Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for Oakridge, Oregon PM2.5, 49592-49598 [2016-17714]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49592
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Teree Henderson, Office of the
Administrator, Office of Small Business
Programs (mail code: 1230A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–
2222; fax number: 202–566–0548; email
address: henderson.teree@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?
The Agency has published a direct
final rule in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register, approving the DBE program
revisions, because EPA views the
revisions as noncontroversial and
anticipates no adverse comment. The
Agency provided reasons for the
approval and additional supplementary
information in the preamble to the
direct final rule. If EPA receives no
adverse comment, the Agency will not
take further action on this proposed
rule. If EPA receives adverse comment,
the Agency will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. The
EPA would then address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. The EPA
does not intend to institute a second
comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. For further
information, please contact the persons
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 33
Environmental protection, Grant
programs.
Dated: July 15, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–17509 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0004: FRL–9949–69–
Region 10]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Attainment Plan for
Oakridge, Oregon PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On December 12, 2012, the
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) submitted, on behalf of
the Governor of Oregon, a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
to address violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or
equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers in
diameter (PM2.5) for the Oakridge PM2.5
nonattainment area (2012 SIP
submission). The Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency (LRAPA) in
coordination with ODEQ developed the
2012 SIP submission for purposes of
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. On February 22, 2016, the
ODEQ withdrew certain provisions of
the 2012 SIP submission (2016 SIP
withdrawal). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated
whether the remaining portions of the
Oakridge 2012 SIP submission meet the
applicable Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements. Based on this evaluation,
the EPA is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove the
remaining portions of the 2012 SIP
submission.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before August 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2013–0004 at 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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 and Waste, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The
EPA requests that you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christi Duboiski at (360) 753–9081,
duboiski.christi@epa.gov, or the above
EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed Action
A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS
B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court
Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4
C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area
Nonattainment SIP Requirements
II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and the
EPA’s Evaluation
III. Consequences of Disapproved SIP
Provisions
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed
Action
A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS
On July 18, 1997, the EPA
promulgated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including annual standards of 15.0 mg/
m3 based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-hour
(or daily) standards of 65 mg/m3 based
on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations (62
FR 38652). The EPA established the
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
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/m3 and retained the level of the
annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 mg/m3 (71
FR 61144). Following promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by the CAA to promulgate
designations for areas throughout the
United States; this designation process
is described in section 107(d)(1) of the
CAA. On November 13, 2009, the EPA
designated areas across the United
States with respect to the revised 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In
that November 2009 action, the EPA
designated Oakridge, Oregon, and a
small surrounding area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (Oakridge NAA),
requiring Oregon to prepare and submit
to the EPA an attainment plan for the
Oakridge NAA to meet the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 2, 2012, the
EPA issued ‘‘Implementation Guidance
for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)’’ to provide
guidance on the development of SIPs to
demonstrate attainment with the 24hour standards (March 2012
Implementation Guidance). The March
2012 Implementation Guidance
explained that the overall framework
and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule provided effective
and appropriate guidance on statutory
requirements for the development of
SIPs to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the March 2012
Implementation Guidance instructed
states to rely on the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule in developing SIPs
to demonstrate attainment with the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court
Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4
On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit
Court issued a decision in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428, holding that the EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title
I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the
particulate-matter-specific provisions of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 NRDC
decision, states had worked towards
meeting the air quality goals of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the
EPA regulations and guidance derived
from subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the
CAA. The EPA considered this history
in issuing the PM2.5 Subpart 4
Nonattainment Classification and
Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 2,
2014) that identified the initial
classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for
the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas. The
final rule also established December 31,
2014 as the new deadline for the states
to submit any additional SIP
submissions related to attainment for
the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The ODEQ submitted an attainment
plan for the Oakridge NAA on December
12, 2012. The plan included measures
intended to demonstrate attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2014. In this notice the EPA evaluates
the State’s existing attainment plan
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
to determine whether it meets the
applicable statutory requirements. The
applicable statutory requirements
include not only the applicable
requirements of subpart 1, but also the
applicable requirements of subpart 4.
This interpretation is consistent with
the NRDC Court’s decision that the EPA
must implement the PM2.5 NAAQS
consistent with the requirements of
subpart 4.
C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area
Nonattainment SIP Requirements
With respect to the requirements for
attainment plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS,
the EPA notes that the general
nonattainment area planning
requirements are found in subpart 1,
and the moderate area planning
requirements specifically for particulate
matter are found in subpart 4. The EPA
has a longstanding general guidance
document that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA commonly
referred to as the ‘‘General Preamble’’
(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49593
General Preamble addresses the
relationship between subpart 1 and
subpart 4 requirements and provides
recommendations to states for meeting
statutory requirements for particulate
matter attainment planning.
Specifically, the General Preamble
explains that requirements applicable to
moderate area attainment plan SIP
submissions are set forth in subpart 4,
but such SIP submissions must also
meet the general attainment planning
provisions in subpart 1, to the extent
these provisions ‘‘are not otherwise
subsumed by, or integrally related to,’’
the more specific subpart 4
requirements (57 FR 13538).
Additionally, the EPA proposed the
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements rule
(80 FR 15340, March 23, 2015), to
clarify our interpretations of the
statutory requirements that apply to
moderate and serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas (NAAs) under
subparts 1 and 4.
The CAA requirements of subpart 1
for attainment plans include: (i) The
section 172(c)(1) requirements for
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonably available control
technology (RACT) and attainment
demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2)
requirement to demonstrate reasonable
further progress (RFP); (iii) the section
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions
inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5)
requirements for a nonattainment new
source review (NSR) permitting
program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9)
requirement for contingency measures.
The CAA subpart 4 requirements for
moderate areas are generally comparable
with the subpart 1 requirements and
include: (i) The section 189(a)(1)(A)
NSR permit program requirements; (ii)
the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirements for
attainment demonstration; (iii) the
section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for
RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and quantitative
milestones. In addition, under subpart 4
the moderate area attainment date is as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the 6th calendar year
after designation.
II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and
the EPA’s Evaluation
The LRAPA, in coordination with
ODEQ, developed the 2012 SIP
submission for the Oakridge NAA that
was subsequently adopted by the State
and submitted by the ODEQ to the EPA.
The following describes the relevant
contents of the 2012 SIP submission, the
2016 SIP withdrawal, and the EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
49594
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
evaluation of the remaining SIP
provisions.
The 2012 SIP submission included
provisions that address the
requirements of an attainment plan for
a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
including RACT/RACM, emissions
inventories, modeling, attainment
demonstration, transportation
conformity and motor vehicle emissions
budgets, RFP and contingency
measures.
The 2016 SIP withdrawal included
the State’s withdrawal of the following
2012 SIP submission provisions:
• OAR 340–200–0040—General Air
Pollution Procedures and Definitions;
the adopted and amended version of the
rules and Redline/strikeout version of
the adopted and amended rules.
• The LRAPA’s Title 29—Designation
of Air Quality Areas; the adopted and
amended version of the rules and
redline/strikeout version of the adopted
and amended rules except:
Æ 29–0010(10)—Oakridge PM2.5
Nonattainment Area definition
Æ 29–0030 Designation of
Nonattainment Areas
• Title 38—Major New Source Review
• Smoke Management Directive
The state withdrew OAR–340–200–
0040, portions of the LRAPA Title 29,
Title 38 and the Smoke Management
Directive because they were not
intended to be included in the SIP
submission.
State Nonattainment Area Description
and Designation
The 2012 SIP submission contained
revised portions of the LRAPA Title 29,
‘‘Designation of Air Quality Areas’’ (29–
0010(10) and 29–0030) adopted on
October 18, 2012 that identify and
describe the Oakridge PM2.5 area and
lists the Oakridge PM2.5 area as
nonattainment. The area described as
the Oakridge PM2.5 nonattainment area
in the LRAPA Title 29 is consistent with
the federal nonattainment area
designated at 40 CFR 81.338. We
propose to approve the State’s area
description and listing as
nonattainment.
Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
the development of emissions
inventories for nonattainment areas. In
addition, the planning and associated
modeling requirements set forth in CAA
section 189(a) make the development of
an accurate and up-to-date emissions
inventory a critical element of any
viable attainment plan. EPA guidance
specifies the best practices for
developing emission inventories for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see
‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations’’). The 2012
SIP submission contains planning
inventories of emission sources and
emission rates for the base year of 2008
and the projected attainment year of
2014. The LRAPA chose the year 2008
as the base year because it is one of the
three years used to designate the area as
nonattainment as well as the middle
year of the five year period, 2006–2010,
used for the determining the base year
design value. Additionally, the LRAPA
determined that high-quality emission
information was already available from
the National Emission Inventory for
2008. The LRAPA developed the base
year emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area. Table 1 provides
information on the worst case winter
season day, most relevant to attainment
planning, as well as the typical winter
season day. Annual emissions for
primary PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 can be found in the docket in the
LRAPA’s SIP submission. The LRAPA
determined the precursor emissions for
a typical winter day accounted for less
than 6 percent of the total PM. The 2012
SIP submission listed total emissions of
direct PM2.5 on a typical winter day at
525 pounds per day (lbs/day). The
source categories contributing to the
typical winter day total were identified
as follows: Area sources, primarily
RWC, emit 479 pounds per day (lbs/
day); mobile sources, including
railroads and re-entrained road dust
emit 44.7 lbs/day; and permitted
stationary sources emit 0.5 lbs/day.
TABLE 1—2008 OAKRIDGE; TYPICAL SEASON DAY AND WORST-CASE DAY PM2.5 EMISSIONS
[lbs/day]
PM2.5 lbs/per day
Source sector
Typical season
day
Worst case
day
0.5
479.5
38.7
6.0
0.9
480
65.1
6.0
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Permitted Point ........................................................................................................................................................
Stationary Area ........................................................................................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................................................................
525
552
The EPA has reviewed the base year
emission inventory and believes it
satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3)
requirement for a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
2008 emissions of the relevant
pollutants in the Oakridge NAA. Thus,
the EPA proposes to approve the base
year emission inventory in the 2012 SIP
submittal.
2014 Projected Attainment Inventory for
the Nonattainment Area
The 2012 SIP submittal included a
projected 2014 attainment year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
emissions inventory that supported
attainment by December 2014. The 2014
attainment year emissions inventory
included the same source categories as
the 2008 base year. Emissions in the
2014 attainment year inventory were
adjusted to account for emissions
increases due to anticipated growth
between 2008 and 2014 and emissions
decreases from implementation of the
control strategies identified in the
RACM analysis.
Due to the fact that the Oakridge NAA
failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2014 attainment date
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
projected in the 2012 SIP submission,
the EPA presumes that the attainment
year emission inventory was not
accurate. The quality-assured and
certified ambient air monitoring data
from the Willamette Activity Center
monitoring site from 2012 through 2014,
yields a design value of 40 mg/m3 and
confirms that the area did not attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2014. Thus, the EPA
proposes to disapprove the projected
2014 attainment year inventory in the
2012 SIP submission.
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Federal Requirement for RACM,
Including RACT
The general SIP planning
requirements for nonattainment areas
under subpart 1 include section
172(c)(1), which requires
implementation of all RACM (including
RACT). The language of section 172(c)
requires that attainment plans provide
for the implementation of RACM
(including RACT) to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore,
what constitutes RACM and RACT is
related to what is necessary for
attainment in a given area.
Subpart 4 also requires states to
develop attainment plans that evaluate
potential control measures and impose
RACM and RACT on sources within a
moderate nonattainment area that are
necessary to expeditiously attain the
NAAQS. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires
that moderate nonattainment plans
provide for implementation of RACM
and RACT no later than four years after
the area is designated as nonattainment.
As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and
RACT are not defined within subpart 4.
Nor do the provisions of subpart 4
specify how states are to meet the
RACM and RACT requirements.
However, the EPA’s longstanding
guidance in the General Preamble
provides recommendations for
determining which control measures
constitute RACM and RACT for
purposes of meeting the statutory
requirements of subpart 4. 57 FR 13540–
41.
For both RACM and RACT, the EPA
notes that an overarching principle is
that if a given control measure is not
needed to attain the relevant NAAQS in
a given area as expeditiously as
practicable, then that control measure
would not be required as RACM or
RACT because it would not be
reasonable to impose controls that are
not in fact needed for attainment
purposes. Accordingly, a RACM and
RACT analysis is a process to identify
emissions sources, evaluate potential
emissions controls, and impose those
control measures and technologies that
are reasonable and necessary to bring
the area into attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, but by no
later than the applicable attainment date
for the area. However, the EPA has longapplied a policy that states evaluate the
combined effect of reasonably available
control measures that were not
necessary to demonstrate attainment by
the statutory attainment, and if they
collectively advance the attainment date
by at least one-year the measures should
be adopted to satisfy the statutory
requirement that attainment be as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
expeditious as practicable (80 FR
15369).
Identification of RACM and RACT
The LRAPA provided a RACM and
RACT analysis in Appendix J of the
2012 SIP submission. The submission
explained that residential wood
combustion (RWC) sources (e.g.,
woodstoves, fireplaces, pellet stoves)
account for 86% of emissions on worstcase winter days when exceedance of
the NAAQS is most likely to occur. The
other contributing sources were
identified as road dust (5%),
transportation (7.9%) and industrial and
other unidentified area sources (1.1%).
The LRAPA also conducted a speciation
analysis, included in Appendix E of the
2012 SIP submission, which
demonstrated that 96% of total
particulate matter is from organic and
elemental carbon, with significantly
smaller amounts of secondary inorganic
aerosols including nitrate (0.4%), sulfate
(1%) and ammonium (.03%). Based on
these and other analyses, the LRAPA
concluded that RWC was the major
contributor to PM2.5 concentrations on
worst-case winter days and focused its
RACM analysis on this source category.
Emissions from RWC for winter home
heating has been a long-standing air
pollution problem for the Oakridge
NAA, first identified when EPA
designated the area nonattainment for
the PM10 NAAQS. The Oakridge
nonattainment area PM10 SIP adopted a
control strategy that specifically
addressed emissions from RWC (64 FR
12751). In the 2012 SIP submission for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the LRAPA
likewise focused on RWC emissions and
described a suite of control measures
that included measures in effect from
the previous approved PM10 attainment
plan as well as new measures
specifically intended to address PM2.5.
While the LRAPA described several
control measures in the 2012 PM2.5 SIP
submission, it only relied on emission
reductions from measures implemented
after the base year of 2008. These
measures are:
• RWC curtailment during adverse
meteorological conditions and air
quality advisories are issued: Oakridge
City ordinance 889;
• Motor vehicle emission reductions
due to federal emissions requirements;
and,
• Woodstove change outs of
uncertified stoves to EPA certified
stoves since 2008.
In its RACT analysis, the LRAPA
identified two industrial stationary
sources in the nonattainment area, a
rock crusher and ready-mix concrete
plant, which are described as minor
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49595
sources of direct and precursor
emissions for purposes of PM2.5. The
LRAPA asserts that these two small
sources together emit less than one ton
per year of PM2.5 emissions and
contribute less than 1% to the 2008 base
year emission inventory. The EPA
National Emission Inventory data for the
Oakridge NAA as presented in
Appendix D of the 2012 SIP submission
(attachment 3.3d, pages 207–210)
identified precursor emissions for the
base year of 2008. That data show there
are no precursor emissions from
industrial sources in the Oakridge NAA.
In the 2012 SIP submission, the
LRAPA reviewed the two stationary
sources and determined that the air
pollution control technology installed
on these sources are the current
standard for the industry. The rock
crusher controls emissions of PM2.5
using water spray. The concrete batch
plant uses baghouse controls to reduce
PM2.5 emissions. The SIP submission
did not propose or contain any
additional control technologies for
purposes of meeting RACT based on the
existing particulate matter control
measures and the minimal contribution
to PM2.5 concentrations from the two
small stationary sources. Operating
permits for these two sources were not
included in the 2012 SIP submission.
The EPA’s Evaluation of RACM
Including RACT
The measures selected and
implemented by the LRAPA to meet
RACM including RACT requirements
did not provide for attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date in
the 2012 SIP submission of December
31, 2014. In addition, the RWC
curtailment program included in the
2012 SIP submission, identified as
Oakridge City Ordinance 889, was
rescinded and is no longer in effect. A
new replacement ordinance, Oakridge
City Ordinance 914 has not yet been
submitted to EPA for incorporation into
the SIP. Based on the foregoing, the
suite of control measures in the 2012
SIP submission do not represent RACM
and RACT and fail to meet the
requirements of section 172(c)(1) and
section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA.
Accordingly, we are proposing to
disapprove the RACM and RACT
provisions of the 2012 SIP submission.
Attainment Demonstration and
Modeling
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a
PM2.5 moderate area SIP contain either
a demonstration that the plan will
provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date, or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
49596
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
impracticable. In the attainment
demonstration of the 2012 SIP
submission, the LRAPA described how
the attainment plan would provide the
emissions reductions needed to bring
the Oakridge NAA into attainment with
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS no later
than December 31, 2014.
All attainment demonstrations must
project air quality below the standard
using air quality modeling. The ODEQ
submitted a modeled demonstration that
is consistent with the recommendations
contained in the EPA’s modeling
guidance document ‘‘Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze’’ (EPA–454/B–07–002,
April 2007) and the June 28, 2011,
memorandum from Tyler Fox to
Regional Air Program Managers,
‘‘Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 Modeled
Attainment Test.’’ States should base
modeling on national (e.g., EPA),
regional (e.g., Western Regional Air
Partnership) or local modeling, or a
combination thereof, if appropriate. The
April 2007 guidance indicates that
states should review supplemental
analyses, in combination with the
modeling analysis, in a ‘‘weight of
evidence’’ assessment to determine
whether each area is likely to achieve
timely attainment.
The LRAPA used a proportional ‘‘rollforward’’ model to project air quality
levels into the future. The linear model
the LRAPA used for the Oakridge NAA
considered the concentrations of
individual chemical species analyzed
from the PM2.5 filters. The model does
not account for secondary chemistry
because inert species comprise more
than 97% of the total PM2.5 in the
Oakridge NAA. The EPA believes that
the roll-forward model is an appropriate
approach for the Oakridge NAA due to
the limited number of emission sources
and source categories, the limited
contribution of secondary aerosol, and
the even dispersal of emission sources
across the area. The LRAPA determined
the emission changes of each species
from the base year to a future attainment
year based on emissions growth or
emissions reduction from trends in
technology and population, and
considering both national control
measures (such as Tier 2 gasoline
vehicle standards), and control
measures included as part of the SIP
submission. These emission changes
and resulting changes in ambient
chemical species levels were summed to
estimate future year projected PM2.5
concentrations.
The attainment demonstration starts
with estimating the baseline design
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
value for PM2.5. The procedure for its
calculation is presented in Appendix N
to 40 CFR 50, ‘‘Interpretation of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter,’’ EPA Guidance
on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment
of Air Quality Goals for O3, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze,’’ and the June 28, 2011,
memorandum from Tyler Fox to
Regional Air Program Managers,
‘‘Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 Modeled
Attainment Test.’’ Ambient PM2.5
concentrations from 2006 to 2010 were
used to calculate a baseline design value
of 39.5 mg/m3. Detailed methods on the
baseline design value calculation are in
Appendix G of the 2012 SIP submission.
Quality-assured and certified ambient
air monitoring data from the Willamette
Activity Center monitoring site from
2012 through 2014, yields a design
value of 40 mg/m3 and confirms that the
area did not attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2014.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the attainment
demonstration portion of the 2012 SIP
submission because the area failed to
attain by the projected attainment date.
Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones
For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, two
statutory provisions apply regarding
RFP and quantitative milestones. First,
under subpart 1, CAA section 172(c)(2)
requires attainment plans to provide for
RFP, which is defined in CAA section
171(l) as ‘‘such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutant as are required by [Part D
of Title I] or may reasonably be required
by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
national ambient air quality standard by
the applicable date.’’ Reasonable further
progress is a requirement to assure that
states make steady, incremental progress
toward attaining air quality standards,
rather than deferring implementation of
control measures and thereby emission
reductions until before the date by
which the standard is to be attained.
Second, CAA section 189(c) requires
that attainment plans for the PM2.5
NAAQS to include ‘‘quantitative
milestones which are to be achieved
every 3 years until the area is
redesignated to attainment and which
demonstrate reasonable further progress
. . . toward attainment by the
applicable date.’’
In the 2012 SIP submission, the
LRAPA did not address RFP and
quantitative milestone requirements.
The 2012 SIP submission projected
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
within five years of designation, or by
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
December 31, 2014. However, the
Oakridge NAA failed to attain by
December 31, 2014. The attainment plan
control measures therefore did not
achieve the necessary emission
reductions that would have been
necessary to demonstrate RFP or meet
quantitative milestones, assuming such
requirements were addressed in the
2012 SIP submittal. Accordingly, the
EPA is proposing to disapprove the RFP
and quantitative milestones elements for
the 2012 SIP submission.
Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires
that an attainment plan provide for
implementation of specific contingency
measures in the event that an area fails
to attain a standard by its applicable
attainment date, or fails to meet RFP.
These measures should consist of other
available control measures not included
in the control strategy and must be fully
adopted rules or measures that take
effect without any further action by the
state or the EPA. Contingency measures
should also contain trigger mechanisms
and an implementation schedule, and
should provide for emission reductions
equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP
(57 FR 13498).
While the LRAPA discussed
contingency measures in the 2012 SIP
submission, the ordinance enacting the
contingency measures was not included
in the SIP submission. Because the
regulatory text of the contingency
measures was not included in the 2012
SIP submission, the EPA is proposing to
disapprove the 2012 SIP submission
with respect to the contingency measure
requirements of the CAA.
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the
goals of SIPs. This means that such
actions will not cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, worsen the
severity of an existing violation, or
delay timely attainment of any NAAQS
or any interim milestone. Actions
involving Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to the
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
part 93, subpart A). Under this rule,
metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state
air quality and transportation agencies,
the EPA, and the FHWA and the FTA
to demonstrate that their long-range
transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs (TIPs) conform
to applicable SIPs. This demonstration
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
is typically determined by showing that
estimated emissions from existing and
planned highway and transit systems
are less than or equal to the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (budgets)
contained in a SIP.
For budgets to be approvable, they
must meet, at a minimum, the EPA’s
adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)).
One of the adequacy criteria requires
that motor vehicle emissions budgets
when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with
the applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment
or maintenance (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv)). In this case the
applicable requirement is attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Oakridge NAA failed to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2014, and the submitted motor vehicle
emissions budgets therefore do not meet
the aforementioned adequacy criterion.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the submitted budgets.
Federal Implementation Plan Provisions
That Apply if a State Fails To Submit
an Approvable Plan
In addition to sanctions, if the EPA
finds that a state failed to submit the
required SIP revision or finalizes
disapproval of the required SIP revision,
or a portion thereof, the EPA must
promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years
from the date of the finding if the
deficiency has not been corrected
within that time period.
This section explains the
consequences of a disapproval of a SIP
under the CAA. The Act provides for
the imposition of sanctions and the
promulgation of a federal
implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails
to submit and the EPA approve a plan
revision that corrects the deficiencies
identified by the EPA in its disapproval.
Ramifications Regarding Conformity
One consequence if EPA finalizes
disapproval of a control strategy SIP
submission is a conformity freeze.2 If we
finalize the disapproval of the
attainment demonstration SIP without a
protective finding, a conformity freeze
will be in place as of the effective date
of the disapproval (40 CFR
93.120(a)(2)).3 The Oakridge NAA is an
isolated rural area as defined in the
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
93.101). As such it does not have a
metropolitan planning organization
(MPO), and there is no long range
transportation plan or TIP that would be
subject to a freeze. However the freeze
does mean that no projects in the
Oakridge NAA may be found to conform
until another attainment demonstration
SIP is submitted and the motor vehicle
emissions budgets are found adequate or
the attainment demonstration is
approved.
The Act’s Provisions for Sanctions
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a
required SIP submission, such as an
attainment plan submission, or a
portion thereof, CAA section 179(a)
provides for the imposition of sanctions
unless the deficiency is corrected within
18 months of the final rulemaking of
disapproval. The first sanction would
apply 18 months after the EPA
disapproves the SIP submission, or
portion therefore. Under EPA’s
sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the
first sanction imposed would be 2:1
offsets for sources subject to the new
source review requirements under
section 173 of the Act. If the state has
still failed to submit a SIP submission
to correct the identified deficiencies for
which the EPA proposes full or
conditional approval 6 months after the
first sanction is imposed, the second
sanction will apply. The second
sanction is a prohibition on the
approval or funding certain highway
projects.1
Proposed Approval
We propose to approve the following
elements of the 2012 SIP submission:
• Description of the Oakridge NAA
and listing as nonattainment, and
• The base year 2008 emission
inventory to meet the section 172(c)(3)
requirement for emissions inventories.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP
1 On April 1, 1996 the US Department of
Transportation published a notice in the Federal
Register describing the criteria to be used to
determine which highway projects can be funded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
Proposed Disapproval
We propose to disapprove the
following elements of the 2012 SIP
submission:
or approved during the time that the highway
sanction is imposed in an area. (See 61 FR 14363).
2 Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the
transportation conformity include reasonable
further progress plans and attainment
demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101).
3 EPA would give a protective finding if the
submitted control strategy SIP contains adopted
control measures or written commitments to adopt
enforceable control measures that fully satisfy the
emissions reductions requirements relevant to the
statutory provision for which the implementation
plan revision was submitted, such as reasonable
further progress or attainment (40 CFR 93.101 and
93.120(a)(2) and (3)). The submitted attainment
plan for the Oakridge NAA does not contain all
necessary controls to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and therefore is not eligible for a protective
finding.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49597
• The attainment year emission
inventory to meet the section 172(c)(3)
requirement for emissions inventories,
• the section 172(c)(1) requirement
for reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including reasonably
available control technology (RACT),
• the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement
for an attainment demonstration,
• Transportation conformity and
MVEB,
• Section 172(c)(2) and section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and quantitative
milestones, and
• Section 172(c)(9) requirement for
contingency measures.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
49598
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 18, 2016.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016–17714 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 720, 721, and 723
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0650; FRL–9944–47]
RIN 2070–AJ94
Significant New Uses of Chemical
Substances; Updates to the Hazard
Communication Program and
Regulatory Framework; Minor
Amendments to Reporting
Requirements for Premanufacture
Notices
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
EPA is proposing changes to
the existing regulations governing
significant new uses of chemical
substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to align these
regulations with revisions to the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard
Communications Standard (HCS),
which are proposed to be cross
referenced, and with changes to the
OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard
and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:42 Jul 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
(NIOSH) respirator certification
requirements pertaining to respiratory
protection of workers from exposure to
chemicals. EPA is also proposing
changes to the significant new uses of
chemical substances regulations based
on issues that have been identified by
EPA and issues raised by public
commenters for Significant New Use
Rules (SNURs) previously proposed and
issued under these regulations.
Additionally, EPA is proposing a minor
change to reporting requirements for
premanufacture notices (PMNs) and
other TSCA section 5 notices. EPA
expects these changes to have minimal
impacts on the costs and burdens of
complying, while updating the
significant new use reporting
requirements to assist in addressing any
potential effects to human health and
the environment.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 26, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0650, 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
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand deliver or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at: https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting
or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
For
technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 564–8974; email address:
alwood.jim@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture (defined
by TSCA to include import), process, or
use chemical substances subject to
regulations in 40 CFR part 721. The
following list of North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of
chemical substances (NAICS codes 325
and 324), e.g., chemical manufacturing,
and petroleum and coals manufacturing.
B. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine
that a use of a chemical substance is a
‘‘significant new use.’’ EPA must make
this determination by rule after
considering all relevant factors,
including those listed in TSCA section
5(a)(2). Such rules are called
‘‘significant new use rules’’ (SNURs).
Once EPA determines that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new
use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires
persons to submit a significant new use
notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days
before they manufacture or process the
chemical substance for that use (15
U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). Section 5(a)(1)(A)
of TSCA requires persons to notify EPA
at least 90 days before manufacturing a
new chemical substance for commercial
purposes (under TSCA manufacture
includes import). Section 3(9) of TSCA
defines a ‘‘new chemical substance’’ as
any substance that is not on the TSCA
Inventory of Chemical Substances
compiled by EPA under section 8(b) of
TSCA.
C. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is proposing changes to general
requirements for SNURs in 40 CFR part
721, Significant New Uses of Chemical
Substances. Most of the proposed
changes are changes to the standard
significant new uses for new chemical
SNURs identified in subpart B which
apply to chemical substances when they
are cited in subpart E. Other proposed
changes are procedural changes to the
general provisions in subpart A that
apply to all SNURs. EPA is also
clarifying in the preamble of this
proposed rule some definitions
contained in 40 CFR part 721 and
proposing a minor change to reporting
requirements for TSCA section 5 notices
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49592-49598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17714]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0004: FRL-9949-69-Region 10]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for
Oakridge, Oregon PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 12, 2012, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) submitted, on behalf of the Governor of Oregon, a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission to address violations of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal 2.5
micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) for the Oakridge
PM2.5 nonattainment area (2012 SIP submission). The Lane
Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) in coordination with ODEQ
developed the 2012 SIP submission for purposes of attaining the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 22, 2016, the ODEQ withdrew
certain provisions of the 2012 SIP submission (2016 SIP withdrawal).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated whether the
remaining portions of the Oakridge 2012 SIP submission meet the
applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. Based on this evaluation,
the EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the
remaining portions of the 2012 SIP submission.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0004 at 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 and Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski at (360) 753-9081,
duboiski.christi@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS
B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP
Requirements
II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and the EPA's Evaluation
III. Consequences of Disapproved SIP Provisions
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS
On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, including annual standards of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-
hour (or daily) standards of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (62 FR 38652). The EPA
established the
[[Page 49593]]
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous
health studies demonstrating the serious health effects associated with
exposures to PM2.5. To provide guidance on the CAA
requirements for state and tribal implementation plans to implement the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA promulgated the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007)
(hereinafter, the ``2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule'').
On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and retained the level of
the annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (71 FR
61144). Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by the CAA to promulgate designations for areas throughout the
United States; this designation process is described in section
107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated areas
across the United States with respect to the revised 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that November 2009 action, the
EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon, and a small surrounding area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (Oakridge
NAA), requiring Oregon to prepare and submit to the EPA an attainment
plan for the Oakridge NAA to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. On March 2, 2012, the EPA issued ``Implementation Guidance for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' to provide guidance on the development
of SIPs to demonstrate attainment with the 24-hour standards (March
2012 Implementation Guidance). The March 2012 Implementation Guidance
explained that the overall framework and policy approach of the 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule provided effective and appropriate
guidance on statutory requirements for the development of SIPs to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the March
2012 Implementation Guidance instructed states to rely on the 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule in developing SIPs to demonstrate
attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision in
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, holding that
the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant
to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of
Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-matter-
specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). The
Court did not vacate the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule but
remanded the rule with instructions for the EPA to promulgate new
implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance
with the requirements of subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent with
the Court's remand decision, the EPA withdrew its March 2012
Implementation Guidance which relied on the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule to provide guidance for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Prior to the January 4, 2013 NRDC decision, states had worked
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in accordance with the EPA regulations and guidance derived from
subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. The EPA considered this
history in issuing the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment
Classification and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014) that
identified the initial classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas. The final
rule also established December 31, 2014 as the new deadline for the
states to submit any additional SIP submissions related to attainment
for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The ODEQ submitted an attainment plan for the Oakridge NAA on
December 12, 2012. The plan included measures intended to demonstrate
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2014. In
this notice the EPA evaluates the State's existing attainment plan
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to determine whether it
meets the applicable statutory requirements. The applicable statutory
requirements include not only the applicable requirements of subpart 1,
but also the applicable requirements of subpart 4. This interpretation
is consistent with the NRDC Court's decision that the EPA must
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with the requirements
of subpart 4.
C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP Requirements
With respect to the requirements for attainment plans for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA notes that the general nonattainment
area planning requirements are found in subpart 1, and the moderate
area planning requirements specifically for particulate matter are
found in subpart 4. The EPA has a longstanding general guidance
document that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA commonly
referred to as the ``General Preamble'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
The General Preamble addresses the relationship between subpart 1 and
subpart 4 requirements and provides recommendations to states for
meeting statutory requirements for particulate matter attainment
planning. Specifically, the General Preamble explains that requirements
applicable to moderate area attainment plan SIP submissions are set
forth in subpart 4, but such SIP submissions must also meet the general
attainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the extent these
provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,''
the more specific subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538). Additionally,
the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements rule (80 FR
15340, March 23, 2015), to clarify our interpretations of the statutory
requirements that apply to moderate and serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas (NAAs) under subparts 1 and 4.
The CAA requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (i)
The section 172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); (iii) the section
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories; (iv) the section
172(c)(5) requirements for a nonattainment new source review (NSR)
permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for
contingency measures.
The CAA subpart 4 requirements for moderate areas are generally
comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) The section
189(a)(1)(A) NSR permit program requirements; (ii) the section
189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (iii) the
section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. In addition, under
subpart 4 the moderate area attainment date is as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the end of the 6th calendar year after
designation.
II. Content of 2012 SIP Submission and the EPA's Evaluation
The LRAPA, in coordination with ODEQ, developed the 2012 SIP
submission for the Oakridge NAA that was subsequently adopted by the
State and submitted by the ODEQ to the EPA. The following describes the
relevant contents of the 2012 SIP submission, the 2016 SIP withdrawal,
and the EPA's
[[Page 49594]]
evaluation of the remaining SIP provisions.
The 2012 SIP submission included provisions that address the
requirements of an attainment plan for a moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area including RACT/RACM, emissions inventories,
modeling, attainment demonstration, transportation conformity and motor
vehicle emissions budgets, RFP and contingency measures.
The 2016 SIP withdrawal included the State's withdrawal of the
following 2012 SIP submission provisions:
OAR 340-200-0040--General Air Pollution Procedures and
Definitions; the adopted and amended version of the rules and Redline/
strikeout version of the adopted and amended rules.
The LRAPA's Title 29--Designation of Air Quality Areas;
the adopted and amended version of the rules and redline/strikeout
version of the adopted and amended rules except:
[cir] 29-0010(10)--Oakridge PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
definition
[cir] 29-0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas
Title 38--Major New Source Review
Smoke Management Directive
The state withdrew OAR-340-200-0040, portions of the LRAPA Title
29, Title 38 and the Smoke Management Directive because they were not
intended to be included in the SIP submission.
State Nonattainment Area Description and Designation
The 2012 SIP submission contained revised portions of the LRAPA
Title 29, ``Designation of Air Quality Areas'' (29-0010(10) and 29-
0030) adopted on October 18, 2012 that identify and describe the
Oakridge PM2.5 area and lists the Oakridge PM2.5
area as nonattainment. The area described as the Oakridge
PM2.5 nonattainment area in the LRAPA Title 29 is consistent
with the federal nonattainment area designated at 40 CFR 81.338. We
propose to approve the State's area description and listing as
nonattainment.
Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires the development of emissions
inventories for nonattainment areas. In addition, the planning and
associated modeling requirements set forth in CAA section 189(a) make
the development of an accurate and up-to-date emissions inventory a
critical element of any viable attainment plan. EPA guidance specifies
the best practices for developing emission inventories for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see ``Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'').
The 2012 SIP submission contains planning inventories of emission
sources and emission rates for the base year of 2008 and the projected
attainment year of 2014. The LRAPA chose the year 2008 as the base year
because it is one of the three years used to designate the area as
nonattainment as well as the middle year of the five year period, 2006-
2010, used for the determining the base year design value.
Additionally, the LRAPA determined that high-quality emission
information was already available from the National Emission Inventory
for 2008. The LRAPA developed the base year emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area. Table 1 provides information on the worst case
winter season day, most relevant to attainment planning, as well as the
typical winter season day. Annual emissions for primary
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 can be found in the docket in the LRAPA's SIP
submission. The LRAPA determined the precursor emissions for a typical
winter day accounted for less than 6 percent of the total PM. The 2012
SIP submission listed total emissions of direct PM2.5 on a
typical winter day at 525 pounds per day (lbs/day). The source
categories contributing to the typical winter day total were identified
as follows: Area sources, primarily RWC, emit 479 pounds per day (lbs/
day); mobile sources, including railroads and re-entrained road dust
emit 44.7 lbs/day; and permitted stationary sources emit 0.5 lbs/day.
Table 1--2008 Oakridge; Typical Season Day and Worst-Case Day PM2.5
Emissions
[lbs/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 lbs/per day
-------------------------------
Source sector Typical season
day Worst case day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitted Point......................... 0.5 0.9
Stationary Area......................... 479.5 480
Onroad.................................. 38.7 65.1
Nonroad................................. 6.0 6.0
-------------------------------
Total............................... 525 552
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has reviewed the base year emission inventory and believes
it satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual 2008 emissions of the relevant
pollutants in the Oakridge NAA. Thus, the EPA proposes to approve the
base year emission inventory in the 2012 SIP submittal.
2014 Projected Attainment Inventory for the Nonattainment Area
The 2012 SIP submittal included a projected 2014 attainment year
emissions inventory that supported attainment by December 2014. The
2014 attainment year emissions inventory included the same source
categories as the 2008 base year. Emissions in the 2014 attainment year
inventory were adjusted to account for emissions increases due to
anticipated growth between 2008 and 2014 and emissions decreases from
implementation of the control strategies identified in the RACM
analysis.
Due to the fact that the Oakridge NAA failed to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2014 attainment date
projected in the 2012 SIP submission, the EPA presumes that the
attainment year emission inventory was not accurate. The quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data from the Willamette
Activity Center monitoring site from 2012 through 2014, yields a design
value of 40 [micro]g/m\3\ and confirms that the area did not attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2014. Thus, the EPA
proposes to disapprove the projected 2014 attainment year inventory in
the 2012 SIP submission.
[[Page 49595]]
Federal Requirement for RACM, Including RACT
The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 include section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation of
all RACM (including RACT). The language of section 172(c) requires that
attainment plans provide for the implementation of RACM (including
RACT) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, what
constitutes RACM and RACT is related to what is necessary for
attainment in a given area.
Subpart 4 also requires states to develop attainment plans that
evaluate potential control measures and impose RACM and RACT on sources
within a moderate nonattainment area that are necessary to
expeditiously attain the NAAQS. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that
moderate nonattainment plans provide for implementation of RACM and
RACT no later than four years after the area is designated as
nonattainment. As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are not
defined within subpart 4. Nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify
how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, the
EPA's longstanding guidance in the General Preamble provides
recommendations for determining which control measures constitute RACM
and RACT for purposes of meeting the statutory requirements of subpart
4. 57 FR 13540-41.
For both RACM and RACT, the EPA notes that an overarching principle
is that if a given control measure is not needed to attain the relevant
NAAQS in a given area as expeditiously as practicable, then that
control measure would not be required as RACM or RACT because it would
not be reasonable to impose controls that are not in fact needed for
attainment purposes. Accordingly, a RACM and RACT analysis is a process
to identify emissions sources, evaluate potential emissions controls,
and impose those control measures and technologies that are reasonable
and necessary to bring the area into attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, but by no later than the applicable attainment date for
the area. However, the EPA has long-applied a policy that states
evaluate the combined effect of reasonably available control measures
that were not necessary to demonstrate attainment by the statutory
attainment, and if they collectively advance the attainment date by at
least one-year the measures should be adopted to satisfy the statutory
requirement that attainment be as expeditious as practicable (80 FR
15369).
Identification of RACM and RACT
The LRAPA provided a RACM and RACT analysis in Appendix J of the
2012 SIP submission. The submission explained that residential wood
combustion (RWC) sources (e.g., woodstoves, fireplaces, pellet stoves)
account for 86% of emissions on worst-case winter days when exceedance
of the NAAQS is most likely to occur. The other contributing sources
were identified as road dust (5%), transportation (7.9%) and industrial
and other unidentified area sources (1.1%). The LRAPA also conducted a
speciation analysis, included in Appendix E of the 2012 SIP submission,
which demonstrated that 96% of total particulate matter is from organic
and elemental carbon, with significantly smaller amounts of secondary
inorganic aerosols including nitrate (0.4%), sulfate (1%) and ammonium
(.03%). Based on these and other analyses, the LRAPA concluded that RWC
was the major contributor to PM2.5 concentrations on worst-
case winter days and focused its RACM analysis on this source category.
Emissions from RWC for winter home heating has been a long-standing
air pollution problem for the Oakridge NAA, first identified when EPA
designated the area nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS. The
Oakridge nonattainment area PM10 SIP adopted a control
strategy that specifically addressed emissions from RWC (64 FR 12751).
In the 2012 SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
LRAPA likewise focused on RWC emissions and described a suite of
control measures that included measures in effect from the previous
approved PM10 attainment plan as well as new measures
specifically intended to address PM2.5. While the LRAPA
described several control measures in the 2012 PM2.5 SIP
submission, it only relied on emission reductions from measures
implemented after the base year of 2008. These measures are:
RWC curtailment during adverse meteorological conditions
and air quality advisories are issued: Oakridge City ordinance 889;
Motor vehicle emission reductions due to federal emissions
requirements; and,
Woodstove change outs of uncertified stoves to EPA
certified stoves since 2008.
In its RACT analysis, the LRAPA identified two industrial
stationary sources in the nonattainment area, a rock crusher and ready-
mix concrete plant, which are described as minor sources of direct and
precursor emissions for purposes of PM2.5. The LRAPA asserts
that these two small sources together emit less than one ton per year
of PM2.5 emissions and contribute less than 1% to the 2008
base year emission inventory. The EPA National Emission Inventory data
for the Oakridge NAA as presented in Appendix D of the 2012 SIP
submission (attachment 3.3d, pages 207-210) identified precursor
emissions for the base year of 2008. That data show there are no
precursor emissions from industrial sources in the Oakridge NAA.
In the 2012 SIP submission, the LRAPA reviewed the two stationary
sources and determined that the air pollution control technology
installed on these sources are the current standard for the industry.
The rock crusher controls emissions of PM2.5 using water
spray. The concrete batch plant uses baghouse controls to reduce
PM2.5 emissions. The SIP submission did not propose or
contain any additional control technologies for purposes of meeting
RACT based on the existing particulate matter control measures and the
minimal contribution to PM2.5 concentrations from the two
small stationary sources. Operating permits for these two sources were
not included in the 2012 SIP submission.
The EPA's Evaluation of RACM Including RACT
The measures selected and implemented by the LRAPA to meet RACM
including RACT requirements did not provide for attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date in the 2012 SIP
submission of December 31, 2014. In addition, the RWC curtailment
program included in the 2012 SIP submission, identified as Oakridge
City Ordinance 889, was rescinded and is no longer in effect. A new
replacement ordinance, Oakridge City Ordinance 914 has not yet been
submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. Based on the
foregoing, the suite of control measures in the 2012 SIP submission do
not represent RACM and RACT and fail to meet the requirements of
section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Accordingly, we
are proposing to disapprove the RACM and RACT provisions of the 2012
SIP submission.
Attainment Demonstration and Modeling
Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a PM2.5 moderate area
SIP contain either a demonstration that the plan will provide for
attainment by the applicable attainment date, or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is
[[Page 49596]]
impracticable. In the attainment demonstration of the 2012 SIP
submission, the LRAPA described how the attainment plan would provide
the emissions reductions needed to bring the Oakridge NAA into
attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS no later than
December 31, 2014.
All attainment demonstrations must project air quality below the
standard using air quality modeling. The ODEQ submitted a modeled
demonstration that is consistent with the recommendations contained in
the EPA's modeling guidance document ``Guidance on the Use of Models
and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals
for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (EPA-454/B-07-002,
April 2007) and the June 28, 2011, memorandum from Tyler Fox to
Regional Air Program Managers, ``Update to the 24-hour PM2.5
Modeled Attainment Test.'' States should base modeling on national
(e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., Western Regional Air Partnership) or local
modeling, or a combination thereof, if appropriate. The April 2007
guidance indicates that states should review supplemental analyses, in
combination with the modeling analysis, in a ``weight of evidence''
assessment to determine whether each area is likely to achieve timely
attainment.
The LRAPA used a proportional ``roll-forward'' model to project air
quality levels into the future. The linear model the LRAPA used for the
Oakridge NAA considered the concentrations of individual chemical
species analyzed from the PM2.5 filters. The model does not
account for secondary chemistry because inert species comprise more
than 97% of the total PM2.5 in the Oakridge NAA. The EPA
believes that the roll-forward model is an appropriate approach for the
Oakridge NAA due to the limited number of emission sources and source
categories, the limited contribution of secondary aerosol, and the even
dispersal of emission sources across the area. The LRAPA determined the
emission changes of each species from the base year to a future
attainment year based on emissions growth or emissions reduction from
trends in technology and population, and considering both national
control measures (such as Tier 2 gasoline vehicle standards), and
control measures included as part of the SIP submission. These emission
changes and resulting changes in ambient chemical species levels were
summed to estimate future year projected PM2.5
concentrations.
The attainment demonstration starts with estimating the baseline
design value for PM2.5. The procedure for its calculation is
presented in Appendix N to 40 CFR 50, ``Interpretation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,'' EPA Guidance on
the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for O3, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' and
the June 28, 2011, memorandum from Tyler Fox to Regional Air Program
Managers, ``Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 Modeled Attainment
Test.'' Ambient PM2.5 concentrations from 2006 to 2010 were
used to calculate a baseline design value of 39.5 [micro]g/m\3\.
Detailed methods on the baseline design value calculation are in
Appendix G of the 2012 SIP submission.
Quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data from the
Willamette Activity Center monitoring site from 2012 through 2014,
yields a design value of 40 [micro]g/m\3\ and confirms that the area
did not attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2014. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment
demonstration portion of the 2012 SIP submission because the area
failed to attain by the projected attainment date.
Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, two statutory provisions
apply regarding RFP and quantitative milestones. First, under subpart
1, CAA section 172(c)(2) requires attainment plans to provide for RFP,
which is defined in CAA section 171(l) as ``such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by [Part D of Title I] or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable
national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.''
Reasonable further progress is a requirement to assure that states make
steady, incremental progress toward attaining air quality standards,
rather than deferring implementation of control measures and thereby
emission reductions until before the date by which the standard is to
be attained. Second, CAA section 189(c) requires that attainment plans
for the PM2.5 NAAQS to include ``quantitative milestones
which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated
to attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress . . .
toward attainment by the applicable date.''
In the 2012 SIP submission, the LRAPA did not address RFP and
quantitative milestone requirements. The 2012 SIP submission projected
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS within five years of
designation, or by December 31, 2014. However, the Oakridge NAA failed
to attain by December 31, 2014. The attainment plan control measures
therefore did not achieve the necessary emission reductions that would
have been necessary to demonstrate RFP or meet quantitative milestones,
assuming such requirements were addressed in the 2012 SIP submittal.
Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the RFP and
quantitative milestones elements for the 2012 SIP submission.
Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
provide for implementation of specific contingency measures in the
event that an area fails to attain a standard by its applicable
attainment date, or fails to meet RFP. These measures should consist of
other available control measures not included in the control strategy
and must be fully adopted rules or measures that take effect without
any further action by the state or the EPA. Contingency measures should
also contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule, and
should provide for emission reductions equivalent to one year's worth
of RFP (57 FR 13498).
While the LRAPA discussed contingency measures in the 2012 SIP
submission, the ordinance enacting the contingency measures was not
included in the SIP submission. Because the regulatory text of the
contingency measures was not included in the 2012 SIP submission, the
EPA is proposing to disapprove the 2012 SIP submission with respect to
the contingency measure requirements of the CAA.
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA,
and the FHWA and the FTA to demonstrate that their long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs)
conform to applicable SIPs. This demonstration
[[Page 49597]]
is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from
existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) contained in a SIP.
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the
EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). One of the adequacy
criteria requires that motor vehicle emissions budgets when considered
together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with the
applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment or
maintenance (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)). In this case the applicable
requirement is attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The Oakridge NAA failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS by December 31, 2014, and the submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets therefore do not meet the aforementioned adequacy criterion.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to disapprove the submitted budgets.
III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP
This section explains the consequences of a disapproval of a SIP
under the CAA. The Act provides for the imposition of sanctions and the
promulgation of a federal implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails to
submit and the EPA approve a plan revision that corrects the
deficiencies identified by the EPA in its disapproval.
The Act's Provisions for Sanctions
If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a required SIP submission, such
as an attainment plan submission, or a portion thereof, CAA section
179(a) provides for the imposition of sanctions unless the deficiency
is corrected within 18 months of the final rulemaking of disapproval.
The first sanction would apply 18 months after the EPA disapproves the
SIP submission, or portion therefore. Under EPA's sanctions
regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction imposed would be 2:1
offsets for sources subject to the new source review requirements under
section 173 of the Act. If the state has still failed to submit a SIP
submission to correct the identified deficiencies for which the EPA
proposes full or conditional approval 6 months after the first sanction
is imposed, the second sanction will apply. The second sanction is a
prohibition on the approval or funding certain highway projects.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On April 1, 1996 the US Department of Transportation
published a notice in the Federal Register describing the criteria
to be used to determine which highway projects can be funded or
approved during the time that the highway sanction is imposed in an
area. (See 61 FR 14363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply if a State Fails To
Submit an Approvable Plan
In addition to sanctions, if the EPA finds that a state failed to
submit the required SIP revision or finalizes disapproval of the
required SIP revision, or a portion thereof, the EPA must promulgate a
FIP no later than 2 years from the date of the finding if the
deficiency has not been corrected within that time period.
Ramifications Regarding Conformity
One consequence if EPA finalizes disapproval of a control strategy
SIP submission is a conformity freeze.\2\ If we finalize the
disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP without a protective
finding, a conformity freeze will be in place as of the effective date
of the disapproval (40 CFR 93.120(a)(2)).\3\ The Oakridge NAA is an
isolated rural area as defined in the transportation conformity rule
(40 CFR 93.101). As such it does not have a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), and there is no long range transportation plan or
TIP that would be subject to a freeze. However the freeze does mean
that no projects in the Oakridge NAA may be found to conform until
another attainment demonstration SIP is submitted and the motor vehicle
emissions budgets are found adequate or the attainment demonstration is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the
transportation conformity include reasonable further progress plans
and attainment demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101).
\3\ EPA would give a protective finding if the submitted control
strategy SIP contains adopted control measures or written
commitments to adopt enforceable control measures that fully satisfy
the emissions reductions requirements relevant to the statutory
provision for which the implementation plan revision was submitted,
such as reasonable further progress or attainment (40 CFR 93.101 and
93.120(a)(2) and (3)). The submitted attainment plan for the
Oakridge NAA does not contain all necessary controls to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore is not eligible
for a protective finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
Proposed Approval
We propose to approve the following elements of the 2012 SIP
submission:
Description of the Oakridge NAA and listing as
nonattainment, and
The base year 2008 emission inventory to meet the section
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories.
Proposed Disapproval
We propose to disapprove the following elements of the 2012 SIP
submission:
The attainment year emission inventory to meet the section
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories,
the section 172(c)(1) requirement for reasonably available
control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control
technology (RACT),
the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement for an attainment
demonstration,
Transportation conformity and MVEB,
Section 172(c)(2) and section 189(c) requirements for RFP
and quantitative milestones, and
Section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would
[[Page 49598]]
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 18, 2016.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-17714 Filed 7-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
