[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21814-21830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08384]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0005: FRL-9944-89-Region 10]


Finding of Attainment and Approval of Attainment Plan for Klamath 
Falls, Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make 
a finding of attainment by the attainment date for the Klamath Falls, 
Oregon nonattainment area (the area) based upon quality-assured, 
quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing 
that the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) based on the 2012-2014 data available in the EPA's 
Air Quality System (AQS) database. The proposed finding of attainment 
does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. Redesignations 
require states to meet a number of criteria including EPA approval of a 
state plan to maintain the air quality standard for 10 years after 
redesignation.
    The EPA also proposes to approve revisions to Oregon's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of the Klamath Falls Fine 
Particulate Matter Attainment Plan (attainment plan) and approve and 
incorporate by reference associated revisions to the Oregon 
Administrative Rules (OAR),

[[Page 21815]]

submitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on 
December 12, 2012. The purpose of the attainment plan was to attain the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 2014 attainment 
date included in the plan, which the area met based on 2012-2014 
monitoring data.
    The attainment plan addressed the nonattainment planning 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The attainment plan 
included comprehensive base year and attainment year emissions 
inventories for direct PM2.5 emissions and all particulate 
matter precursors, analysis and selection of reasonably available 
control measures and reasonably available control technologies (RACM 
and RACT), demonstrated attainment through selected permanent and 
enforceable control strategies, included required contingency measures, 
and addressed reasonable further progress and quantitative milestone 
requirements through the attainment demonstration. The attainment 
plan's strategy for controlling direct and precursor PM2.5 
emissions relied primarily on an episodic woodstove curtailment program 
and a program to change-out uncertified woodstoves. Additional 
emissions reductions came from control measures and activities 
associated with industrial sources and motor vehicles.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0005 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin A. Spenillo at (206) 553-6125, 
[email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
    A. History of the PM2.5 Standard
    B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
    C. CAA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Requirements
    D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter History
II. Finding of Attainment and Clean Data Determination
III. Analysis of Oregon's Submittal
    Previously Approved Attainment Plan Elements
    A. Emissions Inventory
    B. Control Measures--Oregon Rules and Klamath County Ordinance
    C. Classifications
    Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for Approval
    D. Attainment Date
    E. Attainment Demonstration
    F. Modeling
    G. Characterization of Klamath Falls Air Shed
    H. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT/RACM)
    I. Contingency Measures
    J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Quantitative Milestones
    Additional Elements
    K. Conformity Requirements
    L. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event Demonstration and Concurrence
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action

A. History of the PM2.5 Standard

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA established the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0 [micro]g/m \3\ based on a 
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 
24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 [micro]g/m \3\ based on a 3-year 
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (62 FR 38652). 
The EPA established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating the 
serious health effects associated with exposures to PM2.5. 
To provide guidance on the CAA requirements for state and tribal 
implementation plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 
EPA promulgated the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 
Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) (hereinafter, the ``2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule'').
    On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [micro]g/m \3\ and retained the level of 
the annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [micro]g/m \3\ (71 FR 
61144). Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required by the CAA to promulgate designations for areas throughout the 
United States; this designation process is described in section 
107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated areas as 
either attainment/unclassifiable or nonattainment with respect to the 
revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that 
November 2009 action, the EPA designated Klamath Falls, Oregon, as 
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, requiring 
Oregon to prepare and submit an attainment plan for the Klamath Falls 
area to meet the revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 2, 
2012, the EPA issued ``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour 
Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS)'' to provide guidance on the development of SIPs to 
demonstrate attainment with the revised 24-hour standard (March 2012 
Implementation Guidance). The March 2012 Implementation Guidance 
explained that the overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule provided effective and appropriate 
guidance on statutory requirements for the development of SIPs to 
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the March 
2012 Implementation Guidance instructed states to rely on the 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule in developing SIPs to demonstrate 
attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

[[Page 21816]]

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

    On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision in 
NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, holding that the EPA erred in implementing 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation 
provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), 
rather than the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of 
Part D of Title I (subpart 4). The Court did not vacate the 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule but remanded the rule with 
instructions for the EPA to promulgate new implementation regulations 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of 
subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent with the Court's remand 
decision, the EPA withdrew its March 2012 Implementation Guidance which 
relied on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to provide 
guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Prior to the January 4, 2013 Court decision, states had worked 
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in accordance with the EPA regulations and guidance derived from 
subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. The EPA considered this 
history in issuing the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 
Classification and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014) that 
identified the initial classification under subpart 4 for areas 
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 
PM2.5 standards as moderate. The final rule also established 
December 31, 2014 as the deadline for the states to submit any 
additional SIP elements related to attainment.
    The ODEQ submitted an attainment plan for Klamath Falls on December 
12, 2012. The plan included measures to demonstrate attainment in 
December 2014. Concurrent with the December 31, 2014 deadline for 
submitting any supplements necessary to address possible subpart 4 
elements, Klamath Falls came into attainment based on 2012-2014 
monitoring data. Leading up to December 31, 2014 deadline, both the 
ODEQ and the EPA followed monitoring data closely to ensure that the 
area was meeting targets consistent with the modeling demonstration 
submitted in the attainment plan. Because the area was on a path toward 
attainment by December 2014 and the submitted attainment plan 
substantively addressed the specific PM2.5 problems in the 
airshed, the ODEQ did not submit a supplement to its attainment plan. 
Therefore, the EPA evaluated the State's existing attainment plan 
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to determine that it met 
not only the applicable requirements of subpart 1, but also the 
applicable requirements of subpart 4. This approach is consistent with 
the Court's decision that the EPA must implement the PM2.5 
NAAQS consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. In this notice, 
the EPA reviews the ODEQ's attainment plan submitted to comply with the 
requirements of subpart 1 and provides an evaluation of why we believe 
the submittal also satisfies subpart 4 requirements, including the 
applicable attainment date, and an analysis of all sources of 
particulate matter emissions and PM2.5 precursors for 
control strategies.

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment Requirements

    With respect to the requirements for attainment plans, the EPA 
notes that the general nonattainment area planning requirements are 
found in subpart 1, and the moderate area planning requirements for 
particulate matter are found in subpart 4. The EPA has a longstanding 
general guidance document that interprets the 1990 amendments to the 
CAA commonly referred to as the ``General Preamble'' (57 FR 13498, 
April 16, 1992). The General Preamble addresses the relationship 
between subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements and provides 
recommendations to states for meeting statutory requirements for 
particulate matter nonattainment planning. Specifically, the General 
Preamble explains that requirements applicable to moderate area 
nonattainment SIPs are set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs must also 
meet the general nonattainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the 
extent these provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally 
related to,'' the more specific subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538, 
April 16, 1992). Additionally, the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate 
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation 
Plan Requirements rule (80 FR 15340, March 23, 2015), to clarify our 
interpretation of the statutory requirements that apply to Moderate and 
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas (NAAs) under subparts 1 
and 4.
    The requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (1) The 
section 172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), reasonably available control technology (RACT) and 
attainment demonstrations; (2) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to 
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); (3) the section 
172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories; (4) the section 
172(c)(5) requirements for a nonattainment new source review (NSR) 
permitting program; and (5) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for 
contingency measures.
    The subpart 4 requirements for moderate areas are generally 
comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (1) The section 
189(a)(1)(A) NSR permit program requirements; (2) the section 
189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (3) the section 
189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (4) the section 189(c) 
requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. In addition, under 
subpart 4 the moderate area attainment date is no later than the end of 
the 6th calendar year after designation.
    The EPA evaluated the ODEQ's attainment plan for the Klamath Falls 
area for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS and believes that the 
State's submission satisfies the relevant requirements of both subpart 
1 and subpart 4, as discussed below.

D. Klamath Falls Particulate Matter History

    The Klamath Falls area has a history of successfully addressing 
particulate matter for over 25 years. In 1987, the EPA designated 
Klamath Falls a nonattainment area for PM10--particulate 
matter ten micrometers and smaller. The ODEQ prepared a PM10 
attainment plan for the Klamath Falls Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 
1991. The ODEQ revised and re-submitted the plan in 1995, and the EPA 
approved it on April 14, 1997 (62 FR 18047). The area's monitor began 
attaining the standard in 1992 and has not exceeded the standard since 
that time. In 2002, the ODEQ submitted a redesignation request and 
maintenance plan for PM10. This plan demonstrated that the 
necessary control strategies were in place to maintain the 
PM10 NAAQS and the EPA approved the plan on October 21, 2003 
(68 FR 60036). The attainment and maintenance plans relied on a 
mandatory episodic woodstove curtailment program and a large woodstove 
change-out program to reduce emissions from the primary contributor of 
particulate matter in the area. Additional measures provided control on 
industrial emissions and are discussed later in this notice. The area 
has continued to maintain the PM10 NAAQS.
    In 1997, the EPA revised the particulate standard to include 
PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter and 
smaller) at a daily standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. Due to the same set of 
control measures that it used to address exceedances of the 
PM10

[[Page 21817]]

standard, Klamath Falls successfully remained below the 
PM2.5 standard promulgated in 1997. When the EPA tightened 
the PM2.5 standard from 65[mu]g/m\3\ to 35[mu]g/m\3\ in 
2006, Klamath Falls was found to be exceeding the new standard. The EPA 
subsequently designated the area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard in November 2009, prompting the adoption of 
more stringent control measures and submission of the attainment plan 
in 2012.

II. Finding of Attainment and Clean Data Determination

    Pursuant to sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) of the Act, the EPA has 
the responsibility of determining within six months of the applicable 
attainment date whether nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS based on 
certified air quality data. The EPA reviewed the PM2.5 
ambient air monitoring data from the Peterson School regulatory monitor 
(AQS site 41-035-0004 POC1), consistent with the requirements contained 
in 40 CFR part 50, as recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 
database for the Klamath Falls area. For purposes of determining 
attainment by the attainment date, the EPA considered data recorded in 
the AQS database, certified as meeting quality assurance requirements, 
and determined to have met data completeness requirements. On the basis 
of this review, the EPA has concluded that the Klamath Falls area 
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2012-2014 
monitoring period--http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 
Specifically, under the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 24-hour 
primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 98th 
percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. The design value (the metrics calculated in accordance with 40 
CFR part 50, appendix N, for determining compliance with the NAAQS) for 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the years 2012-2014 at the 
Peterson School monitor was 34 [mu]g/m\3\, meeting the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date established in 
the 2012 attainment plan. As a result, the EPA proposes to determine 
that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the area has 
clean data for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 
determination is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has 
monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2012-
2014 monitoring data, discussed above. Under a Clean Data Determination 
(CDD), the requirements for the area to submit an attainment 
demonstration, associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and any 
other planning SIP requirements related to attainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the area 
continues to meet this NAAQS. If EPA subsequently determines that the 
area is in violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 
basis for the suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40 
CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist and the area would thereafter 
have to address the pertinent requirements. Although a CDD suspends the 
requirement for submission of certain attainment planning elements, it 
does not relieve the EPA of its responsibility to take action on a 
state's SIP submission. As described in this action, the EPA is 
proposing to fully approve the remaining elements of the Klamath Falls 
nonattainment plan as meeting the requirements of the CAA.
    The proposed finding of attainment by the attainment date and clean 
data determination that the air quality data shows attainment of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the 
redesignation of the area to attainment. This proposed action, if 
finalized, will not constitute a redesignation to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because the state must have an approved 
maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the 
CAA, and a determination that the area has met the other requirements 
for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment. The 
designation status of the area will remain nonattainment for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines that the 
area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment in CAA 
section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. Analysis of Oregon's Submittal

    In accordance with Sections 172(c) and 189 of the CAA, the 
attainment plan that the ODEQ submitted for the Klamath Falls area 
included comprehensive base year and attainment year emissions 
inventories that addressed direct particulate matter emissions and all 
particulate matter precursors, analyzed RACM and RACT, demonstrated 
attainment through selected permanent and enforceable control 
strategies, included required contingency measures, and addressed 
reasonable further progress and quantitative milestone requirements 
through the attainment demonstration. The attainment plan's strategy 
for controlling direct and precursor PM2.5 emissions relied 
primarily on an episodic woodstove curtailment program and the change-
out of uncertified woodstoves. Additional emissions reductions came 
from control measures and activities associated with industrial 
sources, motor vehicles, and public education.
    The rule revisions submitted by the ODEQ and the ordinances passed 
by Klamath County support the implementation of these control measures 
in a manner that is both permanent and enforceable. The EPA approved, 
on August 25, 2015, the baseline emissions inventory and control 
measures associated with this attainment plan (80 FR 51470). By 
including these measures in the SIP, the state has made them permanent 
and enforceable, and with the EPA's approval of these control measures 
on August 25, 2015, the measures have become federally enforceable. 
This submittal also addresses transportation conformity budgets and the 
EPA's proposed approval to exclude data from wildfire exceptional 
events affecting data on September 25, 2009 (for purposes of the 
attainment demonstration), August 25, 2012, August 28, 2012, August 31, 
2012, July 30, 2013, and August 5, 2013 (for purposes of the finding of 
attainment) that affected the regulatory monitor in Klamath Falls.

Previously Approved Attainment Plan Elements

A. Emissions Inventory

    The baseline emission inventory requirements were approved in an 
action completed on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51470). The approved 
emissions inventory covered direct PM2.5 and precursors to 
the formation of PM2.5 (nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur 
dioxide (SO2)) to meet the comprehensive emissions inventory 
requirement of CAA section 172(c) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. The emissions inventory applicable to the attainment 
demonstration and the attainment year inventory will be discussed in 
the Modeling and Attainment Demonstration sections of this notice.

B. Control Measures--Oregon Rules and Klamath County Ordinance

    The December 12, 2012 attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ 
included revisions to a number of administrative rules to implement the 
attainment plan for the Klamath Falls area. These revisions consisted 
of updates to identify the Klamath Falls

[[Page 21818]]

nonattainment area and to adopt local and state measures to ensure 
permanent and enforceable control strategies and contingency measures, 
as described in the attainment plan, to bring the area back into 
attainment in the event the area failed to meet RFP or failed to attain 
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Specifically, the ODEQ 
revised rules in OAR 340, Divisions 200, 204, 225, 240, 262, and 264. 
The EPA already provided notice and comment on these rules, except for 
the contingency measures, and proposed to approve the rules on December 
30, 2014 (79 FR 78372) and finalized the action on August 25, 2015 (80 
FR 51470). These control measures were relied upon by Klamath Falls to 
attain the standard by 2014 and will remain in place for continued 
maintenance of the standard. Further details on these control measures 
can be found in the docket for this action within the Klamath Falls 
attainment plan submittal as well as in the proposed and final Federal 
Register notices approving these measures.

C. Classifications

    The applicable attainment planning requirements under subpart 4 
(section 189(a) and (b)) depend on whether the nonattainment area is 
classified as moderate or serious. In response to the Court's decision 
in NRDC v. EPA, the EPA finalized on June 2, 2014, initial 
classifications of all current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
nonattainment areas as moderate (79 FR 31566). Thus, the attainment 
plan submitted by the ODEQ for the Klamath Falls area is evaluated 
pursuant to the moderate area requirements of subpart 4.
Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for Approval

D. Attainment Date

    The CAA requirements of subpart 4 include a demonstration that a 
nonattainment area will meet applicable NAAQS within the timeframe 
provided in the statute (Section 189(c)(1)). For the 2006 
PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, an attainment plan must show that a 
moderate nonattainment area will attain the standard as expeditiously 
as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year 
after the area's designation, which in the case of Klamath Falls is 
December 31, 2015. In the Klamath Falls attainment plan the ODEQ 
demonstrated that attainment by December 2014 was as expeditious as 
practicable based on the implementation of all reasonably available 
control measures (RACM) and that the attainment date could not be 
advanced by a year or more with additional reasonable measure (e.g. 
RACM). The EPA is proposing to approve the attainment date of December 
2014 as submitted by the ODEQ, which the area successfully met as 
confirmed by quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient 
air monitoring data.

E. Attainment Demonstration

    Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a moderate area nonattainment 
plan contain either a demonstration that the plan will provide for 
attainment by the applicable attainment date, or a demonstration that 
attainment by such date is impracticable. In the attainment 
demonstration section of the Klamath Falls PM2.5 attainment 
plan, the ODEQ described how its chosen control strategies would 
provide the emissions reductions needed to bring the area into 
attainment no later than December 2014. Quality-assured, quality-
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data confirm that the 
area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 
2014.

 Table 1--Attainment Demonstration Strategies for the Klamath Falls Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Projected air quality
               Control strategies                  benefit ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Design Value 2008.....................  45.1
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated)..........  9.6
     Woodstove curtailment--lower
     thresholds and increased enforcement.
     Shorter open burning window
Woodstove Change-out Programs..................  1.0
Heat Smart--woodstove change-out upon sale of    0.3
 home.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)     0.1
 particleboard and hardboard.
Public Awareness...............................  0.6
New fireplace standards........................  0.1
Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions......  Minimal
     Diesel Retrofits
     Low Emission Vehicle Program
     Fuel Economy
Road Paving....................................  Minimal
Future Design Value 2014.......................  34.6 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The individual emission reduction estimates in this table are derived
  from the modeled Future Design Value in 2014. The air quality benefit
  for individual control measures were assessed in isolation and are
  presented as such in Table 1. Because the control strategies interact
  nonlinearly, the final design value is not a simple subtraction of the
  individual measures' benefits from the baseline design value. When all
  control strategies are simulated together, their benefit is less than
  it would appear because, for instance, the curtailment ordinance has a
  smaller benefit when stoves have been changed out to be cleaner.

    Using the values in Table 1, results from the roll-forward modeling 
showed that the control strategies would achieve a future year design 
value of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ with a relative response factor (RRF) of 0.717, 
as explained in more detail in the modeling discussion. In order to 
provide a buffer to ensure attainment, the ODEQ, Klamath Falls, and 
Klamath County implemented additional measures which yielded a modeled 
design value of 34.6 [mu]g/m\3\ with an RRF of 0.667. As noted in the 
RACM/RACT discussion later in this document, more than 95% of the 
projected control strategy air quality benefits came from the Klamath 
Falls Clean Air Ordinance wood smoke curtailment program (the 
Ordinance), woodstove change-out program, and the Heat Smart program. 
The ODEQ and Klamath County relied on the Ordinance and the woodstove 
change-out program to successfully attain the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. The

[[Page 21819]]

woodstove curtailment program restricts residential wood burning on 
days when the ambient PM2.5 levels are close to exceeding 
the standard. Additional reductions came from the control of industrial 
sources and from continuing reductions in direct PM2.5 
emissions from cleaner motor vehicles, as described later in this 
document.
    The ODEQ included a number of supplemental analyses in the 
attainment plan for a weight of evidence demonstration of attainment, 
as recommended by the EPA's modeling guidance. Attachments 3.3 b-e, g-
o, w, and y of the submitted plan (located in the docket) describe the 
Klamath Falls airshed, the source sector contributions, and the ability 
of emission controls to reduce PM2.5 concentrations.
    The ODEQ identified wood burning emissions as the most significant 
source sector in the emissions inventory and thus the key source sector 
to attainment with its readily available emissions reductions. 
Accordingly, in formulating an emissions control strategy, the ODEQ 
conducted detailed wood burning surveys for the Klamath Falls area, 
assessed the contribution of secondary organic aerosol to overall 
PM2.5, used locally-derived estimates for how well wood 
burners follow the yellow and red curtailment requirements, assessed 
the impact of prescribed burning on wintertime PM2.5, and 
used the best available emission factors for wood burning devices. This 
level of analysis is consistent with other moderate nonattainment areas 
where wood burning is a significant issue.
    In addition to demonstrating attainment using the roll-forward 
model, the ODEQ also conducted an unmonitored area analysis (UMAA) to 
demonstrate that other parts of the nonattainment area would also meet 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This analysis used data from 
seven monitors in the area for a saturation survey in 2010-2011 to 
develop a map of PM2.5 concentration relative to the main 
monitor at the Peterson School. The UMAA calculated the 
PM2.5 from point sources at 1.2 kilometer intervals in the 
nonattainment area and added this calculation to the projected 
concentration from all other sources. Results from the UMAA showed that 
the Peterson Area monitor is the area of highest neighborhood-scale 
concentration, such that one could reasonably infer that unmonitored 
areas of the nonattainment area were in attainment based on a finding 
of attainment at the Peterson Area monitor.

F. Modeling

    All attainment demonstrations must project air quality below the 
standard using standard modeling techniques. The ODEQ submitted a 
modeled demonstration that is consistent with the recommendations 
contained in EPA's modeling guidance document ``Guidance on the Use of 
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality 
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' (EPA-454/B-07-
002, April 2007) and the June 28, 2011, memorandum from Tyler Fox to 
Regional Air Program Managers, ``Update to the 24-hour PM2.5 
Modeled Attainment Test.'' Modeling should be based on national (e.g., 
EPA), regional (e.g., Western Regional Air Partnership) or local 
modeling, or a combination thereof, if appropriate. The April 2007 
guidance indicates that states should review supplemental analyses, in 
combination with the modeling analysis, in a ``weight of evidence'' 
assessment to determine whether each area is likely to achieve timely 
attainment.
    To determine which control strategies to implement, the ODEQ began 
by characterizing the area's emissions. Along with developing the 2008 
baseline emissions inventory, the ODEQ also conducted a series of 
analyses to better understand particulate matter in Klamath Falls. This 
included conducting and reviewing studies, analyzing filter samples, 
and modeling.
    For modeling attainment in Klamath Falls, the ODEQ used a roll-
forward model as the basis for projecting future design values and the 
effect of control strategies. A standard roll-forward model assumes all 
sources contribute to the Peterson School monitor in proportion to 
their weight in the emissions inventory. This is a reasonable 
assumption for most source categories which were mostly direct 
PM2.5 because they are relatively well-distributed within 
the nonattainment area, but for certain source categories such as large 
point sources, prescribed burning, and road dust, this assumption is 
not always accurate. For these three source categories, effective 
primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission rates 
were derived from additional analyses including AERMOD atmospheric 
dispersion modeling for large point sources, positive matrix 
factorization (PMF) modeling for road dust, and analysis of historical 
prescribed burning and its impact on PM2.5 at the Peterson 
School monitor. The ODEQ developed several emissions inventories for 
modeling, one for the current emissions for the baseline year of 2008 
and two for the attainment year of 2014. The projected 2014 attainment 
year inventory accounts for all changes (i.e. vehicle fleet turnover, 
population changes) that were expected to occur from 2008 to 2014, 
except for the locally imposed control strategies. The ODEQ then 
applied each local control strategy to the 2014 modeling inventory in 
isolation, and as a group, as part of developing the control 2014 
inventory for modeling. When each of these modeling inventories was run 
through the model, the ODEQ was able to estimate the relative change in 
PM2.5 resulting from each control strategy in isolation and 
from all control strategies at the same time. See Table 1 in the 
Attainment Demonstration section.
    The relative change in modeled, species-specific PM2.5 
concentrations at the Peterson School monitor between the 2014 control 
strategy run and the 2008 baseline is referred to as a Relative 
Response Factor (RRF). The ODEQ calculated RRFs separately for each 
chemical component of PM2.5, per the EPA modeling guidance. 
The RRFs for ammonium, sulfate, nitrate, and particle-bound water were 
held at 1.0 (i.e. constant), which is a conservative assumption 
implying that there will be no reduction in precursor emissions. 
However, NOX emissions are projected to decline from 2,236 
tons per year (tpy) in 2008 to 1,810 tpy in 2014, VOC emissions are 
projected to decline from 2,910 tpy in 2008 to 2,645 in 2014, and 
ammonia emission inventories are projected to remain fairly level at 
244 tpy in 2008 and 247 tpy in 2014. The RRF for organic carbon and 
elemental carbon are allowed to fluctuate based on projected emissions 
and the model, but the RRF for organic aerosol does not account for 
changes in secondary organic aerosol because a chemical box model 
analysis conducted by the ODEQ and Portland State University (Appendix 
A-6-1 of the attainment plan) found that contributions from both 
biogenic and anthropogenic secondary organic aerosol (SOA) sources were 
minor (less than 1% and 3%, respectively, of total design value 
PM2.5). By keeping the RRF constant for secondary 
PM2.5, the ODEQ took a conservative approach in modeling 
emission reductions because the emissions inventory values for most 
secondary PM2.5 precursors were projected to decline between 
2008 and 2014 due to control measures already in place. In the 
attainment plan submission, SO2 emission inventories were 
projected to increase slightly from 110 tpy in 2008 to 136 tpy in 2014. 
However, it is important to note that

[[Page 21820]]

32.2 tpy of projected growth in the SO2 emissions inventory 
was due to the anticipated addition of the Klamath Falls Bioenergy 
facility that was expected to be built by 2014. This facility has since 
withdrawn its application for a site certification and will not be 
constructed. Removing these projected emissions results in a net 
decrease of 6.2 tpy in overall projected SO2 emissions from 
2008 to 2014.
    The ODEQ applied the species-specific RRFs to the baseline 2006-
2010 monitored data based on the EPA's guidance to estimate 2014 design 
values. The modeling projected an attainment date of December 2014 
which the area achieved. The EPA carefully evaluated the ODEQ's 
modeling demonstration and concluded that it adequately meets the 
current EPA modeling requirements, and uses acceptable modeling 
techniques to project attainment by the December 2014 attainment date.
    In addition, the EPA believes that the attainment demonstration 
modeling submitted by the ODEQ meets subpart 4 requirements. First, 
section 189(a)(1)(B) provides that for a moderate nonattainment area, a 
state must submit either a demonstration (including air quality 
modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment by the applicable 
attainment date or a demonstration that attainment by such date is 
impracticable. The applicable attainment date for moderate areas in 
section 188(c)(1) of subpart is as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's 
designation, or, as applied to Klamath Falls, December 2015. The ODEQ's 
modeling demonstrated attainment by December 2014, which is a year 
earlier than the December 2015 attainment deadline. Second, the 
modeling relied upon by the ODEQ included both direct PM2.5 
and PM2.5 precursors. The ODEQ's weight of evidence analysis 
is further supported by quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has 
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based 
on the 2012-2014 data. For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that 
the ODEQ's modeling is consistent with EPA's guidance and meets the 
attainment demonstration requirements of subparts 1 and 4.

G. Characterization of the Klamath Falls Air Shed

    In evaluating the Klamath Falls attainment plan under the 
requirements of subpart 4, control of direct PM2.5 and 
precursors must be considered. According to CAA section 302(g) the term 
``air pollutant'' means any air pollution agent or combination of such 
agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive 
(including source material, special nuclear material, and by product 
material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters 
the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of 
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such 
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term 
``air pollutant'' is used. The provisions of subpart 4 do not define 
the term ``precursor'' for purposes of particulate matter, nor do they 
explicitly require the control of any specifically identified 
precursor. However, the EPA has long recognized the scientific basis 
for concluding that SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia 
are precursors to PM10 and to PM2.5.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EPA's 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule at issue 
in the NRDC v. EPA case in which EPA discussed that emissions of 
SO2, NOX, VOCs and ammonia are factual and 
scientific precursors to PM2.5. 72 FR 20586, at 20589-97. 
April 25, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's interpretation of section 189(e) and section 172 
indicates that consideration of all precursors is necessary for 
PM2.5 attainment plans, and RACM/RACT requirements 
explicitly require the evaluation of available control measures for 
direct PM2.5 emissions and precursor emissions from 
stationary, area, and mobile sources in order to attain as 
expeditiously as practicable. Section 189(e) requires the control of 
appropriate precursors from major stationary sources, unless the 
Administrator determines that precursor emissions from such major 
stationary sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in 
the area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA notes that it has already addressed the requirements of 
subpart 4 for precursors, specifically within the context of the 
requirements of section 189(e), in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 
at 13539 and 13541-2, April 16, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While subpart 4 expressly requires control of precursors from major 
stationary sources where direct PM from major sources is controlled 
unless certain conditions are met, other sources of precursors may also 
need to be controlled for the purposes of demonstrating attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable in a given area. Thus, a state should 
evaluate all economically and technologically feasible control measures 
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, 
and should adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available, 
i.e., those constituting RACM and RACT controls for sources located in 
the area. The EPA has interpreted subpart 4 to require analysis for 
control of precursors from all source categories in a given 
nonattainment area, unless there is a demonstration that controlling a 
precursor or precursors is not necessary for expeditious attainment of 
the NAAQS in the area. This notice will demonstrate that additional 
precursor controls beyond those discussed in Oregon's 2012 attainment 
plan submission will not affect expeditious attainment of the NAAQS in 
the Klamath Falls area; moreover the area is already attaining the 
NAAQS with existing controls and additional precursor controls are 
unnecessary for expeditious attainment.
    As discussed in the EPA's 1992 General Preamble, in the event that 
a state's attainment plan includes controls on major stationary sources 
for PM10 in order to achieve timely attainment in the area, 
section 189(e) requires controls of all PM10 precursors for 
major stationary sources located within the area, unless there is a 
showing that such sources do not contribute significantly to violations 
in the area (57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992). Thus, the EPA's existing 
interpretation of subpart 4 requirements with respect to precursors in 
attainment plans for PM10, as set out in the General 
Preamble, contemplates that states may develop attainment plans that 
regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of 
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that 
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment purposes. Id.; 
see also Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 
(9th Cir. 2005). The EPA believes that application of this same 
approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is appropriate 
and reasonable at this time. Indeed, the EPA has already taken action 
upon attainment plans for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other 
areas after carefully evaluating the state's conclusions regarding 
which PM2.5 precursors should be regulated in the area at 
issue.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 
2007 State Strategy,'' (76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Preamble describes the assessment of precursors as 
specific to each nonattainment area, and acknowledges that the 
determination of precursor significance would likely vary based on the 
characteristics of the area-wide nonattainment problem. The General 
Preamble further provides that in making a determination regarding the 
significance of precursors, the EPA will

[[Page 21821]]

rely on technical information presented in the state's submittal, 
including filter analysis, the relative contribution to overall 
nonattainment, the selected control strategies, as well as other 
relevant factors (57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992). The remanded 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule also discusses the types of 
technical analyses that states could perform to demonstrate the 
significance or insignificance of a particular precursor for purposes 
of attainment, such as emission inventory information, speciation data 
information, modeling, or monitoring data.
    For the reasons discussed in this section, the EPA believes that 
the ODEQ's attainment plan adequately evaluated emissions of direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as demonstrated in the 
attainment plan and supported by attainment of the NAAQS. The 
PM2.5 precursor analysis relied on the types of analyses 
discussed in the General Preamble and the remanded 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule for demonstrating the contribution 
of PM2.5 precursors. Based on these analyses, supported by 
current monitoring data, the ODEQ submittal showed that direct 
PM2.5 emissions were the primary contributor to the 
nonattainment problem and that additional emissions reductions from 
PM2.5 precursors were not needed for demonstrating 
attainment, not economically or technologically feasible to advance the 
attainment date by one year, and that existing control measures 
adequately addressed precursors in light of the minimal impact 
secondary organic formation has on this specific airshed, as evidenced 
by the Portland State University SOA study and the EPA's Positive 
Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis. Accordingly, the ODEQ selected 
control strategies to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and 
provided a demonstration that implementation of these strategies would 
bring the area into attainment by the attainment date.
    The ODEQ's attainment plan for Klamath Falls focused on controlling 
direct PM2.5 emissions to attain the 2006 24-hr 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Notably, this was the predominant strategy for 
controlling PM2.5 in Tacoma, Washington, which is similarly 
impacted by direct PM2.5 emissions from residential wood 
smoke and was recently redesignated to attainment as a result of its 
implementation of residential wood smoke direct PM2.5 
control strategies. In support of this control strategy, the ODEQ 
attainment plan and supporting analyses showed that: (1) The Klamath 
Falls area attained the standard, (2) control of direct 
PM2.5 would reduce exceedances of the NAAQS, and (3) 
emissions from residential wood combustion were the largest 
contributors to PM2.5 on polluted days. The EPA reviewed the 
ODEQ's attainment plan and proposes to find that this approach to 
direct PM2.5 and precursors is appropriate for the Klamath 
Falls area and is consistent with the requirements of subpart 4.
1. Quality Assured Monitoring Data Showing Attainment
    As described in Section II. Finding of Attainment, the Klamath 
Falls area met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2012-
2014 monitoring period using the approach to direct PM2.5 
and precursor pollutants adopted by the State in the submitted 
attainment plan. Given the area's attainment of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and continued attainment, it follows that no 
additional controls of direct PM2.5 and precursors beyond 
those described in the attainment plan are necessary for the area to 
timely attain the NAAQS. Because EPA's longstanding approach to 
precursors under subpart 4, as explained in the General Preamble, 
authorizes a state to establish that it can attain the NAAQS 
expeditiously by focusing on some but not all precursors, the EPA 
believes that the ODEQ's submitted attainment plan for the Klamath 
Falls area is consistent with this aspect of subpart 4.
    As previously discussed in the Attainment Demonstration section 
III. E., the ODEQ demonstrated the ability to reduce the emissions in 
Klamath Falls below 35 [mu]g/m\3\ by December 2014. Control measures 
considered for demonstrating attainment are discussed in section III. 
H. RACT/RACM below, and the chosen methods primarily focus on the 
reduction of direct PM2.5. Table 1 in the Attainment 
Demonstration section identifies the 2008 baseline design value as 45.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ and then shows how the direct PM2.5 projected air 
quality benefits from the chosen control strategies will achieve a 
future design value in 2014 below 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The RACT/RACM section 
will also identify that other reductions would be needed to advance the 
attainment date by one year, but that the remaining control measures 
were determined to not be economically and/or technologically feasible, 
or collectively amount to reductions necessary to advance attainment by 
one year--1.67 [mu]g/m\3\.
2. Control of Direct Emissions of PM2.5 Would Reduce 
Exceedances of the NAAQS
    The ODEQ determined that direct PM2.5 was the primary 
contributor to winter time exceedances in the Klamath Falls area. As is 
typical of many areas in the Pacific Northwest region that experience 
PM2.5 exceedances from anthropogenic sources, these 
exceedances occur during the winter when temperatures are low and air 
stagnation conditions are present. These conditions lead to increases 
in residential wood heating which generate the majority of direct 
PM2.5 emissions reaching the monitor. This relationship is 
supported by a SANDWICH (Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water, 
Inferred Carbonaceous Material Balance Approach) chemical speciation 
analysis on days that exceeded the standard and an analysis of primary 
and secondary organic aerosols conducted by Portland State University 
(PSU), as discussed above.
    The SANDWICH chemical speciation analysis determined that 
PM2.5 mass on days exceeding the standard was 80% organic 
and elemental carbon. The PSU study showed that the contributions from 
both biogenic and anthropogenic sources of secondary organic aerosols 
were minor, contributing 1% and 3%, respectively, to the total 
PM2.5 design value. The bulk of emissions causing 
exceedances were from directly emitted organic and elemental carbon 
PM2.5 (See attainment plan attachments 3.3f, 3.3g1, 3.3g2). 
Based on this weight of evidence, the ODEQ concluded that direct 
PM2.5 was the primary contributor to exceedances of the 2006 
24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS at the regulatory monitor in the Klamath 
Falls area.
3. Emissions From Residential Wood Combustion Were the Largest 
Contributors to PM2.5 on Polluted Days
    The 2008 emissions inventory compiled by the ODEQ calculated a 
direct PM2.5 emissions rate of 654.7 tpy. Approximately 62% 
of the total annual emissions were attributable to area sources, 
primarily of emissions from residential wood combustion. Worst case 
daily emissions of direct PM2.5 were calculated at 5,420 
pounds (lbs) per day with 53% of total emissions attributable to area 
sources, primarily emissions from residential wood combustion. To 
assess how these emissions translated into contributions at the 
monitor, the EPA conducted a PMF analysis as discussed above based on 
speciated data from the Klamath Falls violating monitor. The results of 
the PMF analysis showed that emissions of residential wood smoke 
contributed an estimated 64-72% of total PM2.5 
concentrations at the monitor (attachment 3.3h). Residential wood 
combustion also emits small amounts of SO2, NOX, 
VOC, and ammonia, 4%, 2%, 11%, and 6%, respectively, of the

[[Page 21822]]

inventory for these precursors on the ``worst case day.'' So not only 
did primary organic and elemental carbon make up over 60% of the 
PM2.5 mass at the monitor based on the emissions inventory 
data, PMF analysis, and speciation analyses, but control measures to 
address residential wood combustion also had the collateral benefit of 
reducing the precursor inventory.
General PM2.5
    According to the SANDWICH and PSU analyses secondary 
PM2.5 conservatively comprised 20% of the PM2.5 
in Klamath Falls on days with monitored PM2.5 concentrations 
above 25 [mu]g/m\3\. By species, the percentages were 9.6% for nitrate, 
4.2% for particle-bound water, 3% for anthropogenic secondary organic 
aerosols (SOA), 1.6% for sulfate, 1% for biogenic SOA, and 0.7% for 
ammonium.
    The 2008 baseline emission inventory for NOX was 2,236 
tpy annually and 15,483 lbs/day during wintertime PM2.5 
episodes. The non-road and on-road mobile source categories contributed 
70% to annual and worst case day NOX emissions. The ODEQ's 
2014 attainment inventory showed decreases from 2008 of over 30% in 
NOX on-road and non-road mobile source emissions attributed 
to federal mobile source control measures.\4\ The decrease of 3,425 
lbs/day from motor vehicle controls was greater than the NOX 
emissions from all the stationary point sources combined, two of which 
are already subject to NOX controls. The remaining 9% of 
NOX emissions were spread among area sources such as natural 
gas combustion and residential wood combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The General Preamble acknowledges that states can take into 
account reductions from existing control requirements. 57 FR 13358, 
April 16, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other secondary species were similarly small components and were 
generally emitted by multiple source categories. While VOCs were the 
largest source of precursor emissions on a pound per day basis (2,910.4 
tpy annually; 22,754 lbs/day during wintertime episodes), the 
anthropogenic secondary organic carbon produced from such emissions 
only contributed 3% of the PM2.5 mass. Emissions of VOCs 
were split among the stationary point sources (45%), area sources 
(30%), and mobile sources (25%). Much of the SO2 (109.9 tpy; 
1,046 lbs/day) emissions were from fuel oil combustion, with the 
resulting ammonium sulfate and associated particle-bound water 
contributing less than 5% of the PM2.5 mass. Ammonium on its 
own, disassociated from its sulfate and nitrate, was less than 1% of 
the PM2.5 mass. Based on the weight of evidence provided in 
the attainment plan, the EPA finds that the ODEQ appropriately 
considered all precursors in their analysis.
Industrial PM2.5
    With respect to emissions of PM2.5 precursors from major 
stationary sources pursuant to section 189(e), the analyses discussed 
above, which were conducted for all sources generally, are similarly 
applicable to control of precursor emissions from stationary sources. 
The ODEQ identified four Title V stationary sources with annual primary 
PM2.5 emissions exceeding 10 tpy for consideration in its 
RACT analysis. These sources were identified in the 2008 baseline 
emissions inventory as Columbia Forest Products (48.9 tpy), Collins 
Forest Products (48.4 tpy), Klamath Energy Cogeneration (39.9 tpy) and 
Jeld-Wen (17.3 tpy). Emissions of direct PM2.5 from all 
other stationary sources in the aggregate amounted to less than 10 tpy. 
A consideration in the ODEQ's assessment of these facilities was AERMOD 
modeling which indicated that all industrial point sources combined 
contributed only 1% of the baseline primary PM2.5 design 
value, as opposed to residential wood combustion which accounts for 
roughly two-thirds. These sources are located relatively far away from 
the area where the greatest PM2.5 concentrations existed, as 
confirmed by the monitoring saturation study, compared to residential 
wood combustion which showed a much greater impact on PM2.5 
concentrations. Also, industrial stationary source stacks send 
emissions higher into the atmosphere, and the inversions that trap area 
and mobile source emissions near the ground also reduce mixing of the 
elevated stack emissions to the surface.
    In summary, the ODEQ provided data and analyses indicating that 
direct PM2.5 was the main cause of exceedances of the 2006 
24-hr PM2.5 standard in Klamath Falls and that precursor 
emissions are relatively minor contributors to monitored violations in 
the Klamath Falls area.

H. Reasonably Available Control Technology/Reasonably Available Control 
Measures (RACT/RACM)

    The Klamath Falls attainment plan addressed the RACT/RACM 
requirement under subpart 1. It did not directly discuss whether the 
analysis and selection of RACT/RACM also meets the subpart 4 
requirements determined to be applicable in NRDC v. EPA because the 
Court decision occurred after the ODEQ's submittal of the attainment 
plan, and preliminary monitoring data showed that the area was on a 
path to come into attainment concurrent with the EPA's deadline for any 
additional submittals under subpart 4. The EPA in this notice addresses 
whether the RACT/RACM analysis complies with subpart 4 as well as 
subpart 1, and evaluates whether application of subpart 4 criteria 
would affect the control measures identified as part of the ODEQ's 
control strategy for the Klamath Falls area.
    The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under 
subpart 1 include section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation of 
all RACM (including RACT). The CAA section 172(c) indicates that what 
constitutes RACM or RACT is related to what is necessary for attainment 
in a given area, as the provision states that nonattainment plans shall 
provide for attainment of the NAAQS in the area covered by the 
attainment plan.
    The EPA based its remanded 2007 PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule on the general attainment plan requirement for RACM and RACT in 
section 172(c). The EPA included requirements for the process by which 
states should determine and establish what control measures would 
constitute RACM and RACT level controls for appropriate sources in a 
given nonattainment area. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the EPA 
provided that a state should submit a demonstration that it had adopted 
all RACM and RACT ``necessary to demonstrate attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable and to meet RFP requirements.'' The EPA 
also required states to include a ``list of the potential measures 
considered by the state, and information and analysis sufficient to 
support the state's judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including 
RACT.'' Moreover, in 40 CFR 51.1010(b), the EPA provided that a state 
could determine that certain otherwise available control measures are 
not RACM or RACT for sources in the area if, considered cumulatively, 
the measures not adopted would not advance the attainment date in the 
area by at least one year.
    The SIP planning requirements under subpart 4 likewise impose upon 
states an obligation to develop attainment plans that impose RACM and 
RACT on sources within a nonattainment area. Section 189(a)(1)(C) 
requires that states with areas classified as moderate nonattainment 
areas must have SIP provisions to assure that RACM and RACT level 
controls are implemented by no later than four years after

[[Page 21823]]

designation of the area. As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are 
not defined within subpart 4. Nor do the provisions of subpart 4 
specify how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, 
the EPA's longstanding guidance in the General Preamble provides 
recommendations for appropriate considerations for determining what 
control measures constitute RACM and RACT for purposes of meeting the 
statutory requirements of subpart 4.
    The EPA's existing guidance for RACM and RACT under subpart 4 is 
comparable to the approach that the EPA set forth in the 2007 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The EPA's guidance for RACM under 
subpart 4 in the General Preamble includes: (1) A list of some 
potential measures for states to consider; (2) a statement of the EPA's 
expectation that the state will provide a reasoned explanation for a 
decision not to adopt a particular control measure; (3) recognition 
that some control measures might be unreasonable because the emissions 
from the affected sources in the area are de minimis; (4) an emphasis 
on state evaluation of potential control measures for reasonableness, 
considering factors such as technological feasibility and the cost of 
control; and (5) encouragement that states evaluating potential control 
measures imposed upon municipal or other governmental entities also 
include consideration of the impacts on such entities, and the 
possibility of partial implementation when full implementation would be 
infeasible (e.g., phased implementation of measures such as road 
paving). 57 FR 13540, April 16, 1992.
    With respect to RACT requirements, the EPA's existing guidance in 
the General Preamble: (1) Noted that RACT has historically been defined 
as ``the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting by 
the application of control technology that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility;'' (2) noted that 
RACT generally applies to stationary sources, both stack and fugitive 
emissions; (3) suggested that major stationary sources be the minimum 
starting point for a state's RACT analysis; and (4) recommended that 
states evaluate RACT not only for major stationary sources, but for 
other source categories as needed for attainment and considering the 
feasibility of controls. 57 FR 13540 at 13541, April 16, 1992.
    For both RACM and RACT, the EPA notes that an overarching principle 
is that if a given control measure is not needed to attain the relevant 
NAAQS in a given area as expeditiously as practicable, then that 
control measure would not be required as RACM or RACT because it would 
not be reasonable to impose controls that are not in fact needed for 
attainment purposes. In both the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule interpreting the subpart 1 RACM and RACT requirements and the 
General Preamble making recommendations for the subpart 4 RACM and RACT 
requirements, the focus is upon the process to identify emissions 
sources, to evaluate potential emissions controls, and to impose those 
control measures that are reasonable and that are necessary to bring 
the area into attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but by no 
later than the applicable attainment date for the area. The only 
exception is if the economically and technically feasible measures not 
adopted as RACT/RACM will collectively advance attainment by at least a 
year, then those measures must be adopted in most cases.
    In its submitted attainment plan for the Klamath Falls area, the 
ODEQ addressed the RACM and RACT requirements of subpart 1 as 
interpreted by the EPA in the remanded 2007 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule. The EPA proposes to find that the ODEQ RACM and 
RACT analysis also meets the requirements of subpart 4 as explained in 
the General Preamble. As described below, the ODEQ evaluated which 
measures would constitute RACM and RACT in the Klamath Falls area.
    1. First, the ODEQ ascertained that control of direct 
PM2.5 emissions was necessary for attainment and that 
available RACM for direct PM2.5 would obviate the need for 
additional controls for SO2, NOX, NH3, 
and VOCs, beyond existing federal and state controls, in order to 
attain the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in the 
Characterization of Klamath Falls Air Shed section above, the ODEQ 
identified direct PM2.5 as the primary pollutant causing 
violations at the regulatory monitor in Klamath Falls, and was able to 
show that available RACM for direct PM2.5 were sufficient to 
demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard by 
the subpart 1 attainment date of December 2014.
    The EPA agrees that there are not additional reasonable controls 
available to reduce emissions of SO2, NH3, VOC, 
and NOX that collectively would provide for attainment of 
the standard by at least one year sooner than provided for in the 
attainment demonstration. The EPA believes that the ODEQ's assessment 
of precursors sufficiently demonstrates that adoption of additional 
precursor controls is not reasonable or necessary for continued 
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the subpart 4 
requirements.
    2. Second, the ODEQ evaluated the relevant emissions sources in the 
area. The ODEQ's control strategy focused primarily on RACM from ``non-
point sources'' (i.e., area sources) given that analyses showed direct 
PM2.5 from these sources was the main contributor to 
exceedances of the PM2.5 standard. While there was limited 
ability for controls on PM2.5 precursors to advance 
attainment, this notice shows that there are existing controls on 
industrial and on road mobile precursor sources. As such, the 
attainment plan benefits from strategies that have already been 
considered and enacted and that applied to ``point sources'' (i.e., 
major stationary sources), non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile 
sources. Major stationary sources are controlled through the ODEQ's 
permitting programs and the mobile sources have been addressed via 
national and state measures expected to reduce mobile source emissions 
through fuel economy standards and vehicle emissions standards 
including Oregon Low Emission Vehicle regulations (LEV II/Tier 2 
emissions standards). Table 2 provides a chart of certain RACT/RACM 
implemented for the Klamath Falls area. The table provides the RACT/
RACM in two sections: Current Strategies and New Strategies. The 
current strategies are those that were initiated between 2007-12 and 
the future strategies are those that were initiated in 2012. All 
measures are being implemented currently. A full discussion of the 
RACT/RACM evaluated by the ODEQ is available in the Klamath Falls 
Attainment Plan.

[[Page 21824]]



                   Table 2--RACT/RACM in Klamath Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Emission reduction measure        Sector         Pollutant addressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Current Strategies (2007-
     present), currently
implemented but not accounted
 for in the 2008 base year EI
Residential Wood Combustion:
    Klamath Woodstove          Area............  PM2.5
     Curtailment Program--
     revised with lower
     thresholds & increased
     enforcement (Clean Air
     Ordinance).
    Woodstove Change-out       Area............  PM2.5
     Programs.
    Heat Smart program         Area............  PM2.5
     removal of uncertified
     woodstoves upon sale of
     home.
Open Burning: Shortened Open   Area............  PM2.5
 Burning Window (Klamath
 Clean Air Ordinance).
Fuel and Transportation
 Related:
    Low Emission Vehicle       Mobile..........  SOX, NOX
     Program.
    Road Paving..............  Area............  PM2.5
    Diesel Retrofits.........  Mobile..........  PM2.5
    Fuel Economy.............  Mobile..........  SOX
Industrial Point Sources:      Point...........  PM2.5, SOX
 Maximum Achievable Control
 Technology (MACT)--hardboard
 and particleboard facilities.
 
New Strategies (2012-present)
 
Residential Wood Combustion:
    Fireplace Standard.......  Area............  PM2.5
    Public Awareness.........  Area............  PM2.5
Industrial Point Sources:
    Opacity, Operation and     Point...........  PM2.5
     Maintenance Plan
     Requirements.
    Offset Requirements......  Point...........  PM2.5
Road Dust: Highway Road        Area............  PM2.5
 Sanding practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Third, the ODEQ has a demonstrated history of implementation 
success with respect to particulate matter control strategies. Given 
that the Klamath Falls area devised control measures to address 
nonattainment for PM10 in the past, the area was already 
implementing a number of relevant control strategies with demonstrated 
efficacy. For purposes of attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, the ODEQ and Klamath County strengthened some of these existing 
strategies, which were previously considered RACT/RACM for purposes of 
attaining the PM10 NAAQS, to achieve PM2.5 
reductions to meet the stricter PM2.5 standard (Klamath 
Falls PM10 Attainment Plan--62 FR 18047, April 14, 1997, 
PM10 Maintenance Plan--68 FR 60036, October 21, 2003).
    In addition to considering the range of implemented strategies that 
had effectively controlled emissions to attain the PM10 
NAAQS, the ODEQ and the Klamath Falls community formed the Klamath Air 
Quality Advisory Committee (KAQAC) to evaluate and develop additional 
RACM/RACT at the county level to approve into the Klamath Falls 
PM2.5 attainment plan. The KAQAC and the ODEQ contributed to 
the formal RACT/RACM analysis of current and future control strategies 
and provided recommendations to the county commissioners for approval.
    The RACT/RACM adopted and updated by the ODEQ for the Klamath Falls 
area were projected to reduce the 24-hour PM2.5 design value 
by approximately 11.7 [micro]g/m\3\ by 2014 (see table 3 below). 
Accordingly, the plan demonstrated attainment by projecting that the 
area's design value would be reduced from the 2008 base year design 
value of 45[micro]g/m\3\ to below 35[micro]g/m\3\ in 2014. Recent 
monitoring data for 2012-14 indicate that the plan was effective, 
reducing the design value to 34 [micro]g/m\3\.

 Table 3--RACT/RACM Projected Air Quality Benefit for the Klamath Falls
                                  Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Projected  air quality
                   RACT/RACM                     benefit ([micro]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary measures:
Klamath Clean Air Ordinance (updated)..........  9.6
     Woodstove curtailment--lower
     thresholds and increased enforcement
     Shorter open burning window
Woodstove Change-out Programs..................  1.0
Heat Smart--woodstove change-out upon sale of    0.3
 home.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)     0.1
 particleboard and hardboard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    subtotal 1.................................  11.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional measures:
Public Awareness...............................  0.6
New fireplace standards........................  0.1
Transportation and Fuel Related Emissions......  Minimal.
     Diesel Retrofits
     Low Emission Vehicle Program
     Fuel Economy
Road Paving....................................  Minimal.
                                                ------------------------

[[Page 21825]]

 
    subtotal 2.................................  0.7
                                                ------------------------
        Total..................................  11.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As seen in Table 3, the most important control strategies address 
residential wood combustion because the emissions inventory and source-
receptor analyses identified residential wood combustion as the most 
significant contributor to PM2.5 at the monitor on days that 
exceed the standard. The residential wood combustion strategies include 
an ongoing woodstove change-out program to replace woodstoves with 
cleaner, more efficient devices, and an updated Klamath Clean Air 
Ordinance that includes a strengthened woodstove curtailment program to 
reduce woodstove emissions on days when exceedances of the standard are 
most likely to occur.
    The woodstove change-out program in Klamath Falls has proven 
effective for meeting the PM10 standard and again was 
selected as a primary RACT/RACM strategy for the PM2.5 
attainment plan. The program, currently implemented by the City of 
Klamath Falls, provides financial incentives for homeowners to replace 
older uncertified woodstoves with newer, cleaner certified woodstoves. 
Between 2008 and 2011, the change-out program replaced 584 uncertified 
woodstoves in the area. The removal and destruction of the old 
woodstoves assures that the emissions reductions are permanent, and the 
change-outs are enforceable because there is a statewide building code 
that prohibits the installation of any uncertified woodstove in the 
future. The 584 uncertified stoves that have been changed out were 
estimated in the attainment demonstration to collectively provide 
emission reductions that would lead to an air quality improvement of 
1.0 [micro]g/m\3\. The ODEQ intends to continue its financial support 
of this program in the future for purposes of meeting and maintaining 
the standard, but it has not taken any credit in the attainment 
demonstration for future change-outs.
    Previous wood burning curtailment programs were important in 
helping this area attain the 1987 PM10 standard and the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Klamath Clean Air Ordinance, updated in 
2007 and again in 2012, is the RACM providing the greatest emissions 
reductions in the attainment demonstration at 9.6 [micro]g/m\3\. The 
Ordinance includes a curtailment program that restricts combustion in 
residential solid fuel-fired appliances on yellow and red advisory days 
when the county's air pollution forecast is for high PM2.5 
concentrations. The curtailment program is implemented through 
advisories communicated to the community on a daily basis. On yellow 
advisory days when the predicted forecast is for a 24-hour average 
PM2.5 between 16 and 30 [mu]g/m\3\, residents within the air 
quality zone are prohibited from using non-certified woodstoves, non-
certified woodstove insert, or a fireplace. Only certified solid fuel-
fired appliances and pellet stoves can be used. On red advisory days, 
called when PM2.5 levels are forecast to be above 30 [mu]g/
m\3\, the operation of woodstoves is prohibited except in limited cases 
where Klamath County has granted a prior hardship exemption. Use of 
pellet stoves are still allowed on red days. The Ordinance also limits 
open burning of residential yard debris to only 15 days of the winter 
period. These days are selected based on a forecast of good 
ventilation. In addition, the ODEQ has committed biennial funding to 
assist with the County's implementation and enforcement of the 
strengthened curtailment program (attachments 3.3r1 and 3.3r2). The 
curtailment program is a permanent and enforceable measure. The program 
was duly adopted as a Klamath County ordinance and as part of the 
ODEQ's administrative rules. It imposes restrictions on wood burning 
when the PM2.5 forecast reaches certain thresholds, and 
establishes clear and enforceable restrictions during yellow and red 
advisory days.
    Together, the woodstove change-out and curtailment programs account 
for over 95% of the calculated PM2.5 emissions reductions 
(10 [micro]g/m\3\) needed to demonstrate attainment. The implementation 
of earlier versions of these programs helped Klamath Falls to 
successfully attain the PM10 NAAQS and to meet the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The ODEQ's RACT/RACM analyses determined that 
implementation of the curtailment and woodstove change-out programs as 
control strategies, in conjunction with other adopted strategies 
providing minor emissions reductions, would provide for expeditious 
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Additional control strategies, listed in Table 3, include the 
following: The Oregon Heat Smart program, that requires removal of 
uncertified woodstoves upon the sale of homes (0.3 [micro]g/m\3\); 
emissions reductions for implementation of Federal MACT standards 
establishing tighter opacity standards applicable to hardboard and 
particle board manufacturers in the nonattainment area (0.1 [micro]g/
m\3\); programs to enhance public awareness to ensure effective 
compliance with the Klamath Air Quality Ordinance and general proper 
woodstove burning and maintenance (0.6 [micro]g/m\3\); new fireplace 
standards (0.1 [micro]g/m\3\); emissions reductions from Federal fuel 
economy standards and state vehicle emissions regulations; and road 
paving to reduce re-entrained road dust. The public awareness measure 
is considered a voluntary measure and has been funded annually by the 
ODEQ for purposes meeting the PM2.5 standard. While not a 
permanent and enforceable measure, the program to enhance education, 
outreach, and public awareness is key to supporting the implementation 
of the curtailment including compliance rate and the implementation of 
the woodstove change-out programs. Details of the intergovernmental 
agreement between the ODEQ and Klamath County can be found in 
attachment 3.3s, including the statement of work, funding provided, and 
performance measures. Further discussion of these ancillary measures 
can be found in the Klamath Falls Attainment Plan (attachments 3.3a, 
p28-40; 3.3s).
    Existing controls on industrial sources are also implemented within 
the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. The stationary sources identified 
in the ODEQ's RACT analysis already had limits in place for direct 
PM2.5 and precursors, due to existing permitted controls or 
anticipated future controls

[[Page 21826]]

such as the hardboard and particle board Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDD). As such, the ODEQ 
assumed no emissions growth for major permitted point sources in the 
modeling demonstration between 2008 and 2014. For example, Klamath 
Energy Cogeneration facility is a natural gas fired power plant with 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) which limits NOX 
emissions. Between the 2008 baseline emissions inventory and the 2014 
attainment year inventory, direct PM2.5 emissions were 
predicted to decline from 39.3 to 19.3 tpy, however all precursors were 
predicted to remain stable due to permit limits (NOX = 172.2 
tpy, SO2 = 19.5 tpy, VOC = 82.5 tpy, and NH3 = 
68.9 tpy). The Jeld-Wen facility includes a variety of business types 
such as wood products and chrome plating, with 2014 attainment year 
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 10.9, 37.6, 1.9, 165.9, and 
0.3 tpy, respectively. Direct PM2.5 emissions at Jeld-Wen 
were projected to decline from 17.3 tpy in 2008 to 10.9 tpy in 2014 due 
to the hardboard and particle board MACT discussed above, but all other 
precursor emission were projected to remain constant due to existing 
permit controls. Collins Products is a reconstituted wood products 
facility that uses primarily natural gas, with 2014 attainment year 
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 31.0, 9.4, 0.1, 529.8, and 
0.0 tpy, respectively. Most of the larger emission units at Collins 
Products were controlled via fabric filters for particulate matter. The 
hardboard bake oven was also controlled by a regenerative thermal 
oxidizer/regenerative catalytic oxidizer for VOC control. Direct 
PM2.5 emissions at Collins Products were projected to 
decline from 48.4 tpy in 2008 to 31.0 tpy in 2014, also due to the 
hardboard and particle board MACT, with all precursor emissions 
projected to remain constant due to existing permit limits. Columbia 
Forest Products is a plywood manufacturer with 2014 attainment year 
inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 
VOC, and NH3 emissions equal to 48.9, 53.5, 1.4, 41.2, and 
0.3 tpy, respectively. The facility has two wood fired boilers, one of 
which was equipped with a multiclone for particulate matter control. 
Direct PM2.5 and all precursors were projected by the ODEQ 
to remain stable between 2008 and the 2014 attainment year inventory 
due to the existing permit controls.
    For on-road mobile sources, in the 2014 attainment year inventory 
the ODEQ projected significant NOX emission reductions 
gained through improved motor vehicle fuel economy and emissions 
standards, with little opportunity for improvement among the remaining 
smaller sources. Other secondary species were demonstrated to be minor 
contributors to PM2.5 mass and their emissions are 
distributed among multiple source sectors. Emissions of NOX, 
NH3, and VOCs are projected to moderately decrease by 2014 
due to Federal mobile source controls including the Tier 2 Emission 
Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. These emission 
control requirements result in lower VOC and NOX emissions 
from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. 
The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has 
estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following 
vehicle NOX emission reductions will occur nationwide: 
Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, 
minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and, larger sports 
utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). VOC 
emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18 percent, 
depending on vehicle class, over the same period. The ODEQ estimated 
the on-road emissions reductions due to federal rules (Tier 2) in the 
attainment year. Additional on-road emission reductions are expected to 
occur as the fleet continues to turn over and new Tier 3 vehicle and 
fuel standards are phased in. In July 2000, the EPA issued a The Heavy-
Duty Diesel Engine Rule, effective in 2004, which includes standards 
limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel. A second phase took effect 
in 2007 which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 
15 parts per million, leading to additional reductions in combustion 
NOX and VOC emissions. This proposed rule is expected to 
achieve a 95% reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks 
and buses. The EPA issued the Nonroad Diesel Rule in 2004. This 
proposed rule applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as 
construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance 
with this proposed rule will cut NOX emissions from nonroad 
diesel engines by up to 90 percent. Some of these emission reductions 
were projected to occur by the 2014 attainment year with additional 
emission reductions following attainment.
    As shown in table 1, the control strategies included in the 
attainment plan were projected to provide direct PM2.5 
projected air quality benefits resulting in an 11.7 [micro]g/m\3\ 
reduction in the 24-hour PM2.5 design value, to a 2014 
modeled value of 34.6 [micro]g/m\3\. The implementation of these 
control strategies brought the area into attainment of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Consistent with the D.C. 
Circuit Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA, the control measures 
identified by the ODEQ as RACM and RACT need to meet the requirements 
of section 189(a)(1)(C), which requires that all RACM for a Moderate 
area be implemented by no later than four years after designation. The 
Klamath Falls area was designated nonattainment on November 13, 2009, 
and thus according to section 189(a)(1)(C), all necessary RACT/RACM 
should have been implemented by no later than November 2013. The ODEQ 
and Klamath County adopted and began implementing the control measures 
identified as RACM/RACT prior to the submission of the Klamath Falls 
attainment plan to the EPA in December 2012. Consequently, the EPA 
believes that the ODEQ complied with the four-year RACT/RACM 
implementation requirement.
    4. Fourth, the ODEQ and the KAQAC identified and evaluated a wide 
range of additional potential control measures as described in the 
KAQAC report. The KAQAC report evaluated additional control measures 
for purposes of determining if they could reasonably provide additional 
substantive emissions reductions. Between March 2011 and February 2012, 
the KAQAC met 13 times to review the state of air quality in Klamath 
Falls and develop recommendations of suggested control measures for 
approval by the Klamath County Commissioners and incorporation into the 
ODEQ's attainment plan as RACT/RACM. The KAQAC reviewed 79 control 
measures and evaluated the measures in light of factors such as 
environmental, health, economic, social, and technological feasibility. 
The KAQAC's findings and recommendations are summarized in the ODEQ's 
Klamath Falls attainment plan and presented in attachments 3.3p-q.
    Although the ODEQ and Klamath County considered a wide range of 
additional strategies, a majority of the strategies were eliminated as 
not reasonable because they were determined to be technologically or 
economically infeasible. For this reason, many of these control 
measures were screened out early in the process through application of 
the EPA's criteria for determination of RACT/RACM, and were therefore 
not quantified for purposes of determining if they would advance the 
attainment date by one

[[Page 21827]]

year. Given that the area needed to identify 10 [micro]g/m\3\ of 
reductions over six years (e.g., 2008 base year to 2014 attainment 
year) to get from 45 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, one year of 
reductions was roughly 1.67 [micro]g/m\3\ for the Klamath Falls 
attainment plan. The remaining control measures were provided by the 
KAQAC as a set of recommended RACT/RACM for the Klamath County 
Commissioners to adopt. The final control measures adopted by Klamath 
County were included in the plan with additional control measures 
adopted by the ODEQ to satisfy the RACT/RACM planning requirements. The 
emissions reductions from the implementation of the adopted enforceable 
measures are sufficient to demonstrate attainment and provide a buffer 
below the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ standard.
    In the Klamath Falls Attainment Plan (pages 45-47), the ODEQ 
applied the primary control measures to the base year design value to 
demonstrate that they would be able to bring the Klamath Falls future 
design value below the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ standard. To provide a buffer 
they also took credit for additional emissions reductions attributed to 
the new fireplace standards and the education program. Table 3 in this 
document identifies the measures that the ODEQ identified as necessary 
to bring the area below the standard as primary measures and these 
account for approximately 11.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Table 3 also includes the 
additional controls that meet the RACM/RACT criteria, listed as 
additional measures, and shows that they account for approximately 0.7 
[micro]g/m\3\ of emissions reduction. With the information provided in 
the submittal the EPA identified that these additional measures of 0.7 
[micro]g/m\3\ were not enough to advance the attainment date by one 
year (i.e., 1.67 [micro]g/m\3\).
Not Necessary for Attainment
    As described in this action, the exceedances at the Peterson School 
monitor were from direct PM2.5, and the main source category 
responsible for emissions of direct PM2.5 was residential 
wood combustion. In the attainment demonstration, the economically and 
technologically feasible control measures chosen by the ODEQ focused on 
reduction of direct PM2.5 from residential wood combustion. 
The two major controls were in the form of strengthening the woodstove 
curtailment program and the change-out of residential woodstoves with 
more efficient, lower emissions EPA-certified woodstoves. With these 
measures, the ODEQ was able to demonstrate attainment by the end of 
2014, which the area met based upon quality-assured, quality-
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data.
Not Possible To Advance Attainment by One Year
    Under the attainment plan requirements, an area must implement all 
reasonably available control measures that would advance the date of 
attainment by one year, or as expeditiously as possible. In the 
attainment demonstration submitted in the Klamath Falls attainment 
plan, the ODEQ identified that the area would attain the standard by 
December 2014. As the area already attained the 2006 24-hr 
PM2.5 standard in December 2014, attaining as expeditiously 
as possible is no longer relevant.
    The EPA proposes to find that the ODEQ's attainment plan meets the 
RACM/RACT requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 
proposed approval is based upon the State's compliance with the 
requirements of the general preamble and the EPA's analysis that the 
submitted attainment plan also meets the statutory RACM and RACT 
requirements of subpart 4. The plan is consistent with subparts 1 and 4 
of the statute, and with the guidance provided in the general preamble, 
such as identifying relevant sources and potential control measures for 
those sources, and for evaluating whether potential control measures 
are reasonable based upon factors such as technological and economic 
feasibility. Most importantly, under either subpart, the state is 
required to determine RACM and RACT measures in light of the emissions 
reductions needed to bring the area in question into attainment.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the ODEQ's attainment plan 
analysis sufficiently evaluated the relevant sources and controls and 
appropriately selected RACM/RACT measures that meet the requirements of 
subparts 1 and 4 and provided for the timely attainment of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The ODEQ identified emissions sources, 
evaluated potential control measures, and adopted reasonably available 
control measures consistent with CAA requirements in subparts 1 and 4, 
and with existing EPA guidance. The ODEQ's attainment plan included 
sufficient information to determine that implementation of additional 
precursor controls was unnecessary for timely attainment of the NAAQS. 
Relying on its selected RACM/RACT, the ODEQ demonstrated attainment 
with the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. The EPA is 
proposing to approve the ODEQ's analysis and selection of RACM/RACT as 
meeting the requirements of subparts 1 and 4.

I. Contingency Measures

    Contingency measures are additional measures to be implemented in 
the event that an area fails to attain a standard by its applicable 
attainment date, or fails to meet Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). 
These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that 
take effect without any further action by the state or the EPA. 
Contingency measures should also contain trigger mechanisms and an 
implementation schedule. In addition, they should be measures not 
already included in the SIP control strategy, and should provide for 
emission reductions equivalent to one year of RFP.
    The ODEQ developed contingency measures for the Klamath Falls 
PM2.5 attainment plan in accordance with the contingency 
measures requirement in section 172(c)(9) of subpart 1 of the CAA 
(Subpart 4 does not contain contingency measure requirements.) The 
primary contingency measure in the ODEQ attainment plan is a 
prohibition on burning in all uncertified fireplaces during the winter 
wood heating season. This contingency measure was adopted as part of 
the Klamath County 2012 Ordinance (attachment 3.3r2) and the ODEQ's 
administrative rules, and the contingency measures automatically take 
effect without any further action by ODEQ if the area fails to attain 
by the attainment date. Implementation of the fireplace contingency 
measure was projected to reduce the future year design value by the one 
year of RFP reductions (1.67 [mu]g/m\3\ for Klamath Falls) expected for 
contingency measures. The EPA proposes to approve the contingency 
measures in the Klamath Falls attainment plan as meeting the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9). The contingency measures within the 
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for proposed approval include 340-
240-0570, 340-240-0580, 340-240-0610, 340-240-0620, 340-240-0630, 340-
262-1000 and are listed in section V. Incorporation by reference, Table 
5.

J. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Quantitative Milestones

    For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, two statutory provisions 
apply regarding RFP and quantitative milestones. First, under subpart 
1, CAA section 172(c)(2) requires attainment plans to provide for RFP, 
which is defined in CAA section 171(l) as ``such annual incremental 
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required 
by [Part D of Title I] or may reasonably be required by the 
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable

[[Page 21828]]

national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' 
Reasonable further progress is a requirement to assure that states make 
steady, incremental progress toward attaining air quality standards, 
rather than deferring implementation of control measures and thereby 
emission reductions until some time just before the date by which the 
standard is to be attained. Second, under subpart 4, CAA section 189(c) 
requires that a PM10 NAAQS attainment plan submission have 
``quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until 
the area is redesignated to attainment and which demonstrate reasonable 
further progress . . . toward attainment by the applicable date.''
    While the ODEQ's attainment plan was developed to meet the subpart 
1 RFP requirements, the EPA is also evaluating the plan to determine 
whether it meets the subpart 4 quantitative milestones requirement. 
That section is comparable to the requirements of section 172(c)(1), in 
that it requires attainment plans under subpart 4 to meet a RFP 
requirement. However, section 189(c) also provides that an attainment 
plan should have quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 
three years until the area is redesignated to attainment, and which 
demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment by the 
applicable attainment date. The EPA's General Preamble and Addendum 
provide guidance interpreting this statutory provision and are useful 
to evaluate this requirement of subpart 4.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, April 16, 1992; Addendum, 
59 FR 42015-17, August 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the EPA's guidance recommendations with respect to 
section 189(c) include several relevant features: (1) That the control 
measures comprising the RFP should be implemented and in place to meet 
the milestone requirement; (2) that it is reasonable for the three year 
periods for milestones to run from the date that the attainment plan 
submission is due; and (3) that the precise form quantitative 
milestones should take is not specified and they may take whatever form 
would allow progress to be quantified or measured adequately.\6\ As 
discussed below, the EPA believes that the ODEQ's attainment plan 
adequately meets both the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements 
for this area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Merely as examples, EPA noted some potential approaches, 
such as percent implementation of control strategies, percent 
compliance with implemented control measures, and adherence to a 
compliance schedule. This list was clearly not exhaustive and 
reflected that the purpose of such milestones is merely to provide 
an objective way to assess that the area is making progress towards 
attainment by the applicable attainment date. See Addendum, 59 FR 
42016, August 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, although not presented as control measures that would 
achieve reductions by a specified three year milestone, the ODEQ's 
attainment plan contained control measures that were already 
implemented and in place and, in fact, were achieving necessary 
emission reductions to meet RFP and quantitative milestone 
requirements. For example, the woodstoves change-out program commenced 
in 2008 and achieved sustained and quantifiable emission reductions 
between 2008 and 2011. The ODEQ calculated the emissions reductions 
associated with the number of woodstoves exchanged in each of those 
years. In addition, the ODEQ quantified the estimated number of 
woodstove change-outs resulting from implementation of the Heat Smart 
program and the associated emissions reductions for each calendar year. 
These values in turn were relied upon to demonstrate attainment of the 
2006 24-hour NAAQS by the attainment date (refer to Table 9 and Table 
10 in Attachment 3.3a).
    Second, even under the more aggressive 18-month statutory 
attainment plan due date in subpart 4, the control measures in the 
ODEQ's attainment plan were in place and achieving reductions within 
three years of submission. The Klamath Falls area was designated 
nonattainment in November 2009, and under subpart 4 an attainment plan 
would have been due in June 2011. As noted in the RACM/RACT discussion 
(section III.E), the attainment plan consisted of control measures 
including past strategies implemented prior to 2008 and new strategies 
implemented after 2012. The past strategies included the woodstove 
change-out program with emission reductions achieved through 
implementation in 2008-2011, the Oregon Heat Smart program, and the 
woodstove curtailment program. While not explicitly identified as 
quantitative measures in the 2012 ODEQ submission, the state relied 
upon these primary control measures in the attainment plan to provide 
the bulk of the emissions reductions needed to bring the area into 
attainment, and were achieving reductions well within three years from 
the subpart 4 attainment plan submission date. In addition, there is no 
need to evaluate whether the attainment plan accounts for a second 
three-year milestone because the plan demonstrates attainment in 
December 2014 before the occurrence of the second milestone.
    Third, the ODEQ's attainment plan provided information sufficient 
to quantify the amount of emissions reductions to be achieved by 
pollutant and control measure by the December 2014 attainment date. The 
quantification of reductions is found in the emissions inventory table 
in the attainment plan and emissions inventory, as well as calculated 
from the emissions reductions associated with each control strategy in 
the attainment demonstration (Table 3, above). Thus, the attainment 
plan did quantify the emission reductions that would occur at a point 
in time that was appropriate for a three year milestone, regardless of 
what the statutory SIP submission date was under either subpart 1 or 
subpart 4. The ODEQ's attainment plan contained control measures that 
achieved annual emissions reductions and associated air quality 
improvements between the time of the nonattainment designation and the 
time the area attained the standard that are sufficient to demonstrate 
RFP under subpart 1. The timely implementation of these control 
measures may be viewed as satisfying the quantitative milestone 
requirements that apply under subpart 4.
    The EPA proposes to approve the submitted Klamath Falls attainment 
plan as meeting both the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements. 
The plan provides sufficient data and analyses that demonstrate 
emission reductions that provide reasonable progress towards attainment 
in December 2014. The key control strategies for attainment were 
implemented and achieving emissions reductions prior to the attainment 
plan due date under subpart 4 and within the three-year quantitative 
milestone requirement. This is consistent with the purpose of the 
milestone requirement which is to ``provide for emission reductions 
adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date'' 
(H.R. Rep. No. 480, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 267 (1990)). The ODEQ 
demonstrated progress toward attainment in December 2014 and 
successfully implemented the control measures expected to achieve the 
NAAQS by this date. Furthermore, since Klamath Falls has attained the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the demonstrated date, this provides 
further support that RFP and quantitative milestones were being met at 
the appropriate time.

[[Page 21829]]

K. Conformity Requirements

Transportation Conformity and the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB)
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means 
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a 
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely 
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the national transportation 
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) as well as the Oregon 
transportation conformity SIP which cites the national rule (77 FR 
60627, October 4, 2012). Under this rule, metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate 
with state air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, and the 
FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long-range transportation plans 
(``plans'') and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) conform to 
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated 
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are 
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) 
contained in a SIP.

     Table 4--2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Klamath Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inventory                    PM2.5                NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst Case Winter PM2.5 Season..  699 lbs/day.......  4,834 lbs/day
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For motor vehicle emissions budgets to be approvable, they must 
meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 
The EPA has reviewed the motor vehicle emissions budgets listed above 
in Table 4 and found that they are consistent with the attainment of 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and meet the criteria for 
adequacy and approval. The EPA found the budgets located in Table 4 
adequate (80 FR 45654; July 31, 2015). The EPA proposes to approve 
Oregon's MVEBs in Table 4 for 2014 for the 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS for the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. As a clarification, 
only the 2014 MVEB in the submittal is applicable to the attainment 
plan and only the 24-hour budget will be used for conformity purposes. 
As such, the EPA believes that these motor vehicle emissions meet 
applicable requirements for such budgets for purposes of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes.

M. Klamath Falls Exceptional Event Demonstration and Concurrence

    The CAA allows for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data 
from design value calculations when there are exceedances caused by 
events, such as wildfires, that meet the criteria for an exceptional 
event identified in the EPA's implementing regulations, the Exceptional 
Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.14. Emissions from wildfires influenced 
PM2.5 concentrations recorded at the Klamath Falls Peterson 
School monitor on September 30, 2009; August 25, 28 and 31, 2012; and 
July 30 and August 5, 2013. The ODEQ submitted an exceptional events 
demonstration for the 2009 wildfire with which the EPA concurred on 
June 29, 2012. The 2009 event had regulatory significance for purposes 
of the attainment demonstration in the ODEQ's Klamath Falls attainment 
plan submittal. The ODEQ also submitted an exceptional events 
demonstration for the 2012 and 2013 wildfires with which the EPA 
concurred on February 18, 2015. The exclusion of data influenced by the 
2012 and 2013 wildfires affected the design value for 2012-2014. 
Further details on the ODEQ's analyses and the EPA's concurrences can 
be found in the docket for this regulatory action. The EPA proposes to 
approve all of the concurred dates listed above as detailed in the 
docket as exceptional events to be removed from the data set used for 
regulatory purposes and to rely on the calculated values that exclude 
the event-influenced data in this proposed finding of attainment for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to find that the Klamath Falls area attained the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. 
The EPA proposes to approve the PM2.5 attainment plan for 
the Klamath Falls nonattainment area. As explained above, the EPA 
believes that the attainment plan submitted by Oregon, though not 
expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the 
requirements of subpart 4. Specifically, the attainment plan included a 
weight of evidence demonstration that the area would attain by the 
statutory attainment date that applied under a subpart 1 regime and a 
full year before the latest allowable subpart 4 moderate area 
attainment date. In addition, the plan meets the substantive 
requirements applicable under subparts 1 and 4 for RACM/RACT, base-year 
emissions inventories, RFP and quantitative milestones, and contingency 
measures. The plan also included MVEBs to be used for transportation 
conformity purposes for Klamath Falls. Accordingly, the EPA is 
proposing to determine that the SIP meets applicable requirements for 
purposes of approval under section 110(k) of the CAA. The EPA also 
proposes to approve the rules submitted and the exceptional event 
demonstration discussed in this action. Finally, we propose to 
determine that the area has clean data based on quality-assured and 
quality-controlled 2012-2014 ambient air monitoring data for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if 
the EPA finalizes this determination, it will suspend the requirements 
for the area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated RACM, 
RFP, contingency measures, and any other planning SIP requirements 
related to the attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, so long 
as the area continues to meet the standard. Although a CDD suspends the 
requirement for submission of certain attainment planning elements, it 
does not relieve the EPA of its responsibility to take action on a 
state's SIP submission. As described in this action, the EPA is 
proposing to fully approve the remaining elements of the Klamath Falls 
nonattainment plan as meeting the requirements of the CAA.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The EPA is proposing to approve regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the rules 
described in this preamble and listed in Table 5 below. The EPA has 
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available 
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the 
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 
more information).

[[Page 21830]]



                             Table 5--Proposed Rules for Incorporation by Reference
                                [EPA approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       State       EPA  approval
           State citation                   Title/Subject         effective date       date        Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Division 240--Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Klamath Falls Nonattainment Area Contingency Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
240-0570...........................  Applicability..............      12/11/2012
240-0580...........................  Existing Industrial Sources      12/11/2012
                                      Control Efficiency.
240-0610...........................  Continuous Monitoring for        12/11/2012
                                      Industrial Sources.
240-0620...........................  Contingency Measures: New        12/11/2012
                                      Industrial Sources.
240-0630...........................  Contingency Enhanced             12/11/2012
                                      Curtailment of Use of
                                      Solid Fuel Burning Devices
                                      and Fireplaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Division 262--Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
262-1000...........................  Wood Burning Contingency         12/11/2012
                                      Measures for PM2.5
                                      Nonattainment Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land 
in Oregon or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 1, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-08384 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P