[Federal Register: October 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62751-62754]
[DOCID:fr13oc10-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1151]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1151, to
Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk
Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                * Elevation in feet
                                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                                Depth in feet above
                State                      City/town/county                  Source of flooding                                     Location **                              ground  [caret]
                                                                                Elevation in meters
                                                                                (MSL)
                                                                                -------------------------
                                                                                Existing     Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Unincorporated Areas of Claiborne County, Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee............................  Unincorporated Areas of   Clinch River.............................  Approximately 2.3 miles downstream of Big Barren Creek....        +1055        +1032
                                        Claiborne County.

                                                                                Approximately 28 miles upstream of Big Sycamore Creek.....         None        +1032
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
 20472.

                                                                                ADDRESSES

                                                                            Unincorporated Areas of Claiborne County
Maps are available for inspection at the Claiborne County Courthouse, 1740 Main Street, Tazewell, TN 37879.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                             elevation            Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Collier County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of Mexico......................  At Monroe County.......           +5           +6  City of Everglades
                                                                                City, City of Marco
                                                                                Island, City of
                                                                                Naples, Unincorporated
                                                                                Areas of Collier
                                                                                County.
                                      At Lee County..........          +18          +16
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by the        +10-13        +9-14  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Lee County boundary to                             Collier County.
                                       the north, Immokalee
                                       Road to the south,
                                       Little Hickory Bay to
                                       the west, and I-75 to
                                       the east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by I-75           +5          +12  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       to the north, 112th                                Collier County.
                                       Street to the south,
                                       Collier Road to the
                                       west, and Patterson
                                       Road to the east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by the          None       +16-39  Seminole Tribe of
                                       Lee County boundary to                             Florida,
                                       the north, County Road                             Unincorporated Areas
                                       858 to the south,                                  of Collier County.
                                       Everglades Road to the
                                       west, and County Road
                                       858 to the east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by              None       +11-21  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       County Road 858 to the                             Collier County.
                                       north, I-75 to the
                                       south, Everglades Road
                                       to the west, and State
                                       Route 29 to the east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by             +9-12        +9-13  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Bluebill/Immokalee                                 Collier County.
                                       Road to the north,
                                       Vanderbilt Beach Road
                                       to the south,
                                       Vanderbilt Road to the
                                       west, and I-75 to the
                                       east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by              None        +9-18  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Vanderbilt Beach Road                              Collier County.
                                       to the north, Pine
                                       Ridge Road to the
                                       south, Tamiami Trail
                                       to the west, and I-75
                                       to the east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by Pine        +7-10        +8-18  City of Naples,
                                       Ridge Road to the                                  Unincorporated Areas
                                       north, Radio Road to                               of Collier County.
                                       the south, Tamiami
                                       Trail to the east, and
                                       I-75 and Collier Road
                                       to the west.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by                +6        +8-12  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Radio Road to the                                  Collier County.
                                       north, Tamiami Trail
                                       to the south, Tamiami
                                       Trail to the west, and
                                       Collier Road to the
                                       east.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by the          None       +10-14  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Lee County boundary to                             Collier County.
                                       the north, Immokalee
                                       Road to the south, I-
                                       75 to the east, and
                                       Quarry Road to the
                                       west.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by              None       +10-15  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Immokalee Road to the                              Collier County.
                                       north, I-75 to the
                                       south, I-75 to the
                                       east, and Collier Road
                                       to the west.
Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by the          None       +12-30  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Lee County boundary to                             Collier County.
                                       the north, Immokalee
                                       Road and Randall Road
                                       to the south, Quarry
                                       Road and the Lee
                                       County boundary to the
                                       west, and Everglades
                                       Road to the east.

Shallow Flooding....................  An area bounded by              None       +11-15  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Immokalee Road and                                 Collier County.
                                       Randall Road to the
                                       north, Blackburn Road
                                       to the south, I-75 to
                                       the west, and
                                       Everglades Road to the
                                       east.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Everglades City
Maps are available for inspection at 102 Broadway Avenue, Everglades City, FL 34139.

City of Marco Island
Maps are available for inspection at 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL 34145.

City of Naples
Maps are available for inspection at 735 8th Street South, Naples, FL 34102.

Seminole Tribe of Florida
Maps are available for inspection at 6300 Stirling Road, Hollywood, FL 33024.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Collier County
Maps are available for inspection at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 1st Floor, Naples, FL 34112.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Alpena County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Huron..........................  From approximately 1.3          None         +583  City of Alpena,
                                       miles northwest of the                             Township of Alpena.
                                       intersection of
                                       Rockport Road and Old
                                       Grade Road, to
                                       approximately 700 feet
                                       southeast of the
                                       intersection of S
                                       State Avenue and Mason
                                       Street.
Lake Huron..........................  From approximately              None         +583  Township of Sanborn.
                                       1,000 feet northeast
                                       of the intersection of
                                       Curtis Drive and U.S.
                                       Route 23, to
                                       approximately 4.5
                                       miles southeast of the
                                       intersection of Wilds
                                       Road and Brousseau
                                       Road.
Long Lake...........................  Entire shoreline within         None         +651  Township of Alpena.
                                       Alpena County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Alpena
Maps are available for inspection at 208 North 1st Avenue, Alpena, MI 49707.

Township of Alpena
Maps are available for inspection at 4385 U.S. Route 23 North, Alpena, MI 49707.

Township of Sanborn
Maps are available for inspection at 10068 Ossineke Road, Ossineke, MI 49766.

                               Mercer County, North Dakota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Creek......................  Approximately 0.85 mile        +1740        +1739  City of Hazen,
                                       upstream of the                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence with East                               of Mercer County.
                                       Hazen Tributary (Reach
                                       6).
                                      Approximately 0.55 mile        +1756        +1755
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Upstream Hazen
                                       Tributary (Reach
                                       2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Hazen Tributary (Reach 6).                                 confluence with                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       Antelope Creek.                                    of Mercer County.

                                      Approximately 1,680             None        +1737
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Antelope Creek.
Upstream Hazen Tributary (Reach       Just upstream of the            None        +1752  City of Hazen,
 2).                          confluence with                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       Antelope Creek.                                    of Mercer County.
                                      Approximately 1,050             None        +1752
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Antelope Creek.
West Hazen Tributary (Reach 4).                                 confluence with
                                       Antelope Creek.
                                      Approximately 300 feet          None        +1764
                                       upstream of Divide
                                       Street.
West Hazen Tributary to Knife River.  Just upstream of the            None        +1743  City of Hazen,
                                       confluence with the                                Unincorporated Areas
                                       Knife River.                                       of Mercer County.
                                      Approximately 70 feet           None        +1755
                                       upstream of 13th
                                       Avenue West.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Hazen
Maps are available for inspection at 146 Main Street East, Hazen, ND 58545.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Mercer County
Maps are available for inspection at 1021 Arthur Street, Stanton, ND 58571.

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

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: September 21, 2010.

Edward L. Connor,
Acting Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-25664 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49592-49598]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17714]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action

A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS

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

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

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

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

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

State Nonattainment Area Description and Designation

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

Emissions Inventory

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

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

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

2014 Projected Attainment Inventory for the Nonattainment Area

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

Federal Requirement for RACM, Including RACT

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

Identification of RACM and RACT

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

The EPA's Evaluation of RACM Including RACT

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

Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

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

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

Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

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

Contingency Measures

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

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

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

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

III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP

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

The Act's Provisions for Sanctions

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

    \1\ On April 1, 1996 the US Department of Transportation
published a notice in the Federal Register describing the criteria
to be used to determine which highway projects can be funded or
approved during the time that the highway sanction is imposed in an
area. (See 61 FR 14363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Ramifications Regarding Conformity

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

    \2\ Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the
transportation conformity include reasonable further progress plans
and attainment demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101).
    \3\ EPA would give a protective finding if the submitted control
strategy SIP contains adopted control measures or written
commitments to adopt enforceable control measures that fully satisfy
the emissions reductions requirements relevant to the statutory
provision for which the implementation plan revision was submitted,
such as reasonable further progress or attainment (40 CFR 93.101 and
93.120(a)(2) and (3)). The submitted attainment plan for the
Oakridge NAA does not contain all necessary controls to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore is not eligible
for a protective finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

Proposed Approval

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

Proposed Disapproval

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13190-13192]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2014-0105]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 13
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The renewed exemptions were effective on the dates stated in the
discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the
discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 10,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0154; FMCSA-2014-0105
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at
not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if
tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average
hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz,
1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the
audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard
(formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.

    49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971
to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a
hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3,
1971).
    The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the twelve applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement (80 FR 57032; 80 FR
60747). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash
and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving
records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors
provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to
continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
    The 13 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the
Agency and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise
their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year
exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for
each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal
to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to
renew each exemption for a two-year period. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed
exemption.
    As of January 14, 2017, Clayton Ashby (VA) and Lon Edward Smith
(MS) have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption
from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs
in interstate commerce (80 FR 60735). The drivers were included in
FMCSA-2014-0105. The exemptions were effective on January 14, 2017, and
will expire on January 14, 2019.
    As of January 15, 2017, the following 11 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate
commerce (78 FR 7479):

David Bateman (MN)
William Britt (TN)
Tyjuan Davis (VA)
Jerry Jones (TX)
Christopher Kuller (PA)
Kathy Miller (IA)
Leslie O'Rorke (IL)
Gersen Ramirez (TX)
Daniel Schoultz (PA)
Mark Valimont (MN)
Holly Cameron Wright (NC)

    The drivers were included in FMCSA-2012-0154. The exemptions were
effective on January 15, 2017, and will expire on January 15, 2019.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49
CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA.
In addition, the driver must also have a copy of the exemption when

driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official. The driver is prohibited from operating a
motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The exemption
does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing
requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless
rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the twelve exemption applications,
FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years
unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 27, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04682 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P