Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour PM2.5, 31202-31206 [2016-11628]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31202-31206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11628]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0051; FRL-9946-51-Region 10]


Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date for the Oakridge, 
Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, on the basis that 
the State has met the criteria for such an extension under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0051 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Spenillo at (206) 553-6125, or 
email address spenillo.justin@epa,gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background for the Proposed Action
II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment Date
III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year Extension
    A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015
    B. Oakridge Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable SIP
IV. Summary of Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for the Proposed Action

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued its final action to revise the 
PM2.5 NAAQS to establish revised 24-hour standards (71 FR 
61144). In that action, we promulgated identical revised primary and 
secondary PM2.5 standards designed to protect public health 
and welfare that specified a 24-hour PM2.5 average 
concentration of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Specifically, the 2006 standards 
require that the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 
concentration may not exceed 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    On November 13, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule designating all 
areas throughout the country for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688). In that action, the 
EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon and a small surrounding area as a 
nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA) based on monitor values at the 
Willamette Activity Center in Oakridge. As a result of this 
nonattainment area designation, Oregon is required to prepare and 
submit to the EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to meet 
attainment plan requirements and to bring the Oakridge NAA into 
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The State 
submitted an attainment plan submission for the Oakridge NAA to the EPA 
by letter dated December 12, 2012 (2012 Oakridge Plan).
    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 only pursuant to the provisions of 
subpart 1 of the Act, 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 for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, but remanded it to the EPA with instructions to 
promulgate a new implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 
accordance with the requirements of both subpart 1 and subpart 4. On 
June 6, 2013, consistent with the Court's remand decision, the EPA 
withdrew its March 2012 Implementation Guidance recommending that 
states rely on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for 
development of attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. Thus, the EPA withdrew the guidance it initially provided to 
states for meeting attainment plan requirements for purposes of areas 
designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 
such as the Oakridge NAA.
    On June 2, 2014, in response to the NRDC decision that it implement 
the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to subpart 4, the EPA promulgated 
the ``PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and 
Deadline Rule'' (79 FR 31566). In that action, the EPA classified all 
areas currently designated nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas. That rule 
also provided guidance to states on how to meet the subpart 4 
requirements and set a deadline of December 31, 2014 for states to 
submit any revisions to previously submitted attainment plan 
submissions, as necessary to meet subpart 4 requirements. Thus, the EPA 
classified the Oakridge NAA as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and provided an

[[Page 31203]]

opportunity for the state to revise the 2012 Oakridge Plan.
    A Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area's ambient air 
quality status is determined in accordance with Appendix N of 40 CFR 
part 50. To show attainment of the current 24-hour and annual standards 
for PM2.5, data from the most recent three consecutive years 
prior to the area's attainment date must show that PM2.5 
concentrations over the prior three year period are at or below the 
levels of the standards. A complete year of air quality data, as 
described in part 50, Appendix N, is comprised of all four calendar 
quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of 
the scheduled sampling days.
    The EPA begins processing and analyzing data related to the 
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS after the applicable 
attainment date for the affected areas. Current EPA regulations, under 
40 CFR part 58, set the deadline for the state to certify its air 
quality data in the Air Quality System (AQS) database by May 1 of the 
following year. Under section 179(c), the EPA is required to determine 
as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 6 months after the 
applicable attainment date, whether a nonattainment area has attained 
the relevant NAAQS. In the case of a state with an area that qualifies 
for an extension of the attainment date under section 188(d), however, 
the EPA has discretion instead to extend the attainment date for an 
area if the state requests the extension and meets the statutory 
criteria for such an extension.

II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment Date

    CAA section 188(d) allows states to apply for, and the EPA the 
discretion to grant, a 1-year extension to the statutory attainment 
date for Moderate PM10 (particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter of a nominal 10 micrometers) nonattainment areas. 
Section 188(d) establishes two criteria that the EPA must consider to 
grant a requested attainment date extension: (1) The state has complied 
with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the 
applicable implementation plan, and (2) no more than one exceedance of 
the 24-hour NAAQS level for PM10 has occurred in the area in 
the year preceding the extension year and the annual mean concentration 
of PM10 in the area for such year is less than or equal to 
the level of the annual standard. Section 188(d) also provides for the 
possibility that the EPA may grant a second 1-year extension if the 
Moderate area meets the specified criteria. No more than two 1-year 
attainment date extensions may be granted for a single nonattainment 
area.
    The provisions of section 188(d) thus allow a state an opportunity 
to demonstrate that a Moderate area should continue to be classified as 
Moderate and not reclassified to Serious, even if the area has monitor 
data exceeding the level of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the calendar year preceding the otherwise applicable attainment date. 
Although section 188(d) provides the criteria for such an extension, 
the EPA believes that there are some ambiguities in the statutory 
language that warrant interpretation. Thus, in this action the EPA is 
proposing to interpret the requirements of section 188(d) in evaluating 
the extension request from the State.
    The most significant issue that the EPA must address is how to 
interpret the air quality requirement of section 188(d)(2) in light of 
the fact that the statutory language refers to PM10 rather 
than to PM2.5, and the fact that the air quality requirement 
is phrased as ``no more than one exceedance'' of the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS in the year prior to the otherwise applicable 
attainment date. Based upon the NRDC decision, there can be no doubt 
that the EPA must interpret the references to PM10 in 
section 188(d)(2) to encompass PM2.5. Given that fact, 
however, the EPA cannot read the ``no more than one exceedance'' 
requirement to apply literally to the PM2.5 NAAQS because of 
the distinct differences in the form of the PM10 NAAQS and 
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The statutory language addressing PM10 in CAA section 
188 explicitly sets ambient air quality conditions for an attainment 
date extension in terms that relate factually to the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS that was in effect at the time of the 1990 
Amendments of the CAA, which has a statistical form that is 
substantially different from the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
requirement in 188(d)(2) states that an extension may be granted if 
``no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour national ambient air 
quality standard level for PM10 has occurred in the area in 
the year preceding the Extension Year, and the annual mean 
concentration of PM10 in the area for such year is less than 
or equal to the standard level.'' Given the form of the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS, the requirement that an area have no more than 
one ``exceedance'' meant that there could be no more than one monitored 
value over the numerical level of the NAAQS. Such an approach is 
logical when the form of the 24-hour NAAQS allows one exceedance per 
year, on average, over a three year period. By having no more than one 
exceedance, the state was meeting the NAAQS in that last year, even if 
it did not yet meet the requirements for attainment over the requisite 
three year period. In other words, the state would be close to 
attaining the NAAQS, thus making one year extension a potentially 
appropriate way provide additional time for a state to come into 
attainment without the need for a reclassification to Serious and 
additional SIP planning efforts. By contrast, the form of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a 98th percentile-based form and not a 
``one expected exceedance'' form as is the PM10 NAAQS. Under 
the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, there can be a 
number of exceedances of the numerical level of the NAAQS that are 
permitted and are not considered a violation of the NAAQS. Thus, under 
the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS an area could be 
close to attaining the NAAQS in the year prior to the attainment date, 
even if there were one or more dates with monitored ``exceedances.'' 
Therefore the statutory language requires some interpretation with 
regard to how it applies to the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    For this action, the EPA is proposing to interpret section 188(d) 
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a way that is 
equivalent to the ``no more than one exceedance'' condition that 
Congress imposed for purposes of the PM10 NAAQS. 
Accordingly, the EPA interprets the requirement to demonstrate that the 
area had ``no more than one exceedance'' of the level of the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS to mean that the state must demonstrate that the 
area had ``clean data'' in the year proceeding the extension year. 
Thus, a state seeking an attainment date extension for a Moderate 
nonattainment area for a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be 
required to demonstrate that the area had monitor data showing no 
monitored violations of the NAAQS in light of the statistical form of 
that particular standard (i.e., for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, the 98th percentile value did not exceed 35 [mu]g/m\3\) in the 
calendar year prior to the applicable attainment date for the area.
    An additional issue that the EPA must address concerning the air 
quality requirement of section 188(d)(2) is whether a state seeking an 
extension for purposes of a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS only, must 
nevertheless meet the portion of section 188(d)(2) that refers to the 
annual ambient air quality of such an area. The EPA notes that 
statutory language of section 188(d) does provide that a state seeking 
an extension of a Moderate area attainment date must

[[Page 31204]]

have not more than one exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS ``and'' meet an 
annual ambient level requirement as well. The EPA believes that reading 
this provision to require a state to meet both tests, even when the 
state has an area that is designated nonattainment only for the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and is seeking an extension of only the 
attainment date for such NAAQS, is not a logical interpretation of the 
provision. Such a reading would be logical were the area at issue 
designated nonattainment for both the 24-hour NAAQS and the annual 
NAAQS, but not if designated nonattainment only for one of those 
standards.
    The EPA is proposing to interpret section 188(d) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to require a state only to establish that 
it meets the air quality requirement with respect to the 24-hour NAAQS 
when seeking an extension of the attainment date only for the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes this interpretation of section 
188(d)(2) is appropriate for two main reasons. First, while most 
PM10 nonattainment areas were designated nonattainment for 
either just the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS or for both the 24-hour 
and annual PM10 NAAQS, the majority of current 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas are, in contrast, designated for 
either the 24-hour or the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and should 
arguably only need to demonstrate clean data for the NAAQS for which 
the area is designated nonattainment. For those few PM2.5 
nonattainment areas designated for both 24-hour and annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA believes it also is appropriate that a 
state must only demonstrate clean data for the specific NAAQS for which 
the state is seeking an attainment date extension because such an 
approach is consistent with the statute's overall approach to 
designating nonattainment areas and implementing control strategies for 
each separate PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, if an area is designated 
as nonattainment for both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 
standards and receives an extension for one standard while still 
working toward a later attainment date for the other standard, the EPA 
maintains that public health protection would not be delayed because 
the state would still be subject to the ongoing mandate to adopt and 
implement measures to ensure expeditious attainment of the other 
standard.
    Section 188(d)(1) of the Act also provides that the state must have 
``. . . complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to 
the area in the applicable implementation plan.'' As with section 
188(d)(2), the EPA believes that there are some ambiguities in the 
statutory language that warrant interpretation in order to evaluate the 
State's extension request. The EPA proposes to interpret this provision 
to mean that the state has submitted a SIP submission to address the 
attainment plan requirements for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS 
and that the state has implemented the control measures in the SIP 
submission. This proposed interpretation is based on the plain language 
of section 188(d) that does not explicitly require that the state 
comply with all requirements applicable to the area in the CAA, but 
merely requires that the state comply with all requirements in the 
applicable SIP. In other words, the EPA believes that section 188(d)(1) 
should be interpreted to mean that so long as the state has submitted 
the necessary attainment plan for the area for the applicable 
PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control measures in the 
submission, the fact that the EPA has not yet acted on such submission 
to make it an approved part of the applicable SIP should not be a 
barrier to the state obtaining an extension of the attainment date 
under section 188(d)(1).
    Under this proposed interpretation, therefore, the state has to 
demonstrate that it has submitted an attainment plan to the EPA for the 
relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and that the state is implementing 
control measures in that SIP submission. Because the extension at issue 
under section 188(d) is an extension of a Moderate area attainment 
date, it follows that the control measures in the attainment plan 
submission would be those measures that the State intended to meet the 
RACM and RACT requirements. The EPA interprets the requirement of 
section 188(d)(1) that the state have complied with the ``requirements 
and commitments'' of the applicable implementation plan to mean that 
the state must be implementing the control measures in the submitted 
attainment plan. The state must have adopted and submitted the 
attainment plan SIP revision to the EPA, but the state can qualify for 
the extension even if the EPA has not yet taken action on the SIP 
submission.
    In sum, in order for the EPA to make a decision on whether to grant 
a 1-year attainment date extension, the state is required to submit 
sufficient information to demonstrate that it has both complied with 
all requirements and commitments in the applicable implementation plan, 
and that it had ``clean'' air quality data in the attainment year, as 
explained above. Any decision made by the EPA to extend the attainment 
date for an area would be based on facts specific to the nonattainment 
area at issue.
    Section 188(d) does not specify the process by which the EPA should 
evaluate and act upon requests from states for an extension of the 
Moderate PM2.5 area attainment date. However, the EPA 
believes that an attainment date extension should only be granted after 
the EPA provides notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for 
the public to comment. Requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking allows 
for appropriate evaluation of the relevant criteria and facts in order 
to assure that the extension is granted or denied after full 
evaluation. This process also is consistent with past practice by the 
EPA in granting attainment date extensions for PM2.5 areas. 
If this proposal is finalized, then the nonattainment area would remain 
classified as Moderate for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS throughout 
the 2016 calendar year. After the December 31, 2016 attainment date, 
the EPA will evaluate air quality data and other relevant information 
to determine whether the area has attained the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS by the December 31, 2016 attainment date.

III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year Extension

    On December 14, 2015, the State of Oregon submitted a request to 
extend the Moderate area attainment date for the Oakridge NAA for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 
31, 2016. This request contained documentation intended to demonstrate 
that the State meets the criteria for a 1-year attainment date 
extension for this area pursuant to CAA section 188(d). On February 11, 
2016, the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) submitted an 
Oakridge Extension Request Follow-up, that provides the final quality-
assured air quality data for 2015 and documentation of efforts to 
implement the 2012 Oakridge plan during the 2015-16 winter. The EPA is 
evaluating this request in light of its statutory interpretations of 
section 188(d) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015

    The LRAPA implements the CAA on behalf of the State in the Oakridge 
NAA. The LRAPA monitors ambient PM2.5 at one monitoring site 
in the Oakridge NAA at the Willamette Activity Center, the area of 
expected highest concentrations. The air monitor began operation in 
1989 and has monitored continuously to the present. The monitor is a 
Federal Reference Method sampler, sampling every third day. The

[[Page 31205]]

EPA has previously approved the State's monitoring network including 
the PM2.5 network for Oakridge. The EPA verified in 2010 and 
2013 that the PM2.5 sample collection and filter handling 
procedures met Federal requirements for quality assurance and control. 
The LRAPA reviews and certifies all data from this monitor for 
compliance with these procedures and submits the data to the ODEQ. The 
ODEQ then submits the certified data to the EPA AQS data system.
    The ODEQ submitted complete certified PM2.5 monitor data 
for calendar year 2015 into the EPA AQS data system before February 28, 
2016. Likewise, the state has submitted certified data for calendar 
years 2013 and 2014 to the EPA AQS data system. Thus, the EPA AQS data 
system contains sufficient data for the EPA to evaluate whether the 
Oakridge NAA attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
statutory attainment date of December 31, 2015, but also the requisite 
data to determine whether the Oakridge NAA was meeting the NAAQS in 
calendar year 2015 in order to qualify for a one year extension under 
section 188(d).
    As explained above, the EPA is interpreting the air quality 
criterion of section 188(d)(2) in order to reflect the different form 
of the NAAQS for the PM10 NAAQS in effect at the time of the 
1990 Amendments to the CAA versus the form of the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. Under this proposed interpretation, a state could qualify for a 
one year extension of the Moderate area attainment date if the monitor 
data reflects that the area has ambient air quality that is at or below 
the level of the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS for the calendar year 
preceding the otherwise applicable attainment date, i.e., for the 
calendar year prior to the requested extension year. The three year 
average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 values 
for 2013-2015 in the Oakridge NAA is 37 [mu]g/m\3\ and thus the EPA 
cannot find that the area has attained the 24-hour standards for this 
3-year period. However, the 98th percentile value for the single year 
of 2015 in this area is 28.9 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the level of 
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Because the Oakridge NAA is designated nonattainment only for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the State only seeks a one year 
extension of the attainment date with respect to this NAAQS. As 
explained above, the EPA is interpreting the air quality criterion of 
section 188(d) to apply only with respect to the specific NAAQS for 
which a state seeks an extension. Thus, for a state seeking an 
extension of an attainment date for an area designated nonattainment 
only for the 24-hour NAAQS, section 188(d) does not require the EPA to 
evaluate the ambient air quality in the area with respect to the annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Under this proposed approach, the 
monitored annual ambient level of PM2.5 in the Oakridge NAA 
is not germane to the EPA's evaluation the extension request. However, 
the EPA notes that the annual design value for the Oakridge monitor is 
9.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 2012-2014 period and the preliminary design 
value is 9.6 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 2013-2015 period. Thus, even if the 
annual ambient monitored PM2.5 level were relevant to this 
extension request, the monitored PM2.5 level in the Oakridge 
NAA is well below the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ level of the 2006 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 12 [mu]g/m\3\ level of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that the State 
meets the ambient air quality criterion for a 1-year attainment date 
extension for the Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 188(d)(2).

B. Oakridge Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable SIP

    On December 12, 2012, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality (ODEQ) submitted a SIP revision to address attainment plan 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA 
(2012 Oakridge Plan). The State intended this SIP submission to meet 
the statutory requirements for an attainment plan for purposes of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon the statutory requirements and the 
EPA guidance for those requirements available at that time. Although 
the EPA anticipates that the state may elect to make an additional SIP 
submission to revise and update the 2012 Oakridge Plan, to date the 
State has not done so.
    The State developed the 2012 Oakridge Plan in order to address the 
ambient PM2.5 problem in this area through a control 
strategy designed to focus on the dominant sources of emissions in the 
area. The State has concluded that the violations of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Oakridge NAA are primarily due to 
emissions of direct PM2.5 from residential wood combustion 
(RWC) from winter time home heating. Oakridge is a small rural 
community located in a valley of the western slope of the Cascade 
mountain range. Therefore, the State has ascertained that reducing 
emissions of PM2.5 to prevent violations of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS rests primarily on RWC curtailment.
    The 2012 Oakridge Plan included new control measures to address RWC 
emissions by requiring the curtailment of RWC during times when 
elevated levels of PM2.5 are predicted or occur. The RWC 
curtailment control measure was adopted, and is enforceable as a City 
of Oakridge ordinance. This ordinance, in addition to Oregon's state-
wide Heat Smart program, also requires the replacement of old 
uncertified wood stoves with EPA certified stoves when houses 
containing uncertified wood stoves are sold, and requires the 
installation of EPA certified wood stoves in new construction. The 
State provided documentation in the attainment date extension request 
to demonstrate the implementation of the Oakridge RWC curtailment 
ordinance.
    Subsequent to the submission of the 2012 Oakridge Plan submission, 
the City of Oakridge enacted revisions on November 15, 2012 and again 
on October 15, 2015 to strengthen the RWC ordinance which included 
lowering the threshold for triggering a curtailment or ``burn ban,'' 
imposing a more stringent opacity limit, and requiring that only dry, 
seasoned wood be burned for RWC. The State plans to submit a SIP 
revision to the EPA in December 2016 that will include the most recent 
RWC ordinance revisions. The State and LRAPA provided evidence of the 
adoption and implementation of the new revised ordinance in support of 
the extension request. Although the State has not yet submitted the 
ordinance revisions to the EPA for evaluation, and thus the revisions 
are not yet part of the applicable implementation plan, the Agency 
nevertheless considers these revisions an important part of the State's 
strategy for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
Oakridge NAA.
    As explained above, the EPA is proposing to interpret the 
compliance with applicable implementation plan criterion of section 
188(d)(1) to require that a state have made a submission intended to 
meet the attainment plan requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS and that the state be implementing the control measures in that 
attainment plan submission. Under this proposed interpretation, a state 
could qualify for a 1-year extension of the Moderate area attainment 
date if the state has submitted an attainment plan for the relevant 
PM2.5 NAAQS and demonstrates that it is actively 
implementing the commitments and requirements of the attainment plan at 
the time of attainment date extension request.
    The State developed and submitted the 2012 Oakridge Plan to the EPA 
for evaluation. The State also submitted information to establish that 
the control measures in the 2012 Oakridge Plan are

[[Page 31206]]

in effect and are being implemented by the LRAPA at this time as part 
of the attainment date extension request. The EPA has reviewed the 
control measures of the submitted 2012 Oakridge Plan and the 
documentation of implementation submitted as part of the extension 
request. The docket provides documentation of this including the 
official extension request that describes supplemental strategies 
currently underway, an expanded city ordinance that enhances controls 
designed to reduce emissions from residential home heating, and local 
strategies and efforts to reduce emissions. Based upon this 
information, the EPA believes that the State and the LRAPA are 
complying with the requirements and commitments of the applicable 
implementation plan, as contemplated by section 188(d)(1).
    For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that the State 
meets the compliance with the applicable implementation plan criterion 
for a 1-year attainment date extension for the Oakridge NAA pursuant to 
CAA section 188(d)(1).

IV. Summary of Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the criteria 
for receiving a 1-year extension to the Moderate area attainment date 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as provided in 
section 188(d) of the Act. The State is implementing the requirements 
and commitments in the applicable attainment plan for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, and the 98th percentile 24-hour 
PM2.5 air quality value for 2015 is below 35 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Accordingly, the State has established that it meets the criteria of 
section 188(d) as the EPA is proposing to interpret those requirements 
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is therefore 
proposing to exercise the discretion granted to the Administrator by 
section 188(d) of the CAA to extend the Moderate area attainment date 
for the Oakridge NAA from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-11628 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P