indeed, the EPA has already
taken action upon attainment plans for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other areas
after carefully evaluating the state’s
conclusions regarding which PM2.5
precursors should be regulated in the
area at issue.3
The General Preamble describes the
assessment of precursors as specific to
each nonattainment area, and
acknowledges that the determination of
precursor significance would likely vary
based on the characteristics of the areawide nonattainment problem. The
General Preamble further provides that
in making a determination regarding the
significance of precursors, the EPA will
3 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California; 2008 San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy,’’ (76 FR
69896, November 9, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rely on technical information presented
in the state’s submittal, including filter
analysis, the relative contribution to
overall nonattainment, the selected
control strategies, as well as other
relevant factors (57 FR 13541, April 16,
1992). The remanded 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule also discusses the
types of technical analyses that states
could perform to demonstrate the
significance or insignificance of a
particular precursor for purposes of
attainment, such as emission inventory
information, speciation data
information, modeling, or monitoring
data.
For the reasons discussed in this
section, the EPA believes that the
ODEQ’s attainment plan adequately
evaluated emissions of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors as demonstrated in the
attainment plan and supported by
attainment of the NAAQS. The PM2.5
precursor analysis relied on the types of
analyses discussed in the General
Preamble and the remanded 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule for demonstrating
the contribution of PM2.5 precursors.
Based on these analyses, supported by
current monitoring data, the ODEQ
submittal showed that direct PM2.5
emissions were the primary contributor
to the nonattainment problem and that
additional emissions reductions from
PM2.5 precursors were not needed for
demonstrating attainment, not
economically or technologically feasible
to advance the attainment date by one
year, and that existing control measures
adequately addressed precursors in light
of the minimal impact secondary
organic formation has on this specific
airshed, as evidenced by the Portland
State University SOA study and the
EPA’s Positive Matrix Factorization
(PMF) analysis. Accordingly, the ODEQ
selected control strategies to reduce
emissions of direct PM2.5 and provided
a demonstration that implementation of
these strategies would bring the area
into attainment by the attainment date.
The ODEQ’s attainment plan for
Klamath Falls focused on controlling
direct PM2.5 emissions to attain the 2006
24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS. Notably, this was
the predominant strategy for controlling
PM2.5 in Tacoma, Washington, which is
similarly impacted by direct PM2.5
emissions from residential wood smoke
and was recently redesignated to
attainment as a result of its
implementation of residential wood
smoke direct PM2.5 control strategies. In
support of this control strategy, the
ODEQ attainment plan and supporting
analyses showed that: (1) The Klamath
Falls area attained the standard, (2)
control of direct PM2.5 would reduce
exceedances of the NAAQS, and (3)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
emissions from residential wood
combustion were the largest
contributors to PM2.5 on polluted days.
The EPA reviewed the ODEQ’s
attainment plan and proposes to find
that this approach to direct PM2.5 and
precursors is appropriate for the
Klamath Falls area and is consistent
with the requirements of subpart 4.
1. Quality Assured Monitoring Data
Showing Attainment
As described in Section II. Finding of
Attainment, the Klamath Falls area met
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during
the 2012–2014 monitoring period using
the approach to direct PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants adopted by the
State in the submitted attainment plan.
Given the area’s attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and continued
attainment, it follows that no additional
controls of direct PM2.5 and precursors
beyond those described in the
attainment plan are necessary for the
area to timely attain the NAAQS.
Because EPA’s longstanding approach to
precursors under subpart 4, as
explained in the General Preamble,
authorizes a state to establish that it can
attain the NAAQS expeditiously by
focusing on some but not all precursors,
the EPA believes that the ODEQ’s
submitted attainment plan for the
Klamath Falls area is consistent with
this aspect of subpart 4.
As previously discussed in the
Attainment Demonstration section III.
E., the ODEQ demonstrated the ability
to reduce the emissions in Klamath
Falls below 35 mg/m3 by December
2014. Control measures considered for
demonstrating attainment are discussed
in section III. H. RACT/RACM below,
and the chosen methods primarily focus
on the reduction of direct PM2.5. Table
1 in the Attainment Demonstration
section identifies the 2008 baseline
design value as 45.1 mg/m3 and then
shows how the direct PM2.5 projected air
quality benefits from the chosen control
strategies will achieve a future design
value in 2014 below 35 mg/m3. The
RACT/RACM section will also identify
that other reductions would be needed
to advance the attainment date by one
year, but that the remaining control
measures were determined to not be
economically and/or technologically
feasible, or collectively amount to
reductions necessary to advance
attainment by one year—1.67 mg/m3.
2. Control of Direct Emissions of PM2.5
Would Reduce Exceedances of the
NAAQS
The ODEQ determined that direct
PM2.5 was the primary contributor to
winter time exceedances in the Klamath
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21821
Falls area. As is typical of many areas
in the Pacific Northwest region that
experience PM2.5 exceedances from
anthropogenic sources, these
exceedances occur during the winter
when temperatures are low and air
stagnation conditions are present. These
conditions lead to increases in
residential wood heating which generate
the majority of direct PM2.5 emissions
reaching the monitor. This relationship
is supported by a SANDWICH (Sulfate,
Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water,
Inferred Carbonaceous Material Balance
Approach) chemical speciation analysis
on days that exceeded the standard and
an analysis of primary and secondary
organic aerosols conducted by Portland
State University (PSU), as discussed
above.
The SANDWICH chemical speciation
analysis determined that PM2.5 mass on
days exceeding the standard was 80%
organic and elemental carbon. The PSU
study showed that the contributions
from both biogenic and anthropogenic
sources of secondary organic aerosols
were minor, contributing 1% and 3%,
respectively, to the total PM2.5 design
value. The bulk of emissions causing
exceedances were from directly emitted
organic and elemental carbon PM2.5 (See
attainment plan attachments 3.3f, 3.3g1,
3.3g2). Based on this weight of
evidence, the ODEQ concluded that
direct PM2.5 was the primary contributor
to exceedances of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5
NAAQS at the regulatory monitor in the
Klamath Falls area.
3. Emissions From Residential Wood
Combustion Were the Largest
Contributors to PM2.5 on Polluted Days
The 2008 emissions inventory
compiled by the ODEQ calculated a
direct PM2.5 emissions rate of 654.7 tpy.
Approximately 62% of the total annual
emissions were attributable to area
sources, primarily of emissions from
residential wood combustion. Worst
case daily emissions of direct PM2.5
were calculated at 5,420 pounds (lbs)
per day with 53% of total emissions
attributable to area sources, primarily
emissions from residential wood
combustion. To assess how these
emissions translated into contributions
at the monitor, the EPA conducted a
PMF analysis as discussed above based
on speciated data from the Klamath
Falls violating monitor. The results of
the PMF analysis showed that emissions
of residential wood smoke contributed
an estimated 64–72% of total PM2.5
concentrations at the monitor
(attachment 3.3h). Residential wood
combustion also emits small amounts of
SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia, 4%, 2%,
11%, and 6%, respectively, of the
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
21822
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
inventory for these precursors on the
‘‘worst case day.’’ So not only did
primary organic and elemental carbon
make up over 60% of the PM2.5 mass at
the monitor based on the emissions
inventory data, PMF analysis, and
speciation analyses, but control
measures to address residential wood
combustion also had the collateral
benefit of reducing the precursor
inventory.
General PM2.5
According to the SANDWICH and
PSU analyses secondary PM2.5
conservatively comprised 20% of the
PM2.5 in Klamath Falls on days with
monitored PM2.5 concentrations above
25 mg/m3. By species, the percentages
were 9.6% for nitrate, 4.2% for particlebound water, 3% for anthropogenic
secondary organic aerosols (SOA), 1.6%
for sulfate, 1% for biogenic SOA, and
0.7% for ammonium.
The 2008 baseline emission inventory
for NOX was 2,236 tpy annually and
15,483 lbs/day during wintertime PM2.5
episodes. The non-road and on-road
mobile source categories contributed
70% to annual and worst case day NOX
emissions. The ODEQ’s 2014 attainment
inventory showed decreases from 2008
of over 30% in NOX on-road and nonroad mobile source emissions attributed
to federal mobile source control
measures.4 The decrease of 3,425 lbs/
day from motor vehicle controls was
greater than the NOX emissions from all
the stationary point sources combined,
two of which are already subject to NOX
controls. The remaining 9% of NOX
emissions were spread among area
sources such as natural gas combustion
and residential wood combustion.
Other secondary species were
similarly small components and were
generally emitted by multiple source
categories. While VOCs were the largest
source of precursor emissions on a
pound per day basis (2,910.4 tpy
annually; 22,754 lbs/day during
wintertime episodes), the anthropogenic
secondary organic carbon produced
from such emissions only contributed
3% of the PM2.5 mass. Emissions of
VOCs were split among the stationary
point sources (45%), area sources
(30%), and mobile sources (25%). Much
of the SO2 (109.9 tpy; 1,046 lbs/day)
emissions were from fuel oil
combustion, with the resulting
ammonium sulfate and associated
particle-bound water contributing less
than 5% of the PM2.5 mass. Ammonium
on its own, disassociated from its sulfate
4 The General Preamble acknowledges that states
can take into account reductions from existing
control requirements. 57 FR 13358, April 16, 1992.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
and nitrate, was less than 1% of the
PM2.5 mass. Based on the weight of
evidence provided in the attainment
plan, the EPA finds that the ODEQ
appropriately considered all precursors
in their analysis.
Industrial PM2.5
With respect to emissions of PM2.5
precursors from major stationary
sources pursuant to section 189(e), the
analyses discussed above, which were
conducted for all sources generally, are
similarly applicable to control of
precursor emissions from stationary
sources. The ODEQ identified four Title
V stationary sources with annual
primary PM2.5 emissions exceeding 10
tpy for consideration in its RACT
analysis. These sources were identified
in the 2008 baseline emissions
inventory as Columbia Forest Products
(48.9 tpy), Collins Forest Products (48.4
tpy), Klamath Energy Cogeneration (39.9
tpy) and Jeld-Wen (17.3 tpy). Emissions
of direct PM2.5 from all other stationary
sources in the aggregate amounted to
less than 10 tpy. A consideration in the
ODEQ’s assessment of these facilities
was AERMOD modeling which
indicated that all industrial point
sources combined contributed only 1%
of the baseline primary PM2.5 design
value, as opposed to residential wood
combustion which accounts for roughly
two-thirds. These sources are located
relatively far away from the area where
the greatest PM2.5 concentrations
existed, as confirmed by the monitoring
saturation study, compared to
residential wood combustion which
showed a much greater impact on PM2.5
concentrations. Also, industrial
stationary source stacks send emissions
higher into the atmosphere, and the
inversions that trap area and mobile
source emissions near the ground also
reduce mixing of the elevated stack
emissions to the surface.
In summary, the ODEQ provided data
and analyses indicating that direct PM2.5
was the main cause of exceedances of
the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard in
Klamath Falls and that precursor
emissions are relatively minor
contributors to monitored violations in
the Klamath Falls area.
H. Reasonably Available Control
Technology/Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACT/RACM)
The Klamath Falls attainment plan
addressed the RACT/RACM
requirement under subpart 1. It did not
directly discuss whether the analysis
and selection of RACT/RACM also
meets the subpart 4 requirements
determined to be applicable in NRDC v.
EPA because the Court decision
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
occurred after the ODEQ’s submittal of
the attainment plan, and preliminary
monitoring data showed that the area
was on a path to come into attainment
concurrent with the EPA’s deadline for
any additional submittals under subpart
4. The EPA in this notice addresses
whether the RACT/RACM analysis
complies with subpart 4 as well as
subpart 1, and evaluates whether
application of subpart 4 criteria would
affect the control measures identified as
part of the ODEQ’s control strategy for
the Klamath Falls area.
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 CAA section 172(c)
indicates that what constitutes RACM or
RACT is related to what is necessary for
attainment in a given area, as the
provision states that nonattainment
plans shall provide for attainment of the
NAAQS in the area covered by the
attainment plan.
The EPA based its remanded 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule on the
general attainment plan requirement for
RACM and RACT in section 172(c). The
EPA included requirements for the
process by which states should
determine and establish what control
measures would constitute RACM and
RACT level controls for appropriate
sources in a given nonattainment area.
Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the
EPA provided that a state should submit
a demonstration that it had adopted all
RACM and RACT ‘‘necessary to
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously
as practicable and to meet RFP
requirements.’’ The EPA also required
states to include a ‘‘list of the potential
measures considered by the state, and
information and analysis sufficient to
support the state’s judgment that it has
adopted all RACM, including RACT.’’
Moreover, in 40 CFR 51.1010(b), the
EPA provided that a state could
determine that certain otherwise
available control measures are not
RACM or RACT for sources in the area
if, considered cumulatively, the
measures not adopted would not
advance the attainment date in the area
by at least one year.
The SIP planning requirements under
subpart 4 likewise impose upon states
an obligation to develop attainment
plans that impose RACM and RACT on
sources within a nonattainment area.
Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that states
with areas classified as moderate
nonattainment areas must have SIP
provisions to assure that RACM and
RACT level controls are implemented
by no later than four years after
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
designation of the area. 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
appropriate considerations for
determining what control measures
constitute RACM and RACT for
purposes of meeting the statutory
requirements of subpart 4.
The EPA’s existing guidance for
RACM and RACT under subpart 4 is
comparable to the approach that the
EPA set forth in the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule. The EPA’s
guidance for RACM under subpart 4 in
the General Preamble includes: (1) A list
of some potential measures for states to
consider; (2) a statement of the EPA’s
expectation that the state will provide a
reasoned explanation for a decision not
to adopt a particular control measure;
(3) recognition that some control
measures might be unreasonable
because the emissions from the affected
sources in the area are de minimis; (4)
an emphasis on state evaluation of
potential control measures for
reasonableness, considering factors such
as technological feasibility and the cost
of control; and (5) encouragement that
states evaluating potential control
measures imposed upon municipal or
other governmental entities also include
consideration of the impacts on such
entities, and the possibility of partial
implementation when full
implementation would be infeasible
(e.g., phased implementation of
measures such as road paving). 57 FR
13540, April 16, 1992.
With respect to RACT requirements,
the EPA’s existing guidance in the
General Preamble: (1) Noted that RACT
has historically been defined as ‘‘the
lowest emission limit that a source is
capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and
economic feasibility;’’ (2) noted that
RACT generally applies to stationary
sources, both stack and fugitive
emissions; (3) suggested that major
stationary sources be the minimum
starting point for a state’s RACT
analysis; and (4) recommended that
states evaluate RACT not only for major
stationary sources, but for other source
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
categories as needed for attainment and
considering the feasibility of controls.
57 FR 13540 at 13541, April 16, 1992.
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. In both the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule interpreting the
subpart 1 RACM and RACT
requirements and the General Preamble
making recommendations for the
subpart 4 RACM and RACT
requirements, the focus is upon the
process to identify emissions sources, to
evaluate potential emissions controls,
and to impose those control measures
that are reasonable and that are
necessary to bring the area into
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, but by no later than the
applicable attainment date for the area.
The only exception is if the
economically and technically feasible
measures not adopted as RACT/RACM
will collectively advance attainment by
at least a year, then those measures must
be adopted in most cases.
In its submitted attainment plan for
the Klamath Falls area, the ODEQ
addressed the RACM and RACT
requirements of subpart 1 as interpreted
by the EPA in the remanded 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule. The EPA
proposes to find that the ODEQ RACM
and RACT analysis also meets the
requirements of subpart 4 as explained
in the General Preamble. As described
below, the ODEQ evaluated which
measures would constitute RACM and
RACT in the Klamath Falls area.
1. First, the ODEQ ascertained that
control of direct PM2.5 emissions was
necessary for attainment and that
available RACM for direct PM2.5 would
obviate the need for additional controls
for SO2, NOX, NH3, and VOCs, beyond
existing federal and state controls, in
order to attain the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS.
As described in the Characterization of
Klamath Falls Air Shed section above,
the ODEQ identified direct PM2.5 as the
primary pollutant causing violations at
the regulatory monitor in Klamath Falls,
and was able to show that available
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21823
RACM for direct PM2.5 were sufficient to
demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24hr PM2.5 standard by the subpart 1
attainment date of December 2014.
The EPA agrees that there are not
additional reasonable controls available
to reduce emissions of SO2, NH3, VOC,
and NOX that collectively would
provide for attainment of the standard
by at least one year sooner than
provided for in the attainment
demonstration. The EPA believes that
the ODEQ’s assessment of precursors
sufficiently demonstrates that adoption
of additional precursor controls is not
reasonable or necessary for continued
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
the subpart 4 requirements.
2. Second, the ODEQ evaluated the
relevant emissions sources in the area.
The ODEQ’s control strategy focused
primarily on RACM from ‘‘non-point
sources’’ (i.e., area sources) given that
analyses showed direct PM2.5 from these
sources was the main contributor to
exceedances of the PM2.5 standard.
While there was limited ability for
controls on PM2.5 precursors to advance
attainment, this notice shows that there
are existing controls on industrial and
on road mobile precursor sources. As
such, the attainment plan benefits from
strategies that have already been
considered and enacted and that
applied to ‘‘point sources’’ (i.e., major
stationary sources), non-road mobile
sources, and on-road mobile sources.
Major stationary sources are controlled
through the ODEQ’s permitting
programs and the mobile sources have
been addressed via national and state
measures expected to reduce mobile
source emissions through fuel economy
standards and vehicle emissions
standards including Oregon Low
Emission Vehicle regulations (LEV II/
Tier 2 emissions standards). Table 2
provides a chart of certain RACT/RACM
implemented for the Klamath Falls area.
The table provides the RACT/RACM in
two sections: Current Strategies and
New Strategies. The current strategies
are those that were initiated between
2007–12 and the future strategies are
those that were initiated in 2012. All
measures are being implemented
currently. A full discussion of the
RACT/RACM evaluated by the ODEQ is
available in the Klamath Falls
Attainment Plan.
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
21824
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—RACT/RACM IN KLAMATH FALLS
Emission reduction measure
Current Strategies (2007–present), currently implemented but not
accounted for in the 2008 base year EI
Residential Wood Combustion:
Klamath Woodstove Curtailment Program—revised with lower thresholds &
increased enforcement (Clean Air Ordinance).
Woodstove Change-out Programs ....................................................................
Heat Smart program removal of uncertified woodstoves upon sale of home ..
Open Burning: Shortened Open Burning Window (Klamath Clean Air Ordinance)
Fuel and Transportation Related:
Low Emission Vehicle Program .........................................................................
Road Paving ......................................................................................................
Diesel Retrofits ..................................................................................................
Fuel Economy ....................................................................................................
Industrial Point Sources: Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)—
hardboard and particleboard facilities.
New Strategies (2012–present)
Residential Wood Combustion:
Fireplace Standard ............................................................................................
Public Awareness ..............................................................................................
Industrial Point Sources:
Opacity, Operation and Maintenance Plan Requirements ................................
Offset Requirements ..........................................................................................
Road Dust: Highway Road Sanding practices .........................................................
3. Third, the ODEQ has a
demonstrated history of implementation
success with respect to particulate
matter control strategies. Given that the
Klamath Falls area devised control
measures to address nonattainment for
PM10 in the past, the area was already
implementing a number of relevant
control strategies with demonstrated
efficacy. For purposes of attaining the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the ODEQ
and Klamath County strengthened some
of these existing strategies, which were
previously considered RACT/RACM for
purposes of attaining the PM10 NAAQS,
to achieve PM2.5 reductions to meet the
Pollutant
addressed
Sector
Area ........................................................
PM2.5
Area ........................................................
Area ........................................................
Area ........................................................
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
Mobile .....................................................
Area ........................................................
Mobile .....................................................
Mobile .....................................................
Point ........................................................
SOX, NOX
PM2.5
PM2.5
SOX
PM2.5, SOX
Area ........................................................
Area ........................................................
PM2.5
PM2.5
Point ........................................................
Point ........................................................
Area ........................................................
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
stricter PM2.5 standard (Klamath Falls
PM10 Attainment Plan—62 FR 18047,
April 14, 1997, PM10 Maintenance
Plan—68 FR 60036, October 21, 2003).
In addition to considering the range of
implemented strategies that had
effectively controlled emissions to attain
the PM10 NAAQS, the ODEQ and the
Klamath Falls community formed the
Klamath Air Quality Advisory
Committee (KAQAC) to evaluate and
develop additional RACM/RACT at the
county level to approve into the
Klamath Falls PM2.5 attainment plan.
The KAQAC and the ODEQ contributed
to the formal RACT/RACM analysis of
current and future control strategies and
provided recommendations to the
county commissioners for approval.
The RACT/RACM adopted and
updated by the ODEQ for the Klamath
Falls area were projected to reduce the
24-hour PM2.5 design value by
approximately 11.7 mg/m3 by 2014 (see
table 3 below). Accordingly, the plan
demonstrated attainment by projecting
that the area’s design value would be
reduced from the 2008 base year design
value of 45mg/m3 to below 35mg/m3 in
2014. Recent monitoring data for 2012–
14 indicate that the plan was effective,
reducing the design value to 34 mg/m3.
TABLE 3—RACT/RACM PROJECTED AIR QUALITY BENEFIT FOR THE KLAMATH FALLS AREA
Projected
air quality
benefit
(μg/m3)
RACT/RACM
Primary measures:
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated) ................................................................................................................................................
• Woodstove curtailment—lower thresholds and increased enforcement
• Shorter open burning window
Woodstove Change-out Programs .........................................................................................................................................................
Heat Smart—woodstove change-out upon sale of home ......................................................................................................................
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) particleboard and hardboard ................................................................................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
subtotal 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Additional measures:
Public Awareness ...................................................................................................................................................................................
New fireplace standards ........................................................................................................................................................................
Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions ..........................................................................................................................................
• Diesel Retrofits
• Low Emission Vehicle Program
• Fuel Economy
Road Paving ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
9.6
1.0
0.3
0.1
11.0
0.6
0.1
Minimal.
Minimal.
21825
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—RACT/RACM PROJECTED AIR QUALITY BENEFIT FOR THE KLAMATH FALLS AREA—Continued
Projected
air quality
benefit
(μg/m3)
RACT/RACM
subtotal 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Total .........................................................................................................................................................................................
As seen in Table 3, the most
important control strategies address
residential wood combustion because
the emissions inventory and sourcereceptor analyses identified residential
wood combustion as the most
significant contributor to PM2.5 at the
monitor on days that exceed the
standard. The residential wood
combustion strategies include an
ongoing woodstove change-out program
to replace woodstoves with cleaner,
more efficient devices, and an updated
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance that
includes a strengthened woodstove
curtailment program to reduce
woodstove emissions on days when
exceedances of the standard are most
likely to occur.
The woodstove change-out program in
Klamath Falls has proven effective for
meeting the PM10 standard and again
was selected as a primary RACT/RACM
strategy for the PM2.5 attainment plan.
The program, currently implemented by
the City of Klamath Falls, provides
financial incentives for homeowners to
replace older uncertified woodstoves
with newer, cleaner certified
woodstoves. Between 2008 and 2011,
the change-out program replaced 584
uncertified woodstoves in the area. The
removal and destruction of the old
woodstoves assures that the emissions
reductions are permanent, and the
change-outs are enforceable because
there is a statewide building code that
prohibits the installation of any
uncertified woodstove in the future. The
584 uncertified stoves that have been
changed out were estimated in the
attainment demonstration to collectively
provide emission reductions that would
lead to an air quality improvement of
1.0 mg/m3. The ODEQ intends to
continue its financial support of this
program in the future for purposes of
meeting and maintaining the standard,
but it has not taken any credit in the
attainment demonstration for future
change-outs.
Previous wood burning curtailment
programs were important in helping this
area attain the 1987 PM10 standard and
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Klamath
Clean Air Ordinance, updated in 2007
and again in 2012, is the RACM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
providing the greatest emissions
reductions in the attainment
demonstration at 9.6 mg/m3. The
Ordinance includes a curtailment
program that restricts combustion in
residential solid fuel-fired appliances on
yellow and red advisory days when the
county’s air pollution forecast is for
high PM2.5 concentrations. The
curtailment program is implemented
through advisories communicated to the
community on a daily basis. On yellow
advisory days when the predicted
forecast is for a 24-hour average PM2.5
between 16 and 30 mg/m3, residents
within the air quality zone are
prohibited from using non-certified
woodstoves, non-certified woodstove
insert, or a fireplace. Only certified solid
fuel-fired appliances and pellet stoves
can be used. On red advisory days,
called when PM2.5 levels are forecast to
be above 30 mg/m3, the operation of
woodstoves is prohibited except in
limited cases where Klamath County
has granted a prior hardship exemption.
Use of pellet stoves are still allowed on
red days. The Ordinance also limits
open burning of residential yard debris
to only 15 days of the winter period.
These days are selected based on a
forecast of good ventilation. In addition,
the ODEQ has committed biennial
funding to assist with the County’s
implementation and enforcement of the
strengthened curtailment program
(attachments 3.3r1 and 3.3r2). The
curtailment program is a permanent and
enforceable measure. The program was
duly adopted as a Klamath County
ordinance and as part of the ODEQ’s
administrative rules. It imposes
restrictions on wood burning when the
PM2.5 forecast reaches certain
thresholds, and establishes clear and
enforceable restrictions during yellow
and red advisory days.
Together, the woodstove change-out
and curtailment programs account for
over 95% of the calculated PM2.5
emissions reductions (10 mg/m3) needed
to demonstrate attainment. The
implementation of earlier versions of
these programs helped Klamath Falls to
successfully attain the PM10 NAAQS
and to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The ODEQ’s RACT/RACM analyses
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.7
11.7
determined that implementation of the
curtailment and woodstove change-out
programs as control strategies, in
conjunction with other adopted
strategies providing minor emissions
reductions, would provide for
expeditious attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Additional control strategies, listed in
Table 3, include the following: The
Oregon Heat Smart program, that
requires removal of uncertified
woodstoves upon the sale of homes (0.3
mg/m3); emissions reductions for
implementation of Federal MACT
standards establishing tighter opacity
standards applicable to hardboard and
particle board manufacturers in the
nonattainment area (0.1 mg/m3);
programs to enhance public awareness
to ensure effective compliance with the
Klamath Air Quality Ordinance and
general proper woodstove burning and
maintenance (0.6 mg/m3); new fireplace
standards (0.1 mg/m3); emissions
reductions from Federal fuel economy
standards and state vehicle emissions
regulations; and road paving to reduce
re-entrained road dust. The public
awareness measure is considered a
voluntary measure and has been funded
annually by the ODEQ for purposes
meeting the PM2.5 standard. While not a
permanent and enforceable measure, the
program to enhance education,
outreach, and public awareness is key to
supporting the implementation of the
curtailment including compliance rate
and the implementation of the
woodstove change-out programs. Details
of the intergovernmental agreement
between the ODEQ and Klamath County
can be found in attachment 3.3s,
including the statement of work,
funding provided, and performance
measures. Further discussion of these
ancillary measures can be found in the
Klamath Falls Attainment Plan
(attachments 3.3a, p28–40; 3.3s).
Existing controls on industrial sources
are also implemented within the
Klamath Falls nonattainment area. The
stationary sources identified in the
ODEQ’s RACT analysis already had
limits in place for direct PM2.5 and
precursors, due to existing permitted
controls or anticipated future controls
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21826
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
such as the hardboard and particle
board Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT 40 CFR part 63
subpart DDDD). As such, the ODEQ
assumed no emissions growth for major
permitted point sources in the modeling
demonstration between 2008 and 2014.
For example, Klamath Energy
Cogeneration facility is a natural gas
fired power plant with selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) which limits
NOX emissions. Between the 2008
baseline emissions inventory and the
2014 attainment year inventory, direct
PM2.5 emissions were predicted to
decline from 39.3 to 19.3 tpy, however
all precursors were predicted to remain
stable due to permit limits (NOX = 172.2
tpy, SO2 = 19.5 tpy, VOC = 82.5 tpy, and
NH3 = 68.9 tpy). The Jeld-Wen facility
includes a variety of business types
such as wood products and chrome
plating, with 2014 attainment year
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 10.9,
37.6, 1.9, 165.9, and 0.3 tpy,
respectively. Direct PM2.5 emissions at
Jeld-Wen were projected to decline from
17.3 tpy in 2008 to 10.9 tpy in 2014 due
to the hardboard and particle board
MACT discussed above, but all other
precursor emission were projected to
remain constant due to existing permit
controls. Collins Products is a
reconstituted wood products facility
that uses primarily natural gas, with
2014 attainment year inventories of
direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3
emissions equal to 31.0, 9.4, 0.1, 529.8,
and 0.0 tpy, respectively. Most of the
larger emission units at Collins Products
were controlled via fabric filters for
particulate matter. The hardboard bake
oven was also controlled by a
regenerative thermal oxidizer/
regenerative catalytic oxidizer for VOC
control. Direct PM2.5 emissions at
Collins Products were projected to
decline from 48.4 tpy in 2008 to 31.0
tpy in 2014, also due to the hardboard
and particle board MACT, with all
precursor emissions projected to remain
constant due to existing permit limits.
Columbia Forest Products is a plywood
manufacturer with 2014 attainment year
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 48.9,
53.5, 1.4, 41.2, and 0.3 tpy, respectively.
The facility has two wood fired boilers,
one of which was equipped with a
multiclone for particulate matter
control. Direct PM2.5 and all precursors
were projected by the ODEQ to remain
stable between 2008 and the 2014
attainment year inventory due to the
existing permit controls.
For on-road mobile sources, in the
2014 attainment year inventory the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
ODEQ projected significant NOX
emission reductions gained through
improved motor vehicle fuel economy
and emissions standards, with little
opportunity for improvement among the
remaining smaller sources. Other
secondary species were demonstrated to
be minor contributors to PM2.5 mass and
their emissions are distributed among
multiple source sectors. Emissions of
NOX, NH3, and VOCs are projected to
moderately decrease by 2014 due to
Federal mobile source controls
including the Tier 2 Emission Standards
for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards. These emission control
requirements result in lower VOC and
NOX emissions from new cars and light
duty trucks, including sport utility
vehicles. The Federal rules were phased
in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has
estimated that, by the end of the phasein period, the following vehicle NOX
emission reductions will occur
nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty
vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks,
minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86
percent); and, larger sports utility
vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to
95 percent). VOC emission reductions
are expected to range from 12 to 18
percent, depending on vehicle class,
over the same period. The ODEQ
estimated the on-road emissions
reductions due to federal rules (Tier 2)
in the attainment year. Additional onroad emission reductions are expected
to occur as the fleet continues to turn
over and new Tier 3 vehicle and fuel
standards are phased in. In July 2000,
the EPA issued a The Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engine Rule, effective in 2004, which
includes standards limiting the sulfur
content of diesel fuel. A second phase
took effect in 2007 which further
reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur
content to 15 parts per million, leading
to additional reductions in combustion
NOX and VOC emissions. This proposed
rule is expected to achieve a 95%
reduction in NOX emissions from diesel
trucks and buses. The EPA issued the
Nonroad Diesel Rule in 2004. This
proposed rule applies to diesel engines
used in industries, such as construction,
agriculture, and mining. It is estimated
that compliance with this proposed rule
will cut NOX emissions from nonroad
diesel engines by up to 90 percent.
Some of these emission reductions were
projected to occur by the 2014
attainment year with additional
emission reductions following
attainment.
As shown in table 1, the control
strategies included in the attainment
plan were projected to provide direct
PM2.5 projected air quality benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
resulting in an 11.7 mg/m3 reduction in
the 24-hour PM2.5 design value, to a
2014 modeled value of 34.6 mg/m3. The
implementation of these control
strategies brought the area into
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 2014. Consistent with the
D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in NRDC v.
EPA, the control measures identified by
the ODEQ as RACM and RACT need to
meet the requirements of section
189(a)(1)(C), which requires that all
RACM for a Moderate area be
implemented by no later than four years
after designation. The Klamath Falls
area was designated nonattainment on
November 13, 2009, and thus according
to section 189(a)(1)(C), all necessary
RACT/RACM should have been
implemented by no later than November
2013. The ODEQ and Klamath County
adopted and began implementing the
control measures identified as RACM/
RACT prior to the submission of the
Klamath Falls attainment plan to the
EPA in December 2012. Consequently,
the EPA believes that the ODEQ
complied with the four-year RACT/
RACM implementation requirement.
4. Fourth, the ODEQ and the KAQAC
identified and evaluated a wide range of
additional potential control measures as
described in the KAQAC report. The
KAQAC report evaluated additional
control measures for purposes of
determining if they could reasonably
provide additional substantive
emissions reductions. Between March
2011 and February 2012, the KAQAC
met 13 times to review the state of air
quality in Klamath Falls and develop
recommendations of suggested control
measures for approval by the Klamath
County Commissioners and
incorporation into the ODEQ’s
attainment plan as RACT/RACM. The
KAQAC reviewed 79 control measures
and evaluated the measures in light of
factors such as environmental, health,
economic, social, and technological
feasibility. The KAQAC’s findings and
recommendations are summarized in
the ODEQ’s Klamath Falls attainment
plan and presented in attachments
3.3p–q.
Although the ODEQ and Klamath
County considered a wide range of
additional strategies, a majority of the
strategies were eliminated as not
reasonable because they were
determined to be technologically or
economically infeasible. For this reason,
many of these control measures were
screened out early in the process
through application of the EPA’s criteria
for determination of RACT/RACM, and
were therefore not quantified for
purposes of determining if they would
advance the attainment date by one
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
year. Given that the area needed to
identify 10 mg/m3 of reductions over six
years (e.g., 2008 base year to 2014
attainment year) to get from 45 mg/m3 to
35 mg/m3, one year of reductions was
roughly 1.67 mg/m3 for the Klamath
Falls attainment plan. The remaining
control measures were provided by the
KAQAC as a set of recommended
RACT/RACM for the Klamath County
Commissioners to adopt. The final
control measures adopted by Klamath
County were included in the plan with
additional control measures adopted by
the ODEQ to satisfy the RACT/RACM
planning requirements. The emissions
reductions from the implementation of
the adopted enforceable measures are
sufficient to demonstrate attainment and
provide a buffer below the 35 mg/m3
standard.
In the Klamath Falls Attainment Plan
(pages 45–47), the ODEQ applied the
primary control measures to the base
year design value to demonstrate that
they would be able to bring the Klamath
Falls future design value below the 35
mg/m3 standard. To provide a buffer
they also took credit for additional
emissions reductions attributed to the
new fireplace standards and the
education program. Table 3 in this
document identifies the measures that
the ODEQ identified as necessary to
bring the area below the standard as
primary measures and these account for
approximately 11.0 mg/m3. Table 3 also
includes the additional controls that
meet the RACM/RACT criteria, listed as
additional measures, and shows that
they account for approximately 0.7 mg/
m3 of emissions reduction. With the
information provided in the submittal
the EPA identified that these additional
measures of 0.7 mg/m3 were not enough
to advance the attainment date by one
year (i.e., 1.67 mg/m3).
assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data.
Not Possible To Advance Attainment by
One Year
Under the attainment plan
requirements, an area must implement
all reasonably available control
measures that would advance the date
of attainment by one year, or as
expeditiously as possible. In the
attainment demonstration submitted in
the Klamath Falls attainment plan, the
ODEQ identified that the area would
attain the standard by December 2014.
As the area already attained the 2006
24-hr PM2.5 standard in December 2014,
attaining as expeditiously as possible is
no longer relevant.
The EPA proposes to find that the
ODEQ’s attainment plan meets the
RACM/RACT requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed approval
is based upon the State’s compliance
with the requirements of the general
preamble and the EPA’s analysis that
the submitted attainment plan also
meets the statutory RACM and RACT
requirements of subpart 4. The plan is
consistent with subparts 1 and 4 of the
statute, and with the guidance provided
in the general preamble, such as
identifying relevant sources and
potential control measures for those
sources, and for evaluating whether
potential control measures are
reasonable based upon factors such as
technological and economic feasibility.
Most importantly, under either subpart,
the state is required to determine RACM
and RACT measures in light of the
emissions reductions needed to bring
the area in question into attainment.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the ODEQ’s attainment plan analysis
sufficiently evaluated the relevant
sources and controls and appropriately
selected RACM/RACT measures that
Not Necessary for Attainment
meet the requirements of subparts 1 and
4 and provided for the timely
As described in this action, the
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
exceedances at the Peterson School
monitor were from direct PM2.5, and the The ODEQ identified emissions sources,
evaluated potential control measures,
main source category responsible for
emissions of direct PM2.5 was residential and adopted reasonably available
control measures consistent with CAA
wood combustion. In the attainment
requirements in subparts 1 and 4, and
demonstration, the economically and
with existing EPA guidance. The
technologically feasible control
ODEQ’s attainment plan included
measures chosen by the ODEQ focused
sufficient information to determine that
on reduction of direct PM2.5 from
implementation of additional precursor
residential wood combustion. The two
controls was unnecessary for timely
major controls were in the form of
attainment of the NAAQS. Relying on
strengthening the woodstove
curtailment program and the change-out its selected RACM/RACT, the ODEQ
demonstrated attainment with the 2006
of residential woodstoves with more
efficient, lower emissions EPA-certified PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. The
woodstoves. With these measures, the
EPA is proposing to approve the
ODEQ was able to demonstrate
ODEQ’s analysis and selection of
attainment by the end of 2014, which
RACM/RACT as meeting the
the area met based upon qualityrequirements of subparts 1 and 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21827
I. Contingency Measures
Contingency measures are additional
measures to be implemented in the
event that an area fails to attain a
standard by its applicable attainment
date, or fails to meet Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP). These measures must be
fully adopted rules or control 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. In addition,
they should be measures not already
included in the SIP control strategy, and
should provide for emission reductions
equivalent to one year of RFP.
The ODEQ developed contingency
measures for the Klamath Falls PM2.5
attainment plan in accordance with the
contingency measures requirement in
section 172(c)(9) of subpart 1 of the
CAA (Subpart 4 does not contain
contingency measure requirements.)
The primary contingency measure in the
ODEQ attainment plan is a prohibition
on burning in all uncertified fireplaces
during the winter wood heating season.
This contingency measure was adopted
as part of the Klamath County 2012
Ordinance (attachment 3.3r2) and the
ODEQ’s administrative rules, and the
contingency measures automatically
take effect without any further action by
ODEQ if the area fails to attain by the
attainment date. Implementation of the
fireplace contingency measure was
projected to reduce the future year
design value by the one year of RFP
reductions (1.67 mg/m3 for Klamath
Falls) expected for contingency
measures. The EPA proposes to approve
the contingency measures in the
Klamath Falls attainment plan as
meeting the requirements of section
172(c)(9). The contingency measures
within the Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR) for proposed approval include
340–240–0570, 340–240–0580, 340–
240–0610, 340–240–0620, 340–240–
0630, 340–262–1000 and are listed in
section V. Incorporation by reference,
Table 5.
J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
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
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
21828
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 some time just before
the date by which the standard is to be
attained. Second, under subpart 4, CAA
section 189(c) requires that a PM10
NAAQS attainment plan submission
have ‘‘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.’’
While the ODEQ’s attainment plan
was developed to meet the subpart 1
RFP requirements, the EPA is also
evaluating the plan to determine
whether it meets the subpart 4
quantitative milestones requirement.
That section is comparable to the
requirements of section 172(c)(1), in that
it requires attainment plans under
subpart 4 to meet a RFP requirement.
However, section 189(c) also provides
that an attainment plan should have
quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area
is redesignated to attainment, and
which demonstrate reasonable further
progress toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date. The EPA’s
General Preamble and Addendum
provide guidance interpreting this
statutory provision and are useful to
evaluate this requirement of subpart 4.5
In particular, the EPA’s guidance
recommendations with respect to
section 189(c) include several relevant
features: (1) That the control measures
comprising the RFP should be
implemented and in place to meet the
milestone requirement; (2) that it is
reasonable for the three year periods for
milestones to run from the date that the
attainment plan submission is due; and
(3) that the precise form quantitative
milestones should take is not specified
and they may take whatever form would
allow progress to be quantified or
measured adequately.6 As discussed
below, the EPA believes that the
ODEQ’s attainment plan adequately
5 See General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, April 16,
1992; Addendum, 59 FR 42015–17, August 16,
1994.
6 Merely as examples, EPA noted some potential
approaches, such as percent implementation of
control strategies, percent compliance with
implemented control measures, and adherence to a
compliance schedule. This list was clearly not
exhaustive and reflected that the purpose of such
milestones is merely to provide an objective way to
assess that the area is making progress towards
attainment by the applicable attainment date. See
Addendum, 59 FR 42016, August 16, 1994.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
meets both the RFP and quantitative
milestone requirements for this area for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
First, although not presented as
control measures that would achieve
reductions by a specified three year
milestone, the ODEQ’s attainment plan
contained control measures that were
already implemented and in place and,
in fact, were achieving necessary
emission reductions to meet RFP and
quantitative milestone requirements.
For example, the woodstoves changeout program commenced in 2008 and
achieved sustained and quantifiable
emission reductions between 2008 and
2011. The ODEQ calculated the
emissions reductions associated with
the number of woodstoves exchanged in
each of those years. In addition, the
ODEQ quantified the estimated number
of woodstove change-outs resulting from
implementation of the Heat Smart
program and the associated emissions
reductions for each calendar year. These
values in turn were relied upon to
demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24hour NAAQS by the attainment date
(refer to Table 9 and Table 10 in
Attachment 3.3a).
Second, even under the more
aggressive 18-month statutory
attainment plan due date in subpart 4,
the control measures in the ODEQ’s
attainment plan were in place and
achieving reductions within three years
of submission. The Klamath Falls area
was designated nonattainment in
November 2009, and under subpart 4 an
attainment plan would have been due in
June 2011. As noted in the RACM/RACT
discussion (section III.E), the attainment
plan consisted of control measures
including past strategies implemented
prior to 2008 and new strategies
implemented after 2012. The past
strategies included the woodstove
change-out program with emission
reductions achieved through
implementation in 2008–2011, the
Oregon Heat Smart program, and the
woodstove curtailment program. While
not explicitly identified as quantitative
measures in the 2012 ODEQ submission,
the state relied upon these primary
control measures in the attainment plan
to provide the bulk of the emissions
reductions needed to bring the area into
attainment, and were achieving
reductions well within three years from
the subpart 4 attainment plan
submission date. In addition, there is no
need to evaluate whether the attainment
plan accounts for a second three-year
milestone because the plan
demonstrates attainment in December
2014 before the occurrence of the
second milestone.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Third, the ODEQ’s attainment plan
provided information sufficient to
quantify the amount of emissions
reductions to be achieved by pollutant
and control measure by the December
2014 attainment date. The
quantification of reductions is found in
the emissions inventory table in the
attainment plan and emissions
inventory, as well as calculated from the
emissions reductions associated with
each control strategy in the attainment
demonstration (Table 3, above). Thus,
the attainment plan did quantify the
emission reductions that would occur at
a point in time that was appropriate for
a three year milestone, regardless of
what the statutory SIP submission date
was under either subpart 1 or subpart 4.
The ODEQ’s attainment plan contained
control measures that achieved annual
emissions reductions and associated air
quality improvements between the time
of the nonattainment designation and
the time the area attained the standard
that are sufficient to demonstrate RFP
under subpart 1. The timely
implementation of these control
measures may be viewed as satisfying
the quantitative milestone requirements
that apply under subpart 4.
The EPA proposes to approve the
submitted Klamath Falls attainment
plan as meeting both the RFP and
quantitative milestone requirements.
The plan provides sufficient data and
analyses that demonstrate emission
reductions that provide reasonable
progress towards attainment in
December 2014. The key control
strategies for attainment were
implemented and achieving emissions
reductions prior to the attainment plan
due date under subpart 4 and within the
three-year quantitative milestone
requirement. This is consistent with the
purpose of the milestone requirement
which is to ‘‘provide for emission
reductions adequate to achieve the
standards by the applicable attainment
date’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 480, 101st Cong. 2d
Sess. 267 (1990)). The ODEQ
demonstrated progress toward
attainment in December 2014 and
successfully implemented the control
measures expected to achieve the
NAAQS by this date. Furthermore, since
Klamath Falls has attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by the demonstrated date,
this provides further support that RFP
and quantitative milestones were being
met at the appropriate time.
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
21829
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
K. Conformity Requirements
Transportation Conformity and the
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
(MVEB)
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 national
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
part 93, subpart A) as well as the Oregon
transportation conformity SIP which
cites the national rule (77 FR 60627,
October 4, 2012). 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 FTA to
demonstrate that their long-range
transportation plans (‘‘plans’’) and
transportation improvement programs
(TIPs) conform to applicable SIPs. This
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.
TABLE 4—2014 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR KLAMATH FALLS
Inventory
PM2.5
Worst Case Winter PM2.5 Season ..........................................................
699 lbs/day ....................................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
For motor vehicle emissions budgets
to be approvable, they must meet, at a
minimum, the EPA’s adequacy criteria
(40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). The EPA has
reviewed the motor vehicle emissions
budgets listed above in Table 4 and
found that they are consistent with the
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and meet the criteria for
adequacy and approval. The EPA found
the budgets located in Table 4 adequate
(80 FR 45654; July 31, 2015). The EPA
proposes to approve Oregon’s MVEBs in
Table 4 for 2014 for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for the Klamath Falls
nonattainment area. As a clarification,
only the 2014 MVEB in the submittal is
applicable to the attainment plan and
only the 24-hour budget will be used for
conformity purposes. As such, the EPA
believes that these motor vehicle
emissions meet applicable requirements
for such budgets for purposes of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
transportation conformity purposes.
M. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event
Demonstration and Concurrence
The CAA allows for the exclusion of
air quality monitoring data from design
value calculations when there are
exceedances caused by events, such as
wildfires, that meet the criteria for an
exceptional event identified in the
EPA’s implementing regulations, the
Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR
50.14. Emissions from wildfires
influenced PM2.5 concentrations
recorded at the Klamath Falls Peterson
School monitor on September 30, 2009;
August 25, 28 and 31, 2012; and July 30
and August 5, 2013. The ODEQ
submitted an exceptional events
demonstration for the 2009 wildfire
with which the EPA concurred on June
29, 2012. The 2009 event had regulatory
significance for purposes of the
attainment demonstration in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
ODEQ’s Klamath Falls attainment plan
submittal. The ODEQ also submitted an
exceptional events demonstration for
the 2012 and 2013 wildfires with which
the EPA concurred on February 18,
2015. The exclusion of data influenced
by the 2012 and 2013 wildfires affected
the design value for 2012–2014. Further
details on the ODEQ’s analyses and the
EPA’s concurrences can be found in the
docket for this regulatory action. The
EPA proposes to approve all of the
concurred dates listed above as detailed
in the docket as exceptional events to be
removed from the data set used for
regulatory purposes and to rely on the
calculated values that exclude the
event-influenced data in this proposed
finding of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to find that the
Klamath Falls area attained the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. The EPA proposes to
approve the PM2.5 attainment plan for
the Klamath Falls nonattainment area.
As explained above, the EPA believes
that the attainment plan submitted by
Oregon, though not expressed in terms
of subpart 4 requirements, substantively
meets the requirements of subpart 4.
Specifically, the attainment plan
included a weight of evidence
demonstration that the area would
attain by the statutory attainment date
that applied under a subpart 1 regime
and a full year before the latest
allowable subpart 4 moderate area
attainment date. In addition, the plan
meets the substantive requirements
applicable under subparts 1 and 4 for
RACM/RACT, base-year emissions
inventories, RFP and quantitative
milestones, and contingency measures.
The plan also included MVEBs to be
used for transportation conformity
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
4,834 lbs/day
purposes for Klamath Falls.
Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the SIP meets applicable
requirements for purposes of approval
under section 110(k) of the CAA. The
EPA also proposes to approve the rules
submitted and the exceptional event
demonstration discussed in this action.
Finally, we propose to determine that
the area has clean data based on qualityassured and quality-controlled 2012–
2014 ambient air monitoring data for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if the
EPA finalizes this determination, it will
suspend the requirements for the area to
submit an attainment demonstration,
associated RACM, RFP, contingency
measures, and any other planning SIP
requirements related to the attainment
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, so long as the
area continues to meet the standard.
Although a CDD suspends the
requirement for submission of certain
attainment planning elements, it does
not relieve the EPA of its responsibility
to take action on a state’s SIP
submission. As described in this action,
the EPA is proposing to fully approve
the remaining elements of the Klamath
Falls nonattainment plan as meeting the
requirements of the CAA.
V. Incorporation by Reference
The EPA is proposing to approve
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the rules
described in this preamble and listed in
Table 5 below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
21830
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—PROPOSED RULES FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
[EPA approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)]
State citation
State
effective date
Title/Subject
EPA
approval date
Explanations
Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs
Klamath Falls Nonattainment Area Contingency Measures
240–0570
240–0580
240–0610
240–0620
240–0630
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
Applicability .............................................................................
Existing Industrial Sources Control Efficiency .......................
Continuous Monitoring for Industrial Sources ........................
Contingency Measures: New Industrial Sources ...................
Contingency Enhanced Curtailment of Use of Solid Fuel
Burning Devices and Fireplaces.
12/11/2012
12/11/2012
12/11/2012
12/11/2012
12/11/2012
Division 262—Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices
262–1000 ................................
Wood Burning Contingency Measures for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. 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 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);
• 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);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:59 Apr 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land in Oregon or any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction.
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: April 1, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016–08384 Filed 4–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12/11/2012
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0388; FRL–9944–43]
RIN 2070–AB27
Significant New Use Rule on Certain
Chemical Substances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing significant
new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) for three
chemical substances which were the
subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). This action would require
persons who intend to manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or
process any of the chemical substances
for an activity that is designated as a
significant new use by this proposed
rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before
commencing that activity. The required
notification would provide EPA with
the opportunity to evaluate the intended
use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit
the activity before it occurs.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0388, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21814-21830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08384]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0005: FRL-9944-89-Region 10]
Finding of Attainment and Approval of Attainment Plan for Klamath
Falls, Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make
a finding of attainment by the attainment date for the Klamath Falls,
Oregon nonattainment area (the area) based upon quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing
that the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) based on the 2012-2014 data available in the EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) database. The proposed finding of attainment
does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. Redesignations
require states to meet a number of criteria including EPA approval of a
state plan to maintain the air quality standard for 10 years after
redesignation.
The EPA also proposes to approve revisions to Oregon's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of the Klamath Falls Fine
Particulate Matter Attainment Plan (attainment plan) and approve and
incorporate by reference associated revisions to the Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR),
[[Page 21815]]
submitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on
December 12, 2012. The purpose of the attainment plan was to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 2014 attainment
date included in the plan, which the area met based on 2012-2014
monitoring data.
The attainment plan addressed the nonattainment planning
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The attainment plan
included comprehensive base year and attainment year emissions
inventories for direct PM2.5 emissions and all particulate
matter precursors, analysis and selection of reasonably available
control measures and reasonably available control technologies (RACM
and RACT), demonstrated attainment through selected permanent and
enforceable control strategies, included required contingency measures,
and addressed reasonable further progress and quantitative milestone
requirements through the attainment demonstration. The attainment
plan's strategy for controlling direct and precursor PM2.5
emissions relied primarily on an episodic woodstove curtailment program
and a program to change-out uncertified woodstoves. Additional
emissions reductions came from control measures and activities
associated with industrial sources and motor vehicles.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0005 at https://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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin A. Spenillo at (206) 553-6125,
spenillo.justin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is 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 Standard
B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
C. CAA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Requirements
D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter History
II. Finding of Attainment and Clean Data Determination
III. Analysis of Oregon's Submittal
Previously Approved Attainment Plan Elements
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Control Measures--Oregon Rules and Klamath County Ordinance
C. Classifications
Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for Approval
D. Attainment Date
E. Attainment Demonstration
F. Modeling
G. Characterization of Klamath Falls Air Shed
H. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT/RACM)
I. Contingency Measures
J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Quantitative Milestones
Additional Elements
K. Conformity Requirements
L. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event Demonstration and Concurrence
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
A. History of the PM2.5 Standard
On July 18, 1997, the EPA established the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 [micro]g/m \3\ based on a
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a
24-hour (or daily) standard 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 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 as
either attainment/unclassifiable or nonattainment with respect to the
revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that
November 2009 action, the EPA designated Klamath Falls, Oregon, as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, requiring
Oregon to prepare and submit an attainment plan for the Klamath Falls
area to meet the revised 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 revised 24-hour standard (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.
[[Page 21816]]
B. Effect of the 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
NRDC 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 Court 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 standards as moderate. The final rule also established
December 31, 2014 as the deadline for the states to submit any
additional SIP elements related to attainment.
The ODEQ submitted an attainment plan for Klamath Falls on December
12, 2012. The plan included measures to demonstrate attainment in
December 2014. Concurrent with the December 31, 2014 deadline for
submitting any supplements necessary to address possible subpart 4
elements, Klamath Falls came into attainment based on 2012-2014
monitoring data. Leading up to December 31, 2014 deadline, both the
ODEQ and the EPA followed monitoring data closely to ensure that the
area was meeting targets consistent with the modeling demonstration
submitted in the attainment plan. Because the area was on a path toward
attainment by December 2014 and the submitted attainment plan
substantively addressed the specific PM2.5 problems in the
airshed, the ODEQ did not submit a supplement to its attainment plan.
Therefore, the EPA evaluated the State's existing attainment plan
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to determine that it met
not only the applicable requirements of subpart 1, but also the
applicable requirements of subpart 4. This approach is consistent with
the Court's decision that the EPA must implement the PM2.5
NAAQS consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. In this notice,
the EPA reviews the ODEQ's attainment plan submitted to comply with the
requirements of subpart 1 and provides an evaluation of why we believe
the submittal also satisfies subpart 4 requirements, including the
applicable attainment date, and an analysis of all sources of
particulate matter emissions and PM2.5 precursors for
control strategies.
C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment Requirements
With respect to the requirements for attainment plans, the EPA
notes that the general nonattainment area planning requirements are
found in subpart 1, and the moderate area planning requirements 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 nonattainment planning. Specifically, the General
Preamble explains that requirements applicable to moderate area
nonattainment SIPs are set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs must also
meet the general nonattainment 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,
April 16, 1992). 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
interpretation of the statutory requirements that apply to Moderate and
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas (NAAs) under subparts 1
and 4.
The requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (1) The
section 172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
attainment demonstrations; (2) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); (3) the section
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories; (4) the section
172(c)(5) requirements for a nonattainment new source review (NSR)
permitting program; and (5) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for
contingency measures.
The subpart 4 requirements for moderate areas are generally
comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (1) The section
189(a)(1)(A) NSR permit program requirements; (2) the section
189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (3) the section
189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (4) the section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. In addition, under
subpart 4 the moderate area attainment date is no later than the end of
the 6th calendar year after designation.
The EPA evaluated the ODEQ's attainment plan for the Klamath Falls
area for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS and believes that the
State's submission satisfies the relevant requirements of both subpart
1 and subpart 4, as discussed below.
D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter History
The Klamath Falls area has a history of successfully addressing
particulate matter for over 25 years. In 1987, the EPA designated
Klamath Falls a nonattainment area for PM10--particulate
matter ten micrometers and smaller. The ODEQ prepared a PM10
attainment plan for the Klamath Falls Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in
1991. The ODEQ revised and re-submitted the plan in 1995, and the EPA
approved it on April 14, 1997 (62 FR 18047). The area's monitor began
attaining the standard in 1992 and has not exceeded the standard since
that time. In 2002, the ODEQ submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for PM10. This plan demonstrated that the
necessary control strategies were in place to maintain the
PM10 NAAQS and the EPA approved the plan on October 21, 2003
(68 FR 60036). The attainment and maintenance plans relied on a
mandatory episodic woodstove curtailment program and a large woodstove
change-out program to reduce emissions from the primary contributor of
particulate matter in the area. Additional measures provided control on
industrial emissions and are discussed later in this notice. The area
has continued to maintain the PM10 NAAQS.
In 1997, the EPA revised the particulate standard to include
PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter and
smaller) at a daily standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. Due to the same set of
control measures that it used to address exceedances of the
PM10
[[Page 21817]]
standard, Klamath Falls successfully remained below the
PM2.5 standard promulgated in 1997. When the EPA tightened
the PM2.5 standard from 65[mu]g/m\3\ to 35[mu]g/m\3\ in
2006, Klamath Falls was found to be exceeding the new standard. The EPA
subsequently designated the area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard in November 2009, prompting the adoption of
more stringent control measures and submission of the attainment plan
in 2012.
II. Finding of Attainment and Clean Data Determination
Pursuant to sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) of the Act, the EPA has
the responsibility of determining within six months of the applicable
attainment date whether nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS based on
certified air quality data. The EPA reviewed the PM2.5
ambient air monitoring data from the Peterson School regulatory monitor
(AQS site 41-035-0004 POC1), consistent with the requirements contained
in 40 CFR part 50, as recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database for the Klamath Falls area. For purposes of determining
attainment by the attainment date, the EPA considered data recorded in
the AQS database, certified as meeting quality assurance requirements,
and determined to have met data completeness requirements. On the basis
of this review, the EPA has concluded that the Klamath Falls area
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2012-2014
monitoring period--https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
Specifically, under the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 24-hour
primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 98th
percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. The design value (the metrics calculated in accordance with 40
CFR part 50, appendix N, for determining compliance with the NAAQS) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the years 2012-2014 at the
Peterson School monitor was 34 [mu]g/m\3\, meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date established in
the 2012 attainment plan. As a result, the EPA proposes to determine
that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the area has
clean data for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has
monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-
2014 monitoring data, discussed above. Under a Clean Data Determination
(CDD), the requirements for the area to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and any
other planning SIP requirements related to attainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the area
continues to meet this NAAQS. If EPA subsequently determines that the
area is in violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
basis for the suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40
CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist and the area would thereafter
have to address the pertinent requirements. Although a CDD suspends the
requirement for submission of certain attainment planning elements, it
does not relieve the EPA of its responsibility to take action on a
state's SIP submission. As described in this action, the EPA is
proposing to fully approve the remaining elements of the Klamath Falls
nonattainment plan as meeting the requirements of the CAA.
The proposed finding of attainment by the attainment date and clean
data determination that the air quality data shows attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the
redesignation of the area to attainment. This proposed action, if
finalized, will not constitute a redesignation to attainment under
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because the state must have an approved
maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the
CAA, and a determination that the area has met the other requirements
for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment. The
designation status of the area will remain nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines that the
area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. Analysis of Oregon's Submittal
In accordance with Sections 172(c) and 189 of the CAA, the
attainment plan that the ODEQ submitted for the Klamath Falls area
included comprehensive base year and attainment year emissions
inventories that addressed direct particulate matter emissions and all
particulate matter precursors, analyzed RACM and RACT, demonstrated
attainment through selected permanent and enforceable control
strategies, included required contingency measures, and addressed
reasonable further progress and quantitative milestone requirements
through the attainment demonstration. The attainment plan's strategy
for controlling direct and precursor PM2.5 emissions relied
primarily on an episodic woodstove curtailment program and the change-
out of uncertified woodstoves. Additional emissions reductions came
from control measures and activities associated with industrial
sources, motor vehicles, and public education.
The rule revisions submitted by the ODEQ and the ordinances passed
by Klamath County support the implementation of these control measures
in a manner that is both permanent and enforceable. The EPA approved,
on August 25, 2015, the baseline emissions inventory and control
measures associated with this attainment plan (80 FR 51470). By
including these measures in the SIP, the state has made them permanent
and enforceable, and with the EPA's approval of these control measures
on August 25, 2015, the measures have become federally enforceable.
This submittal also addresses transportation conformity budgets and the
EPA's proposed approval to exclude data from wildfire exceptional
events affecting data on September 25, 2009 (for purposes of the
attainment demonstration), August 25, 2012, August 28, 2012, August 31,
2012, July 30, 2013, and August 5, 2013 (for purposes of the finding of
attainment) that affected the regulatory monitor in Klamath Falls.
Previously Approved Attainment Plan Elements
A. Emissions Inventory
The baseline emission inventory requirements were approved in an
action completed on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51470). The approved
emissions inventory covered direct PM2.5 and precursors to
the formation of PM2.5 (nitrogen oxides (NOX),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2)) to meet the comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement of CAA section 172(c) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The emissions inventory applicable to the attainment
demonstration and the attainment year inventory will be discussed in
the Modeling and Attainment Demonstration sections of this notice.
B. Control Measures--Oregon Rules and Klamath County Ordinance
The December 12, 2012 attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ
included revisions to a number of administrative rules to implement the
attainment plan for the Klamath Falls area. These revisions consisted
of updates to identify the Klamath Falls
[[Page 21818]]
nonattainment area and to adopt local and state measures to ensure
permanent and enforceable control strategies and contingency measures,
as described in the attainment plan, to bring the area back into
attainment in the event the area failed to meet RFP or failed to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Specifically, the ODEQ
revised rules in OAR 340, Divisions 200, 204, 225, 240, 262, and 264.
The EPA already provided notice and comment on these rules, except for
the contingency measures, and proposed to approve the rules on December
30, 2014 (79 FR 78372) and finalized the action on August 25, 2015 (80
FR 51470). These control measures were relied upon by Klamath Falls to
attain the standard by 2014 and will remain in place for continued
maintenance of the standard. Further details on these control measures
can be found in the docket for this action within the Klamath Falls
attainment plan submittal as well as in the proposed and final Federal
Register notices approving these measures.
C. Classifications
The applicable attainment planning requirements under subpart 4
(section 189(a) and (b)) depend on whether the nonattainment area is
classified as moderate or serious. In response to the Court's decision
in NRDC v. EPA, the EPA finalized on June 2, 2014, initial
classifications of all current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas as moderate (79 FR 31566). Thus, the attainment
plan submitted by the ODEQ for the Klamath Falls area is evaluated
pursuant to the moderate area requirements of subpart 4.
Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for Approval
D. Attainment Date
The CAA requirements of subpart 4 include a demonstration that a
nonattainment area will meet applicable NAAQS within the timeframe
provided in the statute (Section 189(c)(1)). For the 2006
PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, an attainment plan must show that a
moderate nonattainment area will attain the standard as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year
after the area's designation, which in the case of Klamath Falls is
December 31, 2015. In the Klamath Falls attainment plan the ODEQ
demonstrated that attainment by December 2014 was as expeditious as
practicable based on the implementation of all reasonably available
control measures (RACM) and that the attainment date could not be
advanced by a year or more with additional reasonable measure (e.g.
RACM). The EPA is proposing to approve the attainment date of December
2014 as submitted by the ODEQ, which the area successfully met as
confirmed by quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data.
E. Attainment Demonstration
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a moderate area nonattainment
plan 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 impracticable. In the attainment
demonstration section of the Klamath Falls PM2.5 attainment
plan, the ODEQ described how its chosen control strategies would
provide the emissions reductions needed to bring the area into
attainment no later than December 2014. Quality-assured, quality-
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data confirm that the
area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December
2014.
Table 1--Attainment Demonstration Strategies for the Klamath Falls Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected air quality
Control strategies benefit ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Design Value 2008..................... 45.1
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated).......... 9.6
Woodstove curtailment--lower
thresholds and increased enforcement.
Shorter open burning window
Woodstove Change-out Programs.................. 1.0
Heat Smart--woodstove change-out upon sale of 0.3
home.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 0.1
particleboard and hardboard.
Public Awareness............................... 0.6
New fireplace standards........................ 0.1
Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions...... Minimal
Diesel Retrofits
Low Emission Vehicle Program
Fuel Economy
Road Paving.................................... Minimal
Future Design Value 2014....................... 34.6 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The individual emission reduction estimates in this table are derived
from the modeled Future Design Value in 2014. The air quality benefit
for individual control measures were assessed in isolation and are
presented as such in Table 1. Because the control strategies interact
nonlinearly, the final design value is not a simple subtraction of the
individual measures' benefits from the baseline design value. When all
control strategies are simulated together, their benefit is less than
it would appear because, for instance, the curtailment ordinance has a
smaller benefit when stoves have been changed out to be cleaner.
Using the values in Table 1, results from the roll-forward modeling
showed that the control strategies would achieve a future year design
value of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ with a relative response factor (RRF) of 0.717,
as explained in more detail in the modeling discussion. In order to
provide a buffer to ensure attainment, the ODEQ, Klamath Falls, and
Klamath County implemented additional measures which yielded a modeled
design value of 34.6 [mu]g/m\3\ with an RRF of 0.667. As noted in the
RACM/RACT discussion later in this document, more than 95% of the
projected control strategy air quality benefits came from the Klamath
Falls Clean Air Ordinance wood smoke curtailment program (the
Ordinance), woodstove change-out program, and the Heat Smart program.
The ODEQ and Klamath County relied on the Ordinance and the woodstove
change-out program to successfully attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The
[[Page 21819]]
woodstove curtailment program restricts residential wood burning on
days when the ambient PM2.5 levels are close to exceeding
the standard. Additional reductions came from the control of industrial
sources and from continuing reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions from cleaner motor vehicles, as described later in this
document.
The ODEQ included a number of supplemental analyses in the
attainment plan for a weight of evidence demonstration of attainment,
as recommended by the EPA's modeling guidance. Attachments 3.3 b-e, g-
o, w, and y of the submitted plan (located in the docket) describe the
Klamath Falls airshed, the source sector contributions, and the ability
of emission controls to reduce PM2.5 concentrations.
The ODEQ identified wood burning emissions as the most significant
source sector in the emissions inventory and thus the key source sector
to attainment with its readily available emissions reductions.
Accordingly, in formulating an emissions control strategy, the ODEQ
conducted detailed wood burning surveys for the Klamath Falls area,
assessed the contribution of secondary organic aerosol to overall
PM2.5, used locally-derived estimates for how well wood
burners follow the yellow and red curtailment requirements, assessed
the impact of prescribed burning on wintertime PM2.5, and
used the best available emission factors for wood burning devices. This
level of analysis is consistent with other moderate nonattainment areas
where wood burning is a significant issue.
In addition to demonstrating attainment using the roll-forward
model, the ODEQ also conducted an unmonitored area analysis (UMAA) to
demonstrate that other parts of the nonattainment area would also meet
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This analysis used data from
seven monitors in the area for a saturation survey in 2010-2011 to
develop a map of PM2.5 concentration relative to the main
monitor at the Peterson School. The UMAA calculated the
PM2.5 from point sources at 1.2 kilometer intervals in the
nonattainment area and added this calculation to the projected
concentration from all other sources. Results from the UMAA showed that
the Peterson Area monitor is the area of highest neighborhood-scale
concentration, such that one could reasonably infer that unmonitored
areas of the nonattainment area were in attainment based on a finding
of attainment at the Peterson Area monitor.
F. Modeling
All attainment demonstrations must project air quality below the
standard using standard modeling techniques. The ODEQ submitted a
modeled demonstration that is consistent with the recommendations
contained in 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.'' Modeling should be based 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.
To determine which control strategies to implement, the ODEQ began
by characterizing the area's emissions. Along with developing the 2008
baseline emissions inventory, the ODEQ also conducted a series of
analyses to better understand particulate matter in Klamath Falls. This
included conducting and reviewing studies, analyzing filter samples,
and modeling.
For modeling attainment in Klamath Falls, the ODEQ used a roll-
forward model as the basis for projecting future design values and the
effect of control strategies. A standard roll-forward model assumes all
sources contribute to the Peterson School monitor in proportion to
their weight in the emissions inventory. This is a reasonable
assumption for most source categories which were mostly direct
PM2.5 because they are relatively well-distributed within
the nonattainment area, but for certain source categories such as large
point sources, prescribed burning, and road dust, this assumption is
not always accurate. For these three source categories, effective
primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission rates
were derived from additional analyses including AERMOD atmospheric
dispersion modeling for large point sources, positive matrix
factorization (PMF) modeling for road dust, and analysis of historical
prescribed burning and its impact on PM2.5 at the Peterson
School monitor. The ODEQ developed several emissions inventories for
modeling, one for the current emissions for the baseline year of 2008
and two for the attainment year of 2014. The projected 2014 attainment
year inventory accounts for all changes (i.e. vehicle fleet turnover,
population changes) that were expected to occur from 2008 to 2014,
except for the locally imposed control strategies. The ODEQ then
applied each local control strategy to the 2014 modeling inventory in
isolation, and as a group, as part of developing the control 2014
inventory for modeling. When each of these modeling inventories was run
through the model, the ODEQ was able to estimate the relative change in
PM2.5 resulting from each control strategy in isolation and
from all control strategies at the same time. See Table 1 in the
Attainment Demonstration section.
The relative change in modeled, species-specific PM2.5
concentrations at the Peterson School monitor between the 2014 control
strategy run and the 2008 baseline is referred to as a Relative
Response Factor (RRF). The ODEQ calculated RRFs separately for each
chemical component of PM2.5, per the EPA modeling guidance.
The RRFs for ammonium, sulfate, nitrate, and particle-bound water were
held at 1.0 (i.e. constant), which is a conservative assumption
implying that there will be no reduction in precursor emissions.
However, NOX emissions are projected to decline from 2,236
tons per year (tpy) in 2008 to 1,810 tpy in 2014, VOC emissions are
projected to decline from 2,910 tpy in 2008 to 2,645 in 2014, and
ammonia emission inventories are projected to remain fairly level at
244 tpy in 2008 and 247 tpy in 2014. The RRF for organic carbon and
elemental carbon are allowed to fluctuate based on projected emissions
and the model, but the RRF for organic aerosol does not account for
changes in secondary organic aerosol because a chemical box model
analysis conducted by the ODEQ and Portland State University (Appendix
A-6-1 of the attainment plan) found that contributions from both
biogenic and anthropogenic secondary organic aerosol (SOA) sources were
minor (less than 1% and 3%, respectively, of total design value
PM2.5). By keeping the RRF constant for secondary
PM2.5, the ODEQ took a conservative approach in modeling
emission reductions because the emissions inventory values for most
secondary PM2.5 precursors were projected to decline between
2008 and 2014 due to control measures already in place. In the
attainment plan submission, SO2 emission inventories were
projected to increase slightly from 110 tpy in 2008 to 136 tpy in 2014.
However, it is important to note that
[[Page 21820]]
32.2 tpy of projected growth in the SO2 emissions inventory
was due to the anticipated addition of the Klamath Falls Bioenergy
facility that was expected to be built by 2014. This facility has since
withdrawn its application for a site certification and will not be
constructed. Removing these projected emissions results in a net
decrease of 6.2 tpy in overall projected SO2 emissions from
2008 to 2014.
The ODEQ applied the species-specific RRFs to the baseline 2006-
2010 monitored data based on the EPA's guidance to estimate 2014 design
values. The modeling projected an attainment date of December 2014
which the area achieved. The EPA carefully evaluated the ODEQ's
modeling demonstration and concluded that it adequately meets the
current EPA modeling requirements, and uses acceptable modeling
techniques to project attainment by the December 2014 attainment date.
In addition, the EPA believes that the attainment demonstration
modeling submitted by the ODEQ meets subpart 4 requirements. First,
section 189(a)(1)(B) provides that for a moderate nonattainment area, a
state must submit either a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date or a demonstration that attainment by such date is
impracticable. The applicable attainment date for moderate areas in
section 188(c)(1) of subpart is as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's
designation, or, as applied to Klamath Falls, December 2015. The ODEQ's
modeling demonstrated attainment by December 2014, which is a year
earlier than the December 2015 attainment deadline. Second, the
modeling relied upon by the ODEQ included both direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors. The ODEQ's weight of evidence analysis
is further supported by quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
on the 2012-2014 data. For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that
the ODEQ's modeling is consistent with EPA's guidance and meets the
attainment demonstration requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
G. Characterization of the Klamath Falls Air Shed
In evaluating the Klamath Falls attainment plan under the
requirements of subpart 4, control of direct PM2.5 and
precursors must be considered. According to CAA section 302(g) the term
``air pollutant'' means any air pollution agent or combination of such
agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive
(including source material, special nuclear material, and by product
material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters
the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term
``air pollutant'' is used. The provisions of subpart 4 do not define
the term ``precursor'' for purposes of particulate matter, nor do they
explicitly require the control of any specifically identified
precursor. However, the EPA has long recognized the scientific basis
for concluding that SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia
are precursors to PM10 and to PM2.5.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See EPA's 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule at issue
in the NRDC v. EPA case in which EPA discussed that emissions of
SO2, NOX, VOCs and ammonia are factual and
scientific precursors to PM2.5. 72 FR 20586, at 20589-97.
April 25, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's interpretation of section 189(e) and section 172
indicates that consideration of all precursors is necessary for
PM2.5 attainment plans, and RACM/RACT requirements
explicitly require the evaluation of available control measures for
direct PM2.5 emissions and precursor emissions from
stationary, area, and mobile sources in order to attain as
expeditiously as practicable. Section 189(e) requires the control of
appropriate precursors from major stationary sources, unless the
Administrator determines that precursor emissions from such major
stationary sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in
the area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA notes that it has already addressed the requirements of
subpart 4 for precursors, specifically within the context of the
requirements of section 189(e), in the General Preamble. See 57 FR
at 13539 and 13541-2, April 16, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While subpart 4 expressly requires control of precursors from major
stationary sources where direct PM from major sources is controlled
unless certain conditions are met, other sources of precursors may also
need to be controlled for the purposes of demonstrating attainment as
expeditiously as practicable in a given area. Thus, a state should
evaluate all economically and technologically feasible control measures
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions,
and should adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available,
i.e., those constituting RACM and RACT controls for sources located in
the area. The EPA has interpreted subpart 4 to require analysis for
control of precursors from all source categories in a given
nonattainment area, unless there is a demonstration that controlling a
precursor or precursors is not necessary for expeditious attainment of
the NAAQS in the area. This notice will demonstrate that additional
precursor controls beyond those discussed in Oregon's 2012 attainment
plan submission will not affect expeditious attainment of the NAAQS in
the Klamath Falls area; moreover the area is already attaining the
NAAQS with existing controls and additional precursor controls are
unnecessary for expeditious attainment.
As discussed in the EPA's 1992 General Preamble, in the event that
a state's attainment plan includes controls on major stationary sources
for PM10 in order to achieve timely attainment in the area,
section 189(e) requires controls of all PM10 precursors for
major stationary sources located within the area, unless there is a
showing that such sources do not contribute significantly to violations
in the area (57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992). Thus, the EPA's existing
interpretation of subpart 4 requirements with respect to precursors in
attainment plans for PM10, as set out in the General
Preamble, contemplates that states may develop attainment plans that
regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment purposes. Id.;
see also Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989
(9th Cir. 2005). The EPA believes that application of this same
approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is appropriate
and reasonable at this time. Indeed, the EPA has already taken action
upon attainment plans for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other
areas after carefully evaluating the state's conclusions regarding
which PM2.5 precursors should be regulated in the area at
issue.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and
2007 State Strategy,'' (76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Preamble describes the assessment of precursors as
specific to each nonattainment area, and acknowledges that the
determination of precursor significance would likely vary based on the
characteristics of the area-wide nonattainment problem. The General
Preamble further provides that in making a determination regarding the
significance of precursors, the EPA will
[[Page 21821]]
rely on technical information presented in the state's submittal,
including filter analysis, the relative contribution to overall
nonattainment, the selected control strategies, as well as other
relevant factors (57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992). The remanded 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule also discusses the types of
technical analyses that states could perform to demonstrate the
significance or insignificance of a particular precursor for purposes
of attainment, such as emission inventory information, speciation data
information, modeling, or monitoring data.
For the reasons discussed in this section, the EPA believes that
the ODEQ's attainment plan adequately evaluated emissions of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as demonstrated in the
attainment plan and supported by attainment of the NAAQS. The
PM2.5 precursor analysis relied on the types of analyses
discussed in the General Preamble and the remanded 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule for demonstrating the contribution
of PM2.5 precursors. Based on these analyses, supported by
current monitoring data, the ODEQ submittal showed that direct
PM2.5 emissions were the primary contributor to the
nonattainment problem and that additional emissions reductions from
PM2.5 precursors were not needed for demonstrating
attainment, not economically or technologically feasible to advance the
attainment date by one year, and that existing control measures
adequately addressed precursors in light of the minimal impact
secondary organic formation has on this specific airshed, as evidenced
by the Portland State University SOA study and the EPA's Positive
Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis. Accordingly, the ODEQ selected
control strategies to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and
provided a demonstration that implementation of these strategies would
bring the area into attainment by the attainment date.
The ODEQ's attainment plan for Klamath Falls focused on controlling
direct PM2.5 emissions to attain the 2006 24-hr
PM2.5 NAAQS. Notably, this was the predominant strategy for
controlling PM2.5 in Tacoma, Washington, which is similarly
impacted by direct PM2.5 emissions from residential wood
smoke and was recently redesignated to attainment as a result of its
implementation of residential wood smoke direct PM2.5
control strategies. In support of this control strategy, the ODEQ
attainment plan and supporting analyses showed that: (1) The Klamath
Falls area attained the standard, (2) control of direct
PM2.5 would reduce exceedances of the NAAQS, and (3)
emissions from residential wood combustion were the largest
contributors to PM2.5 on polluted days. The EPA reviewed the
ODEQ's attainment plan and proposes to find that this approach to
direct PM2.5 and precursors is appropriate for the Klamath
Falls area and is consistent with the requirements of subpart 4.
1. Quality Assured Monitoring Data Showing Attainment
As described in Section II. Finding of Attainment, the Klamath
Falls area met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2012-
2014 monitoring period using the approach to direct PM2.5
and precursor pollutants adopted by the State in the submitted
attainment plan. Given the area's attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and continued attainment, it follows that no
additional controls of direct PM2.5 and precursors beyond
those described in the attainment plan are necessary for the area to
timely attain the NAAQS. Because EPA's longstanding approach to
precursors under subpart 4, as explained in the General Preamble,
authorizes a state to establish that it can attain the NAAQS
expeditiously by focusing on some but not all precursors, the EPA
believes that the ODEQ's submitted attainment plan for the Klamath
Falls area is consistent with this aspect of subpart 4.
As previously discussed in the Attainment Demonstration section
III. E., the ODEQ demonstrated the ability to reduce the emissions in
Klamath Falls below 35 [mu]g/m\3\ by December 2014. Control measures
considered for demonstrating attainment are discussed in section III.
H. RACT/RACM below, and the chosen methods primarily focus on the
reduction of direct PM2.5. Table 1 in the Attainment
Demonstration section identifies the 2008 baseline design value as 45.1
[mu]g/m\3\ and then shows how the direct PM2.5 projected air
quality benefits from the chosen control strategies will achieve a
future design value in 2014 below 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The RACT/RACM section
will also identify that other reductions would be needed to advance the
attainment date by one year, but that the remaining control measures
were determined to not be economically and/or technologically feasible,
or collectively amount to reductions necessary to advance attainment by
one year--1.67 [mu]g/m\3\.
2. Control of Direct Emissions of PM2.5 Would Reduce
Exceedances of the NAAQS
The ODEQ determined that direct PM2.5 was the primary
contributor to winter time exceedances in the Klamath Falls area. As is
typical of many areas in the Pacific Northwest region that experience
PM2.5 exceedances from anthropogenic sources, these
exceedances occur during the winter when temperatures are low and air
stagnation conditions are present. These conditions lead to increases
in residential wood heating which generate the majority of direct
PM2.5 emissions reaching the monitor. This relationship is
supported by a SANDWICH (Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water,
Inferred Carbonaceous Material Balance Approach) chemical speciation
analysis on days that exceeded the standard and an analysis of primary
and secondary organic aerosols conducted by Portland State University
(PSU), as discussed above.
The SANDWICH chemical speciation analysis determined that
PM2.5 mass on days exceeding the standard was 80% organic
and elemental carbon. The PSU study showed that the contributions from
both biogenic and anthropogenic sources of secondary organic aerosols
were minor, contributing 1% and 3%, respectively, to the total
PM2.5 design value. The bulk of emissions causing
exceedances were from directly emitted organic and elemental carbon
PM2.5 (See attainment plan attachments 3.3f, 3.3g1, 3.3g2).
Based on this weight of evidence, the ODEQ concluded that direct
PM2.5 was the primary contributor to exceedances of the 2006
24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS at the regulatory monitor in the Klamath
Falls area.
3. Emissions From Residential Wood Combustion Were the Largest
Contributors to PM2.5 on Polluted Days
The 2008 emissions inventory compiled by the ODEQ calculated a
direct PM2.5 emissions rate of 654.7 tpy. Approximately 62%
of the total annual emissions were attributable to area sources,
primarily of emissions from residential wood combustion. Worst case
daily emissions of direct PM2.5 were calculated at 5,420
pounds (lbs) per day with 53% of total emissions attributable to area
sources, primarily emissions from residential wood combustion. To
assess how these emissions translated into contributions at the
monitor, the EPA conducted a PMF analysis as discussed above based on
speciated data from the Klamath Falls violating monitor. The results of
the PMF analysis showed that emissions of residential wood smoke
contributed an estimated 64-72% of total PM2.5
concentrations at the monitor (attachment 3.3h). Residential wood
combustion also emits small amounts of SO2, NOX,
VOC, and ammonia, 4%, 2%, 11%, and 6%, respectively, of the
[[Page 21822]]
inventory for these precursors on the ``worst case day.'' So not only
did primary organic and elemental carbon make up over 60% of the
PM2.5 mass at the monitor based on the emissions inventory
data, PMF analysis, and speciation analyses, but control measures to
address residential wood combustion also had the collateral benefit of
reducing the precursor inventory.
General PM2.5
According to the SANDWICH and PSU analyses secondary
PM2.5 conservatively comprised 20% of the PM2.5
in Klamath Falls on days with monitored PM2.5 concentrations
above 25 [mu]g/m\3\. By species, the percentages were 9.6% for nitrate,
4.2% for particle-bound water, 3% for anthropogenic secondary organic
aerosols (SOA), 1.6% for sulfate, 1% for biogenic SOA, and 0.7% for
ammonium.
The 2008 baseline emission inventory for NOX was 2,236
tpy annually and 15,483 lbs/day during wintertime PM2.5
episodes. The non-road and on-road mobile source categories contributed
70% to annual and worst case day NOX emissions. The ODEQ's
2014 attainment inventory showed decreases from 2008 of over 30% in
NOX on-road and non-road mobile source emissions attributed
to federal mobile source control measures.\4\ The decrease of 3,425
lbs/day from motor vehicle controls was greater than the NOX
emissions from all the stationary point sources combined, two of which
are already subject to NOX controls. The remaining 9% of
NOX emissions were spread among area sources such as natural
gas combustion and residential wood combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The General Preamble acknowledges that states can take into
account reductions from existing control requirements. 57 FR 13358,
April 16, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other secondary species were similarly small components and were
generally emitted by multiple source categories. While VOCs were the
largest source of precursor emissions on a pound per day basis (2,910.4
tpy annually; 22,754 lbs/day during wintertime episodes), the
anthropogenic secondary organic carbon produced from such emissions
only contributed 3% of the PM2.5 mass. Emissions of VOCs
were split among the stationary point sources (45%), area sources
(30%), and mobile sources (25%). Much of the SO2 (109.9 tpy;
1,046 lbs/day) emissions were from fuel oil combustion, with the
resulting ammonium sulfate and associated particle-bound water
contributing less than 5% of the PM2.5 mass. Ammonium on its
own, disassociated from its sulfate and nitrate, was less than 1% of
the PM2.5 mass. Based on the weight of evidence provided in
the attainment plan, the EPA finds that the ODEQ appropriately
considered all precursors in their analysis.
Industrial PM2.5
With respect to emissions of PM2.5 precursors from major
stationary sources pursuant to section 189(e), the analyses discussed
above, which were conducted for all sources generally, are similarly
applicable to control of precursor emissions from stationary sources.
The ODEQ identified four Title V stationary sources with annual primary
PM2.5 emissions exceeding 10 tpy for consideration in its
RACT analysis. These sources were identified in the 2008 baseline
emissions inventory as Columbia Forest Products (48.9 tpy), Collins
Forest Products (48.4 tpy), Klamath Energy Cogeneration (39.9 tpy) and
Jeld-Wen (17.3 tpy). Emissions of direct PM2.5 from all
other stationary sources in the aggregate amounted to less than 10 tpy.
A consideration in the ODEQ's assessment of these facilities was AERMOD
modeling which indicated that all industrial point sources combined
contributed only 1% of the baseline primary PM2.5 design
value, as opposed to residential wood combustion which accounts for
roughly two-thirds. These sources are located relatively far away from
the area where the greatest PM2.5 concentrations existed, as
confirmed by the monitoring saturation study, compared to residential
wood combustion which showed a much greater impact on PM2.5
concentrations. Also, industrial stationary source stacks send
emissions higher into the atmosphere, and the inversions that trap area
and mobile source emissions near the ground also reduce mixing of the
elevated stack emissions to the surface.
In summary, the ODEQ provided data and analyses indicating that
direct PM2.5 was the main cause of exceedances of the 2006
24-hr PM2.5 standard in Klamath Falls and that precursor
emissions are relatively minor contributors to monitored violations in
the Klamath Falls area.
H. Reasonably Available Control Technology/Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACT/RACM)
The Klamath Falls attainment plan addressed the RACT/RACM
requirement under subpart 1. It did not directly discuss whether the
analysis and selection of RACT/RACM also meets the subpart 4
requirements determined to be applicable in NRDC v. EPA because the
Court decision occurred after the ODEQ's submittal of the attainment
plan, and preliminary monitoring data showed that the area was on a
path to come into attainment concurrent with the EPA's deadline for any
additional submittals under subpart 4. The EPA in this notice addresses
whether the RACT/RACM analysis complies with subpart 4 as well as
subpart 1, and evaluates whether application of subpart 4 criteria
would affect the control measures identified as part of the ODEQ's
control strategy for the Klamath Falls area.
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 CAA section 172(c) indicates that what
constitutes RACM or RACT is related to what is necessary for attainment
in a given area, as the provision states that nonattainment plans shall
provide for attainment of the NAAQS in the area covered by the
attainment plan.
The EPA based its remanded 2007 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule on the general attainment plan requirement for RACM and RACT in
section 172(c). The EPA included requirements for the process by which
states should determine and establish what control measures would
constitute RACM and RACT level controls for appropriate sources in a
given nonattainment area. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the EPA
provided that a state should submit a demonstration that it had adopted
all RACM and RACT ``necessary to demonstrate attainment as
expeditiously as practicable and to meet RFP requirements.'' The EPA
also required states to include a ``list of the potential measures
considered by the state, and information and analysis sufficient to
support the state's judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including
RACT.'' Moreover, in 40 CFR 51.1010(b), the EPA provided that a state
could determine that certain otherwise available control measures are
not RACM or RACT for sources in the area if, considered cumulatively,
the measures not adopted would not advance the attainment date in the
area by at least one year.
The SIP planning requirements under subpart 4 likewise impose upon
states an obligation to develop attainment plans that impose RACM and
RACT on sources within a nonattainment area. Section 189(a)(1)(C)
requires that states with areas classified as moderate nonattainment
areas must have SIP provisions to assure that RACM and RACT level
controls are implemented by no later than four years after
[[Page 21823]]
designation of the area. 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 appropriate considerations for determining what
control measures constitute RACM and RACT for purposes of meeting the
statutory requirements of subpart 4.
The EPA's existing guidance for RACM and RACT under subpart 4 is
comparable to the approach that the EPA set forth in the 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The EPA's guidance for RACM under
subpart 4 in the General Preamble includes: (1) A list of some
potential measures for states to consider; (2) a statement of the EPA's
expectation that the state will provide a reasoned explanation for a
decision not to adopt a particular control measure; (3) recognition
that some control measures might be unreasonable because the emissions
from the affected sources in the area are de minimis; (4) an emphasis
on state evaluation of potential control measures for reasonableness,
considering factors such as technological feasibility and the cost of
control; and (5) encouragement that states evaluating potential control
measures imposed upon municipal or other governmental entities also
include consideration of the impacts on such entities, and the
possibility of partial implementation when full implementation would be
infeasible (e.g., phased implementation of measures such as road
paving). 57 FR 13540, April 16, 1992.
With respect to RACT requirements, the EPA's existing guidance in
the General Preamble: (1) Noted that RACT has historically been defined
as ``the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting by
the application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility;'' (2) noted that
RACT generally applies to stationary sources, both stack and fugitive
emissions; (3) suggested that major stationary sources be the minimum
starting point for a state's RACT analysis; and (4) recommended that
states evaluate RACT not only for major stationary sources, but for
other source categories as needed for attainment and considering the
feasibility of controls. 57 FR 13540 at 13541, April 16, 1992.
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. In both the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule interpreting the subpart 1 RACM and RACT requirements and the
General Preamble making recommendations for the subpart 4 RACM and RACT
requirements, the focus is upon the process to identify emissions
sources, to evaluate potential emissions controls, and to impose those
control measures that are reasonable and that are necessary to bring
the area into attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but by no
later than the applicable attainment date for the area. The only
exception is if the economically and technically feasible measures not
adopted as RACT/RACM will collectively advance attainment by at least a
year, then those measures must be adopted in most cases.
In its submitted attainment plan for the Klamath Falls area, the
ODEQ addressed the RACM and RACT requirements of subpart 1 as
interpreted by the EPA in the remanded 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule. The EPA proposes to find that the ODEQ RACM and
RACT analysis also meets the requirements of subpart 4 as explained in
the General Preamble. As described below, the ODEQ evaluated which
measures would constitute RACM and RACT in the Klamath Falls area.
1. First, the ODEQ ascertained that control of direct
PM2.5 emissions was necessary for attainment and that
available RACM for direct PM2.5 would obviate the need for
additional controls for SO2, NOX, NH3,
and VOCs, beyond existing federal and state controls, in order to
attain the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in the
Characterization of Klamath Falls Air Shed section above, the ODEQ
identified direct PM2.5 as the primary pollutant causing
violations at the regulatory monitor in Klamath Falls, and was able to
show that available RACM for direct PM2.5 were sufficient to
demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard by
the subpart 1 attainment date of December 2014.
The EPA agrees that there are not additional reasonable controls
available to reduce emissions of SO2, NH3, VOC,
and NOX that collectively would provide for attainment of
the standard by at least one year sooner than provided for in the
attainment demonstration. The EPA believes that the ODEQ's assessment
of precursors sufficiently demonstrates that adoption of additional
precursor controls is not reasonable or necessary for continued
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the subpart 4
requirements.
2. Second, the ODEQ evaluated the relevant emissions sources in the
area. The ODEQ's control strategy focused primarily on RACM from ``non-
point sources'' (i.e., area sources) given that analyses showed direct
PM2.5 from these sources was the main contributor to
exceedances of the PM2.5 standard. While there was limited
ability for controls on PM2.5 precursors to advance
attainment, this notice shows that there are existing controls on
industrial and on road mobile precursor sources. As such, the
attainment plan benefits from strategies that have already been
considered and enacted and that applied to ``point sources'' (i.e.,
major stationary sources), non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile
sources. Major stationary sources are controlled through the ODEQ's
permitting programs and the mobile sources have been addressed via
national and state measures expected to reduce mobile source emissions
through fuel economy standards and vehicle emissions standards
including Oregon Low Emission Vehicle regulations (LEV II/Tier 2
emissions standards). Table 2 provides a chart of certain RACT/RACM
implemented for the Klamath Falls area. The table provides the RACT/
RACM in two sections: Current Strategies and New Strategies. The
current strategies are those that were initiated between 2007-12 and
the future strategies are those that were initiated in 2012. All
measures are being implemented currently. A full discussion of the
RACT/RACM evaluated by the ODEQ is available in the Klamath Falls
Attainment Plan.
[[Page 21824]]
Table 2--RACT/RACM in Klamath Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reduction measure Sector Pollutant addressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Strategies (2007-
present), currently
implemented but not accounted
for in the 2008 base year EI
Residential Wood Combustion:
Klamath Woodstove Area............ PM2.5
Curtailment Program--
revised with lower
thresholds & increased
enforcement (Clean Air
Ordinance).
Woodstove Change-out Area............ PM2.5
Programs.
Heat Smart program Area............ PM2.5
removal of uncertified
woodstoves upon sale of
home.
Open Burning: Shortened Open Area............ PM2.5
Burning Window (Klamath
Clean Air Ordinance).
Fuel and Transportation
Related:
Low Emission Vehicle Mobile.......... SOX, NOX
Program.
Road Paving.............. Area............ PM2.5
Diesel Retrofits......... Mobile.......... PM2.5
Fuel Economy............. Mobile.......... SOX
Industrial Point Sources: Point........... PM2.5, SOX
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT)--hardboard
and particleboard facilities.
New Strategies (2012-present)
Residential Wood Combustion:
Fireplace Standard....... Area............ PM2.5
Public Awareness......... Area............ PM2.5
Industrial Point Sources:
Opacity, Operation and Point........... PM2.5
Maintenance Plan
Requirements.
Offset Requirements...... Point........... PM2.5
Road Dust: Highway Road Area............ PM2.5
Sanding practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Third, the ODEQ has a demonstrated history of implementation
success with respect to particulate matter control strategies. Given
that the Klamath Falls area devised control measures to address
nonattainment for PM10 in the past, the area was already
implementing a number of relevant control strategies with demonstrated
efficacy. For purposes of attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, the ODEQ and Klamath County strengthened some of these existing
strategies, which were previously considered RACT/RACM for purposes of
attaining the PM10 NAAQS, to achieve PM2.5
reductions to meet the stricter PM2.5 standard (Klamath
Falls PM10 Attainment Plan--62 FR 18047, April 14, 1997,
PM10 Maintenance Plan--68 FR 60036, October 21, 2003).
In addition to considering the range of implemented strategies that
had effectively controlled emissions to attain the PM10
NAAQS, the ODEQ and the Klamath Falls community formed the Klamath Air
Quality Advisory Committee (KAQAC) to evaluate and develop additional
RACM/RACT at the county level to approve into the Klamath Falls
PM2.5 attainment plan. The KAQAC and the ODEQ contributed to
the formal RACT/RACM analysis of current and future control strategies
and provided recommendations to the county commissioners for approval.
The RACT/RACM adopted and updated by the ODEQ for the Klamath Falls
area were projected to reduce the 24-hour PM2.5 design value
by approximately 11.7 [micro]g/m\3\ by 2014 (see table 3 below).
Accordingly, the plan demonstrated attainment by projecting that the
area's design value would be reduced from the 2008 base year design
value of 45[micro]g/m\3\ to below 35[micro]g/m\3\ in 2014. Recent
monitoring data for 2012-14 indicate that the plan was effective,
reducing the design value to 34 [micro]g/m\3\.
Table 3--RACT/RACM Projected Air Quality Benefit for the Klamath Falls
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected air quality
RACT/RACM benefit ([micro]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary measures:
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated).......... 9.6
Woodstove curtailment--lower
thresholds and increased enforcement
Shorter open burning window
Woodstove Change-out Programs.................. 1.0
Heat Smart--woodstove change-out upon sale of 0.3
home.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 0.1
particleboard and hardboard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
subtotal 1................................. 11.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional measures:
Public Awareness............................... 0.6
New fireplace standards........................ 0.1
Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions...... Minimal.
Diesel Retrofits
Low Emission Vehicle Program
Fuel Economy
Road Paving.................................... Minimal.
------------------------
[[Page 21825]]
subtotal 2................................. 0.7
------------------------
Total.................................. 11.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in Table 3, the most important control strategies address
residential wood combustion because the emissions inventory and source-
receptor analyses identified residential wood combustion as the most
significant contributor to PM2.5 at the monitor on days that
exceed the standard. The residential wood combustion strategies include
an ongoing woodstove change-out program to replace woodstoves with
cleaner, more efficient devices, and an updated Klamath Clean Air
Ordinance that includes a strengthened woodstove curtailment program to
reduce woodstove emissions on days when exceedances of the standard are
most likely to occur.
The woodstove change-out program in Klamath Falls has proven
effective for meeting the PM10 standard and again was
selected as a primary RACT/RACM strategy for the PM2.5
attainment plan. The program, currently implemented by the City of
Klamath Falls, provides financial incentives for homeowners to replace
older uncertified woodstoves with newer, cleaner certified woodstoves.
Between 2008 and 2011, the change-out program replaced 584 uncertified
woodstoves in the area. The removal and destruction of the old
woodstoves assures that the emissions reductions are permanent, and the
change-outs are enforceable because there is a statewide building code
that prohibits the installation of any uncertified woodstove in the
future. The 584 uncertified stoves that have been changed out were
estimated in the attainment demonstration to collectively provide
emission reductions that would lead to an air quality improvement of
1.0 [micro]g/m\3\. The ODEQ intends to continue its financial support
of this program in the future for purposes of meeting and maintaining
the standard, but it has not taken any credit in the attainment
demonstration for future change-outs.
Previous wood burning curtailment programs were important in
helping this area attain the 1987 PM10 standard and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Klamath Clean Air Ordinance, updated in
2007 and again in 2012, is the RACM providing the greatest emissions
reductions in the attainment demonstration at 9.6 [micro]g/m\3\. The
Ordinance includes a curtailment program that restricts combustion in
residential solid fuel-fired appliances on yellow and red advisory days
when the county's air pollution forecast is for high PM2.5
concentrations. The curtailment program is implemented through
advisories communicated to the community on a daily basis. On yellow
advisory days when the predicted forecast is for a 24-hour average
PM2.5 between 16 and 30 [mu]g/m\3\, residents within the air
quality zone are prohibited from using non-certified woodstoves, non-
certified woodstove insert, or a fireplace. Only certified solid fuel-
fired appliances and pellet stoves can be used. On red advisory days,
called when PM2.5 levels are forecast to be above 30 [mu]g/
m\3\, the operation of woodstoves is prohibited except in limited cases
where Klamath County has granted a prior hardship exemption. Use of
pellet stoves are still allowed on red days. The Ordinance also limits
open burning of residential yard debris to only 15 days of the winter
period. These days are selected based on a forecast of good
ventilation. In addition, the ODEQ has committed biennial funding to
assist with the County's implementation and enforcement of the
strengthened curtailment program (attachments 3.3r1 and 3.3r2). The
curtailment program is a permanent and enforceable measure. The program
was duly adopted as a Klamath County ordinance and as part of the
ODEQ's administrative rules. It imposes restrictions on wood burning
when the PM2.5 forecast reaches certain thresholds, and
establishes clear and enforceable restrictions during yellow and red
advisory days.
Together, the woodstove change-out and curtailment programs account
for over 95% of the calculated PM2.5 emissions reductions
(10 [micro]g/m\3\) needed to demonstrate attainment. The implementation
of earlier versions of these programs helped Klamath Falls to
successfully attain the PM10 NAAQS and to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The ODEQ's RACT/RACM analyses determined that
implementation of the curtailment and woodstove change-out programs as
control strategies, in conjunction with other adopted strategies
providing minor emissions reductions, would provide for expeditious
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Additional control strategies, listed in Table 3, include the
following: The Oregon Heat Smart program, that requires removal of
uncertified woodstoves upon the sale of homes (0.3 [micro]g/m\3\);
emissions reductions for implementation of Federal MACT standards
establishing tighter opacity standards applicable to hardboard and
particle board manufacturers in the nonattainment area (0.1 [micro]g/
m\3\); programs to enhance public awareness to ensure effective
compliance with the Klamath Air Quality Ordinance and general proper
woodstove burning and maintenance (0.6 [micro]g/m\3\); new fireplace
standards (0.1 [micro]g/m\3\); emissions reductions from Federal fuel
economy standards and state vehicle emissions regulations; and road
paving to reduce re-entrained road dust. The public awareness measure
is considered a voluntary measure and has been funded annually by the
ODEQ for purposes meeting the PM2.5 standard. While not a
permanent and enforceable measure, the program to enhance education,
outreach, and public awareness is key to supporting the implementation
of the curtailment including compliance rate and the implementation of
the woodstove change-out programs. Details of the intergovernmental
agreement between the ODEQ and Klamath County can be found in
attachment 3.3s, including the statement of work, funding provided, and
performance measures. Further discussion of these ancillary measures
can be found in the Klamath Falls Attainment Plan (attachments 3.3a,
p28-40; 3.3s).
Existing controls on industrial sources are also implemented within
the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. The stationary sources identified
in the ODEQ's RACT analysis already had limits in place for direct
PM2.5 and precursors, due to existing permitted controls or
anticipated future controls
[[Page 21826]]
such as the hardboard and particle board Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDD). As such, the ODEQ
assumed no emissions growth for major permitted point sources in the
modeling demonstration between 2008 and 2014. For example, Klamath
Energy Cogeneration facility is a natural gas fired power plant with
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) which limits NOX
emissions. Between the 2008 baseline emissions inventory and the 2014
attainment year inventory, direct PM2.5 emissions were
predicted to decline from 39.3 to 19.3 tpy, however all precursors were
predicted to remain stable due to permit limits (NOX = 172.2
tpy, SO2 = 19.5 tpy, VOC = 82.5 tpy, and NH3 =
68.9 tpy). The Jeld-Wen facility includes a variety of business types
such as wood products and chrome plating, with 2014 attainment year
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 10.9, 37.6, 1.9, 165.9, and
0.3 tpy, respectively. Direct PM2.5 emissions at Jeld-Wen
were projected to decline from 17.3 tpy in 2008 to 10.9 tpy in 2014 due
to the hardboard and particle board MACT discussed above, but all other
precursor emission were projected to remain constant due to existing
permit controls. Collins Products is a reconstituted wood products
facility that uses primarily natural gas, with 2014 attainment year
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 31.0, 9.4, 0.1, 529.8, and
0.0 tpy, respectively. Most of the larger emission units at Collins
Products were controlled via fabric filters for particulate matter. The
hardboard bake oven was also controlled by a regenerative thermal
oxidizer/regenerative catalytic oxidizer for VOC control. Direct
PM2.5 emissions at Collins Products were projected to
decline from 48.4 tpy in 2008 to 31.0 tpy in 2014, also due to the
hardboard and particle board MACT, with all precursor emissions
projected to remain constant due to existing permit limits. Columbia
Forest Products is a plywood manufacturer with 2014 attainment year
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 48.9, 53.5, 1.4, 41.2, and
0.3 tpy, respectively. The facility has two wood fired boilers, one of
which was equipped with a multiclone for particulate matter control.
Direct PM2.5 and all precursors were projected by the ODEQ
to remain stable between 2008 and the 2014 attainment year inventory
due to the existing permit controls.
For on-road mobile sources, in the 2014 attainment year inventory
the ODEQ projected significant NOX emission reductions
gained through improved motor vehicle fuel economy and emissions
standards, with little opportunity for improvement among the remaining
smaller sources. Other secondary species were demonstrated to be minor
contributors to PM2.5 mass and their emissions are
distributed among multiple source sectors. Emissions of NOX,
NH3, and VOCs are projected to moderately decrease by 2014
due to Federal mobile source controls including the Tier 2 Emission
Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. These emission
control requirements result in lower VOC and NOX emissions
from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles.
The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has
estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following
vehicle NOX emission reductions will occur nationwide:
Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks,
minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and, larger sports
utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). VOC
emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18 percent,
depending on vehicle class, over the same period. The ODEQ estimated
the on-road emissions reductions due to federal rules (Tier 2) in the
attainment year. Additional on-road emission reductions are expected to
occur as the fleet continues to turn over and new Tier 3 vehicle and
fuel standards are phased in. In July 2000, the EPA issued a The Heavy-
Duty Diesel Engine Rule, effective in 2004, which includes standards
limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel. A second phase took effect
in 2007 which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to
15 parts per million, leading to additional reductions in combustion
NOX and VOC emissions. This proposed rule is expected to
achieve a 95% reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks
and buses. The EPA issued the Nonroad Diesel Rule in 2004. This
proposed rule applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as
construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance
with this proposed rule will cut NOX emissions from nonroad
diesel engines by up to 90 percent. Some of these emission reductions
were projected to occur by the 2014 attainment year with additional
emission reductions following attainment.
As shown in table 1, the control strategies included in the
attainment plan were projected to provide direct PM2.5
projected air quality benefits resulting in an 11.7 [micro]g/m\3\
reduction in the 24-hour PM2.5 design value, to a 2014
modeled value of 34.6 [micro]g/m\3\. The implementation of these
control strategies brought the area into attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Consistent with the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA, the control measures
identified by the ODEQ as RACM and RACT need to meet the requirements
of section 189(a)(1)(C), which requires that all RACM for a Moderate
area be implemented by no later than four years after designation. The
Klamath Falls area was designated nonattainment on November 13, 2009,
and thus according to section 189(a)(1)(C), all necessary RACT/RACM
should have been implemented by no later than November 2013. The ODEQ
and Klamath County adopted and began implementing the control measures
identified as RACM/RACT prior to the submission of the Klamath Falls
attainment plan to the EPA in December 2012. Consequently, the EPA
believes that the ODEQ complied with the four-year RACT/RACM
implementation requirement.
4. Fourth, the ODEQ and the KAQAC identified and evaluated a wide
range of additional potential control measures as described in the
KAQAC report. The KAQAC report evaluated additional control measures
for purposes of determining if they could reasonably provide additional
substantive emissions reductions. Between March 2011 and February 2012,
the KAQAC met 13 times to review the state of air quality in Klamath
Falls and develop recommendations of suggested control measures for
approval by the Klamath County Commissioners and incorporation into the
ODEQ's attainment plan as RACT/RACM. The KAQAC reviewed 79 control
measures and evaluated the measures in light of factors such as
environmental, health, economic, social, and technological feasibility.
The KAQAC's findings and recommendations are summarized in the ODEQ's
Klamath Falls attainment plan and presented in attachments 3.3p-q.
Although the ODEQ and Klamath County considered a wide range of
additional strategies, a majority of the strategies were eliminated as
not reasonable because they were determined to be technologically or
economically infeasible. For this reason, many of these control
measures were screened out early in the process through application of
the EPA's criteria for determination of RACT/RACM, and were therefore
not quantified for purposes of determining if they would advance the
attainment date by one
[[Page 21827]]
year. Given that the area needed to identify 10 [micro]g/m\3\ of
reductions over six years (e.g., 2008 base year to 2014 attainment
year) to get from 45 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, one year of
reductions was roughly 1.67 [micro]g/m\3\ for the Klamath Falls
attainment plan. The remaining control measures were provided by the
KAQAC as a set of recommended RACT/RACM for the Klamath County
Commissioners to adopt. The final control measures adopted by Klamath
County were included in the plan with additional control measures
adopted by the ODEQ to satisfy the RACT/RACM planning requirements. The
emissions reductions from the implementation of the adopted enforceable
measures are sufficient to demonstrate attainment and provide a buffer
below the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ standard.
In the Klamath Falls Attainment Plan (pages 45-47), the ODEQ
applied the primary control measures to the base year design value to
demonstrate that they would be able to bring the Klamath Falls future
design value below the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ standard. To provide a buffer
they also took credit for additional emissions reductions attributed to
the new fireplace standards and the education program. Table 3 in this
document identifies the measures that the ODEQ identified as necessary
to bring the area below the standard as primary measures and these
account for approximately 11.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Table 3 also includes the
additional controls that meet the RACM/RACT criteria, listed as
additional measures, and shows that they account for approximately 0.7
[micro]g/m\3\ of emissions reduction. With the information provided in
the submittal the EPA identified that these additional measures of 0.7
[micro]g/m\3\ were not enough to advance the attainment date by one
year (i.e., 1.67 [micro]g/m\3\).
Not Necessary for Attainment
As described in this action, the exceedances at the Peterson School
monitor were from direct PM2.5, and the main source category
responsible for emissions of direct PM2.5 was residential
wood combustion. In the attainment demonstration, the economically and
technologically feasible control measures chosen by the ODEQ focused on
reduction of direct PM2.5 from residential wood combustion.
The two major controls were in the form of strengthening the woodstove
curtailment program and the change-out of residential woodstoves with
more efficient, lower emissions EPA-certified woodstoves. With these
measures, the ODEQ was able to demonstrate attainment by the end of
2014, which the area met based upon quality-assured, quality-
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data.
Not Possible To Advance Attainment by One Year
Under the attainment plan requirements, an area must implement all
reasonably available control measures that would advance the date of
attainment by one year, or as expeditiously as possible. In the
attainment demonstration submitted in the Klamath Falls attainment
plan, the ODEQ identified that the area would attain the standard by
December 2014. As the area already attained the 2006 24-hr
PM2.5 standard in December 2014, attaining as expeditiously
as possible is no longer relevant.
The EPA proposes to find that the ODEQ's attainment plan meets the
RACM/RACT requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
proposed approval is based upon the State's compliance with the
requirements of the general preamble and the EPA's analysis that the
submitted attainment plan also meets the statutory RACM and RACT
requirements of subpart 4. The plan is consistent with subparts 1 and 4
of the statute, and with the guidance provided in the general preamble,
such as identifying relevant sources and potential control measures for
those sources, and for evaluating whether potential control measures
are reasonable based upon factors such as technological and economic
feasibility. Most importantly, under either subpart, the state is
required to determine RACM and RACT measures in light of the emissions
reductions needed to bring the area in question into attainment.
The EPA proposes to conclude that the ODEQ's attainment plan
analysis sufficiently evaluated the relevant sources and controls and
appropriately selected RACM/RACT measures that meet the requirements of
subparts 1 and 4 and provided for the timely attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The ODEQ identified emissions sources,
evaluated potential control measures, and adopted reasonably available
control measures consistent with CAA requirements in subparts 1 and 4,
and with existing EPA guidance. The ODEQ's attainment plan included
sufficient information to determine that implementation of additional
precursor controls was unnecessary for timely attainment of the NAAQS.
Relying on its selected RACM/RACT, the ODEQ demonstrated attainment
with the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. The EPA is
proposing to approve the ODEQ's analysis and selection of RACM/RACT as
meeting the requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
I. Contingency Measures
Contingency measures are additional measures to be implemented in
the event that an area fails to attain a standard by its applicable
attainment date, or fails to meet Reasonable Further Progress (RFP).
These measures must be fully adopted rules or control 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. In addition, they should be measures not
already included in the SIP control strategy, and should provide for
emission reductions equivalent to one year of RFP.
The ODEQ developed contingency measures for the Klamath Falls
PM2.5 attainment plan in accordance with the contingency
measures requirement in section 172(c)(9) of subpart 1 of the CAA
(Subpart 4 does not contain contingency measure requirements.) The
primary contingency measure in the ODEQ attainment plan is a
prohibition on burning in all uncertified fireplaces during the winter
wood heating season. This contingency measure was adopted as part of
the Klamath County 2012 Ordinance (attachment 3.3r2) and the ODEQ's
administrative rules, and the contingency measures automatically take
effect without any further action by ODEQ if the area fails to attain
by the attainment date. Implementation of the fireplace contingency
measure was projected to reduce the future year design value by the one
year of RFP reductions (1.67 [mu]g/m\3\ for Klamath Falls) expected for
contingency measures. The EPA proposes to approve the contingency
measures in the Klamath Falls attainment plan as meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(9). The contingency measures within the
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for proposed approval include 340-
240-0570, 340-240-0580, 340-240-0610, 340-240-0620, 340-240-0630, 340-
262-1000 and are listed in section V. Incorporation by reference, Table
5.
J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 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
[[Page 21828]]
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 some time just before the date by which the
standard is to be attained. Second, under subpart 4, CAA section 189(c)
requires that a PM10 NAAQS attainment plan submission have
``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.''
While the ODEQ's attainment plan was developed to meet the subpart
1 RFP requirements, the EPA is also evaluating the plan to determine
whether it meets the subpart 4 quantitative milestones requirement.
That section is comparable to the requirements of section 172(c)(1), in
that it requires attainment plans under subpart 4 to meet a RFP
requirement. However, section 189(c) also provides that an attainment
plan should have quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every
three years until the area is redesignated to attainment, and which
demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date. The EPA's General Preamble and Addendum
provide guidance interpreting this statutory provision and are useful
to evaluate this requirement of subpart 4.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, April 16, 1992; Addendum,
59 FR 42015-17, August 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the EPA's guidance recommendations with respect to
section 189(c) include several relevant features: (1) That the control
measures comprising the RFP should be implemented and in place to meet
the milestone requirement; (2) that it is reasonable for the three year
periods for milestones to run from the date that the attainment plan
submission is due; and (3) that the precise form quantitative
milestones should take is not specified and they may take whatever form
would allow progress to be quantified or measured adequately.\6\ As
discussed below, the EPA believes that the ODEQ's attainment plan
adequately meets both the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements
for this area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Merely as examples, EPA noted some potential approaches,
such as percent implementation of control strategies, percent
compliance with implemented control measures, and adherence to a
compliance schedule. This list was clearly not exhaustive and
reflected that the purpose of such milestones is merely to provide
an objective way to assess that the area is making progress towards
attainment by the applicable attainment date. See Addendum, 59 FR
42016, August 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, although not presented as control measures that would
achieve reductions by a specified three year milestone, the ODEQ's
attainment plan contained control measures that were already
implemented and in place and, in fact, were achieving necessary
emission reductions to meet RFP and quantitative milestone
requirements. For example, the woodstoves change-out program commenced
in 2008 and achieved sustained and quantifiable emission reductions
between 2008 and 2011. The ODEQ calculated the emissions reductions
associated with the number of woodstoves exchanged in each of those
years. In addition, the ODEQ quantified the estimated number of
woodstove change-outs resulting from implementation of the Heat Smart
program and the associated emissions reductions for each calendar year.
These values in turn were relied upon to demonstrate attainment of the
2006 24-hour NAAQS by the attainment date (refer to Table 9 and Table
10 in Attachment 3.3a).
Second, even under the more aggressive 18-month statutory
attainment plan due date in subpart 4, the control measures in the
ODEQ's attainment plan were in place and achieving reductions within
three years of submission. The Klamath Falls area was designated
nonattainment in November 2009, and under subpart 4 an attainment plan
would have been due in June 2011. As noted in the RACM/RACT discussion
(section III.E), the attainment plan consisted of control measures
including past strategies implemented prior to 2008 and new strategies
implemented after 2012. The past strategies included the woodstove
change-out program with emission reductions achieved through
implementation in 2008-2011, the Oregon Heat Smart program, and the
woodstove curtailment program. While not explicitly identified as
quantitative measures in the 2012 ODEQ submission, the state relied
upon these primary control measures in the attainment plan to provide
the bulk of the emissions reductions needed to bring the area into
attainment, and were achieving reductions well within three years from
the subpart 4 attainment plan submission date. In addition, there is no
need to evaluate whether the attainment plan accounts for a second
three-year milestone because the plan demonstrates attainment in
December 2014 before the occurrence of the second milestone.
Third, the ODEQ's attainment plan provided information sufficient
to quantify the amount of emissions reductions to be achieved by
pollutant and control measure by the December 2014 attainment date. The
quantification of reductions is found in the emissions inventory table
in the attainment plan and emissions inventory, as well as calculated
from the emissions reductions associated with each control strategy in
the attainment demonstration (Table 3, above). Thus, the attainment
plan did quantify the emission reductions that would occur at a point
in time that was appropriate for a three year milestone, regardless of
what the statutory SIP submission date was under either subpart 1 or
subpart 4. The ODEQ's attainment plan contained control measures that
achieved annual emissions reductions and associated air quality
improvements between the time of the nonattainment designation and the
time the area attained the standard that are sufficient to demonstrate
RFP under subpart 1. The timely implementation of these control
measures may be viewed as satisfying the quantitative milestone
requirements that apply under subpart 4.
The EPA proposes to approve the submitted Klamath Falls attainment
plan as meeting both the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements.
The plan provides sufficient data and analyses that demonstrate
emission reductions that provide reasonable progress towards attainment
in December 2014. The key control strategies for attainment were
implemented and achieving emissions reductions prior to the attainment
plan due date under subpart 4 and within the three-year quantitative
milestone requirement. This is consistent with the purpose of the
milestone requirement which is to ``provide for emission reductions
adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date''
(H.R. Rep. No. 480, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 267 (1990)). The ODEQ
demonstrated progress toward attainment in December 2014 and
successfully implemented the control measures expected to achieve the
NAAQS by this date. Furthermore, since Klamath Falls has attained the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the demonstrated date, this provides
further support that RFP and quantitative milestones were being met at
the appropriate time.
[[Page 21829]]
K. Conformity Requirements
Transportation Conformity and the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB)
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 national transportation
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) as well as the Oregon
transportation conformity SIP which cites the national rule (77 FR
60627, October 4, 2012). 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 FTA to demonstrate that their long-range transportation plans
(``plans'') and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) conform to
applicable SIPs. This 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.
Table 4--2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Klamath Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory PM2.5 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst Case Winter PM2.5 Season.. 699 lbs/day....... 4,834 lbs/day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must
meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)).
The EPA has reviewed the motor vehicle emissions budgets listed above
in Table 4 and found that they are consistent with the attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and meet the criteria for
adequacy and approval. The EPA found the budgets located in Table 4
adequate (80 FR 45654; July 31, 2015). The EPA proposes to approve
Oregon's MVEBs in Table 4 for 2014 for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. As a clarification,
only the 2014 MVEB in the submittal is applicable to the attainment
plan and only the 24-hour budget will be used for conformity purposes.
As such, the EPA believes that these motor vehicle emissions meet
applicable requirements for such budgets for purposes of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes.
M. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event Demonstration and Concurrence
The CAA allows for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data
from design value calculations when there are exceedances caused by
events, such as wildfires, that meet the criteria for an exceptional
event identified in the EPA's implementing regulations, the Exceptional
Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.14. Emissions from wildfires influenced
PM2.5 concentrations recorded at the Klamath Falls Peterson
School monitor on September 30, 2009; August 25, 28 and 31, 2012; and
July 30 and August 5, 2013. The ODEQ submitted an exceptional events
demonstration for the 2009 wildfire with which the EPA concurred on
June 29, 2012. The 2009 event had regulatory significance for purposes
of the attainment demonstration in the ODEQ's Klamath Falls attainment
plan submittal. The ODEQ also submitted an exceptional events
demonstration for the 2012 and 2013 wildfires with which the EPA
concurred on February 18, 2015. The exclusion of data influenced by the
2012 and 2013 wildfires affected the design value for 2012-2014.
Further details on the ODEQ's analyses and the EPA's concurrences can
be found in the docket for this regulatory action. The EPA proposes to
approve all of the concurred dates listed above as detailed in the
docket as exceptional events to be removed from the data set used for
regulatory purposes and to rely on the calculated values that exclude
the event-influenced data in this proposed finding of attainment for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to find that the Klamath Falls area attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The EPA proposes to approve the PM2.5 attainment plan for
the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. As explained above, the EPA
believes that the attainment plan submitted by Oregon, though not
expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the
requirements of subpart 4. Specifically, the attainment plan included a
weight of evidence demonstration that the area would attain by the
statutory attainment date that applied under a subpart 1 regime and a
full year before the latest allowable subpart 4 moderate area
attainment date. In addition, the plan meets the substantive
requirements applicable under subparts 1 and 4 for RACM/RACT, base-year
emissions inventories, RFP and quantitative milestones, and contingency
measures. The plan also included MVEBs to be used for transportation
conformity purposes for Klamath Falls. Accordingly, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the SIP meets applicable requirements for
purposes of approval under section 110(k) of the CAA. The EPA also
proposes to approve the rules submitted and the exceptional event
demonstration discussed in this action. Finally, we propose to
determine that the area has clean data based on quality-assured and
quality-controlled 2012-2014 ambient air monitoring data for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if
the EPA finalizes this determination, it will suspend the requirements
for the area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated RACM,
RFP, contingency measures, and any other planning SIP requirements
related to the attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, so long
as the area continues to meet the standard. Although a CDD suspends the
requirement for submission of certain attainment planning elements, it
does not relieve the EPA of its responsibility to take action on a
state's SIP submission. As described in this action, the EPA is
proposing to fully approve the remaining elements of the Klamath Falls
nonattainment plan as meeting the requirements of the CAA.
V. Incorporation by Reference
The EPA is proposing to approve regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the rules
described in this preamble and listed in Table 5 below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).
[[Page 21830]]
Table 5--Proposed Rules for Incorporation by Reference
[EPA approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA approval
State citation Title/Subject effective date date Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 240--Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klamath Falls Nonattainment Area Contingency Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
240-0570........................... Applicability.............. 12/11/2012
240-0580........................... Existing Industrial Sources 12/11/2012
Control Efficiency.
240-0610........................... Continuous Monitoring for 12/11/2012
Industrial Sources.
240-0620........................... Contingency Measures: New 12/11/2012
Industrial Sources.
240-0630........................... Contingency Enhanced 12/11/2012
Curtailment of Use of
Solid Fuel Burning Devices
and Fireplaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 262--Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
262-1000........................... Wood Burning Contingency 12/11/2012
Measures for PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. 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
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);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
in Oregon or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
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: April 1, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-08384 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P