[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 49 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12751-12759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6259]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OR-61-7276; FRL-6307-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Oregon
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves the State
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for
the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The
implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy certain
Federal requirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment area PM-
10 SIP for the Oakridge, Oregon, PM-10 nonattainment area. The
rationale for the approval is set out both in this action and in
supporting technical information which is available at the address
indicated. The final action to approve this plan would have the effect
of making requirements adopted by the State of Oregon, federally
enforceable by EPA.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 14, 1999, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 14, 1999.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. Documents which are incorporated by
reference are available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA
may be examined during normal business hours at the following
locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-
1390.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Region 10 Office of
Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,
(206) 553-6510.
[[Page 12752]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The area within the Oakridge, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as moderate under
section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),1 on December
21, 1993. See 57 FR 43846 (September 22, 1992), 58 FR 67334 (December
21, 1993) and 40 CFR 81.338. The Oakridge designation became effective
on January 20, 1994. The air quality planning requirements for moderate
PM-10 nonattainment areas 2 are set out in Subparts 1 and 4
of Title I of the Act.3 EPA has issued a ``General
Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to
review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title I of the Act,
including those State submittals containing PM-10 nonattainment area
SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR
18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations
here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to the General
Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title
I advanced in this document and the supporting rationale. In this
rulemaking action for the PM-10 SIP for the Oakridge nonattainment
area, EPA's action is consistent with its interpretations, discussed in
the General Preamble, and takes into consideration the specific factual
issues presented in the SIP. Additional information supporting EPA's
action on this particular area is available for inspection at the
address as indicated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. References
herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the Act''). The Clean
Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401,
et seq.
\2\ The requirements which are the subject of this document
arise under the pre-existing PM NAAQS. EPA promulgated a new PM
NAAQS on July 18, 1997, which became effective on September 16,
1997.
\3\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and
Subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State containing a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area designated
after the 1990 Amendments is required to submit, among other things,
the following provisions within 18 months of the effective date of the
designation (i.e., these provisions were due for the Oakridge area by
July 20, 1995):
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than four years after designation (i.e., January 20, 1998);
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the effective date
of designation (i.e., December 31, 2000), or a demonstration that
attainment by that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which demonstrate reasonable further
progress (RFP) toward the attainment date (i.e., December 31, 2000 for
Oakridge). Since the SIP for a new nonattainment area is due 18 months
after the area is designated as nonattainment, the first 3-year
milestone is to be achieved 4\1/2\ years after nonattainment
designation (i.e., July 20, 1998 for Oakridge) and the second milestone
must be achieved three years after the first milestone or 7\1/2\ years
after nonattainment designation (i.e., July 20, 2001);
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act; and
5. Contingency measures which consist of other available measures
that are not part of the area's control strategy. These measures must
take effect without further action by the State or EPA, upon EPA's
determination that the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM-10
NAAQS by the applicable deadline. See section 172(c)(9) of the Act.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). The State of Oregon
submitted the Oakridge PM-10 SIP on December 9, 1996. The Oakridge
moderate area attainment plan includes, among other things, technical
analyses, control measures to satisfy the RACM requirement, and a
demonstration (including air quality modeling) that attainment and
maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS will be achieved by the required dates.
In this final rulemaking, EPA announces its approval of those elements
of the Oakridge PM-10 SIP which were due on July 20, 1995, and
submitted on December 9, 1996.
In addition, EPA has determined that major sources of precursors of
PM-10 do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the
NAAQS in Oakridge.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The consequences of this finding are to exclude these
sources from the applicability of PM-10 nonattainment area control
requirements. Note that EPA's finding is based on the current
character of the area including, for example, the existing mix of
sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth
could change the significance of precursors in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.5 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly
provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a
State under the Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are
set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt
of the submission.
The State of Oregon and the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
(LRAPA) held a concurrent public hearing on the Oakridge attainment
plan on July 18, 1996. As a result of the hearing, the plan was adopted
by the LRAPA Board of Directors on August 13, 1996. The plan was
subsequently adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission
(OEQC) on October 11, 1996, and became state effective November 4,
1996.
2. Accurate Emission Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emission
[[Page 12753]]
inventory also should include a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of allowable emissions in the area. See section 110(a)(2)(K).
Because the submission of such inventories is a necessary adjunct to an
area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot
practicably attain), the emission inventories must be received with the
submission (see 57 FR 13539).
The base year for analysis was 1991. This year was chosen because
the highest observed ambient PM-10 concentration occurred in 1991.
There were nine exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS with a high of 187
g/m3. In addition to the base year inventory (1991), an
interim year inventory (1997), a design year inventory (2000 attainment
year), and a maintenance demonstration year inventory (2003) was
developed.
The 1991 inventory identified that, on a 24-hour, worst case day,
the major sources of PM-10 emissions are residential wood combustion
(76.3%), paved roads (12.6%), unpaved roads (7.6%), winter road sanding
(0.9%), transportation (1.9%), industrial point source (0.6%) and other
(.3%) with total PM-10 emissions equaling 983.1 pounds per day.
After implementation of all control measures, LRAPA estimates that
the 24-hour 2000 attainment year inventory will be as follows:
residential wood combustion (72%), paved roads-including sanding (21%),
unpaved roads (3.0%), transportation (3.0%), industrial point source
(.01%), and other (less than .01%) with total PM-10 emissions equaling
655.1 pounds per day.
The emission inventory was originally reviewed and commented on by
EPA in 1995 while in draft form. The issues raised by EPA during that
time were resolved before the December 9, 1996, submittal.
EPA is approving the emission inventory because it is accurate and
comprehensive, and provides a sufficient basis for determining the
adequacy of the attainment demonstration for this area consistent with
the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the
Act.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior to
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the revised Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 9, 1996, submittal also establishes an emission budget
for the Oakridge nonattainment area, which is to be used for Federal
conformity purposes. The PM-10 mobile source emission budget for 2000
is 175 pounds per day and for 2003 is 178.8 pounds per day.
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas, designated after
the 1990 Amendments, must submit provisions to assure that RACM
(including RACT ) are implemented no later than January 20, 1998 (see
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)) of the Clean Air Act. The General
Preamble contains a detailed discussion of EPA's interpretation of the
RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-
13561). In broad terms, the State should identify available control
measures and evaluate them for their reasonableness in light of the
feasibility of the controls and the attainment needs of the area. See
57 FR 13540-13544. A State may reject an available control measure if
the measure is technologically infeasible or the cost of the control is
unreasonable. In addition, RACM does not require controls on emissions
from sources that are insignificant (i.e., de minimis) and does not
require the implementation of all available control measures where an
area demonstrates timely attainment and the implementation of
additional controls would not expedite attainment. Thus, RACT does not
require additional controls for the stationary sources in the Oakridge
nonattainment area because point source emissions in the area are de
minimis and additional control of such sources would not expedite
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
Based on the control measures adopted (described below), the SIP
demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2000. The
SIP also demonstrates continued maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS between
December 2000 and December 2003. Accordingly, the attainment
demonstration does not include additional industrial controls beyond
those currently required by the Oregon SIP. The Plan's attainment
demonstration, contingency measures, and RFP are discussed in more
detail later in this document.
Because the area has not violated the annual standard, LRAPA did
not specifically develop or implement control measures designed to
reduce annual emissions. However, reductions achieved on an annual
basis as a result of the control measures designed to reduce 24-hour
emissions, will assist in keeping the area in attainment with the
annual NAAQS.
Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard is based on the following:
(1) woodstove replacement program, (2) voluntary wood burning
curtailment program, (3) reduction in winter road sanding, and (4) road
paving.
Summary--Attainment Strategies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Emission
----------------------------------------- requested reductions
(percent) #per day
Control Measures--2000 -------------------------------
24-Hour 24-Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstove Removal....................... 12 86
Voluntary Curtailment Program........... 25 157
Winter Road Sanding..................... 75 7
Unpaved Roads........................... 75 56
-------------------------------
Total Reductions.................... .............. 306
Reductions Needed by 12/31/00....... .............. 294
-------------------------------
Excess Reductions................... .............. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12754]]
A. Woodstove Replacement Program
Oakridge's woodstove replacement program started in 1993 with
funding from EPA, ODEQ, and LRAPA. The program was structured to
provide up to $2,500 per low or moderate income households for
installation of approved alternative heat sources, either as no
interest loans or grants.
LRAPA estimates that on a worse-case day basis, 86 pounds per day
of PM-10 will be removed from the airshed. These reductions were
calculated based on the number of woodstoves replaced, and what type of
heating system replaced them. As of July 1996, a total of 130
uncertified woodstoves had been replaced resulting in an estimated 12%
reduction in emissions.
Of the first 115 uncertified stoves that were replaced, 42% opted
for pellet stoves, 40% opted for EPA certified stoves, 11% opted for
heat pumps or electric furnaces, 3% opted for propane gas furnaces, and
3% opted for oil furnaces.
Accordingly, EPA accepts LRAPA's 12% credit on a 24-hour basis and
believes the woodstove removal program meets the RACM requirement.
B. Voluntary Woodstove Curtailment Program
A voluntary wood burning advisory program has provided daily wood
burning advisories during the wood burning season in Oakridge since
1989. The program is operated by LRAPA, in cooperation with the City of
Oakridge and local news media and utilizes a ``red-yellow-green''
system. In 1993, the public education component of the program was
enhanced in an effort to keep the program a voluntary one.
Daily wood heating advisories are disseminated by LRAPA via local
television and radio stations, an advisory information telephone line,
and are published each day in the regional newspaper throughout
November and February each winter season. LRAPA also maintains an
advisory phone line. During the 1996/1997 season, over 480 60-second
spots were aired on area radio stations between December 1 and January
31. These announcements covered topics such as clean burning, using
seasoned wood, and the health affects of wood smoke.
In addition, LRAPA contracted with an Oakridge resident to carry
out public education strategies such as, but not limited to, (1)
manning a booth at Oakridge's Health Fair, (2) conducting door-to-door
visitation to homes with smokey chimneys and, (3) conducting drive-by
surveys during green, yellow and red days. A ``tarp giveaway'' campaign
was also implemented. In exchange for participating in a short survey,
residents were given tarps to cover their wood to keep it dry.
Woodburning curtailment advisories are made daily during the
woodheating season (November 1 through February 28). The advisory is
based on measured air quality, expressed as the standard Air Pollution
Index (API) and forecast meteorological conditions. A forecast of
either ``green'', ``yellow'', or ``red'' is determined and provided to
radio stations between 12:00 and 4:00 p.m. and to the city for
inclusion on a cable access station by 4:00 p.m. A green advisory is
issued when NAAQS exceedances are unlikely and the API is less than 63.
A yellow advisory is made when the API is greater than 63 but less than
75 and the forecast is for marginal smokie dispersion conditions. Under
this advisory, residents are advised to burn wood sparingly, and only
if alternatives are unavailable. A red advisory is make when the API is
greater than 75, and the forecast is for marginal or poor smoke
dispersion conditions. Under a red advisory, residents are requested
not to burn wood unless they do not have an alternative heat source.
The Oakridge curtailment program includes a surveillance and
tracking element. LRAPA's contractor conducts drive-by compliance
surveys on green, yellow, and red days using established survey routes.
But, since the program in voluntary and not mandatory, enforcement
action is not taken against residents who do not comply with the
advisories. However, in-home field visits are conducted when the
contractor observes activities such as dense smoke being emitted from a
chimney. The purpose of these visits is to educate the home owner in
the proper use of a woodstove, (e.g. using clean, dry wood etc.).
Considering the above program elements, length of time the program
has been in place (since 1989 with an enhanced program enacted in
1995), LRAPA's belief that the public is ``acceptive'' of the program
demonstrated by home owner's response to a tarp give-away and in-home
visits, EPA believes that the 25% credit on a 24-hour basis is
achievable and is being achieved. EPA, therefore, accepts the credit
claimed and has determined that the voluntary curtailment program is
sufficient to meet RACM.
C. Winter Road Sanding
The second largest source of PM-10 emissions in the Oakridge
nonattainment area is paved road dust of which winter road sanding is a
contributor. Winter road sanding emissions peak during periods when
temperatures drop below freezing and U.S. Highway 58 is icy or snowy.
During these periods, the Highway Division of the Oregon Department of
Transportation (the Highway Department) applies grit to aid traction
along the heavily traveled 1.9 miles of U.S. Highway 58 that traverses
the length of the nonattainment area. LRAPA estimated that on a worst
case day in the 1991 base year, PM-10 emissions from the sanding
practices accounted for 8.6 pounds.
The strategy developed to reduce road sanding emissions is for the
Highway Department to use a chemical de-icing compound, calcium
magnesium acetate (CMA) on Highway 58 instead of grit. The material is
to be applied either in pellet form or dissolved in water. It
effectively inhibits ice formation down to temperatures normally
encountered in Oakridge and eventually is washed off the roadway
without residual particulate. The use of CMA has been specified for use
in Oakridge since 1995. The Highway Department is committed to using
the anti-icing chemicals within the City of Oakridge into the future.
EPA accepts the above strategy as being RACM and grants the 75%
emission reduction credit.
D. Road Paving
Prior to the 1991 base year, there were approximately 2.4 miles of
unpaved roads within the nonattainment area. LRAPA estimated that
emissions from unpaved roads accounted for 10.6 tons per year (74
pounds per day). Due to an ongoing paving program, between 1991 and
1995, virtually all of Oakridge's unpaved roads and numerous unpaved
commercial driveways and parking lots have been paved.
LRAPA requests an estimated 75% net emission reduction credit from
this strategy. Converting an unpaved road to a paved road will not
reduce emission on a roadway 100%. This is because in time, materials
from other activities such as track out, will become deposited on the
recently paved surfaces resulting in an increase in paved road
emissions. However, any resulting emissions are insignificant compared
to the reduction in unpaved road emissions.
EPA accepts LRAPA's 75% net reduction credit as being conservative
and approves this measure as being RACM.
RACM does not require additional controls on other area sources
since the plan demonstrates attainment of the NAAQS and implementation
of
[[Page 12755]]
additional controls would not further expedite attainment. However, the
State of Oregon through their smoke management plan, has established a
special protection zone (SPZ) around the nonattainment area. Prescribed
burning in the SPZ is allowed only when the smoke management
meteorologist believes there will be no measurable smoke impacts within
the PM-10 nonattainment area. The SPZ encompasses the area within a
twenty mile radius of the nonattainment area. Other burning
restrictions apply on ``red'' advisory days. See Appendix VII of the
Oakridge attainment plan for further details. LRAPA does not request
credit for this measure but a revision to Oregon's Smoke Management
Plan establishing the SPZ around Oakridge, is pending before EPA.
EPA has reviewed LRAPA's submittal and associated documentation and
concluded that they adequately justify the control measures to be
implemented. Implementation of the Oakridge PM-10 attainment plan
control strategy will result in the attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than December 31, 2000. In
addition, EPA believes it is reasonable and adequate to assume that
protection of the 24-hour standard will be sufficient to protect the
annual standard as well. By this document, EPA is approving LRAPA's
control strategy as satisfying the RACM (including RACT) requirement.
4. Demonstration
As noted, moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas designated subsequent
to enactment of the 1990 Amendments must submit a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end
of the sixth calendar year after an area's designation to attainment
(see section 188(c)(1) of the Act). In the case of Oakridge, this
attainment deadline is December 31, 2000, or the State must show that
attainment by December 31, 2000, is impracticable.
The attainment demonstration presented in the December 9, 1996,
submittal indicates that the PM-10 NAAQS will be attained by 2000 in
the Oakridge area. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic
meter (g/m3 ), and the standard is attained when
the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or less
than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50 g/
m3, and the standard is attained when the expected annual
arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 g/
m3 (id.).
Generally, EPA recommends that attainment be demonstrated according
to the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987), which presents
three methods. Federal regulations require demonstration of attainment
``by means of a proportional model or dispersion model or other
procedure which is shown to be adequate and appropriate for such
purposes'' (40 CFR 51.112). The preferred method is the use of both
dispersion and receptor modeling in combination. The regulation and the
guideline also allows the use of dispersion modeling alone, or the use
of two receptor models in combination with proportional rollback.
In addition, EPA has developed a supplemental attainment
demonstration policy for airsheds where receptor modeling, coupled with
proportional (rollback) modeling, is adequate to identify source
contributions and demonstrate attainment.7 The policy states
that:
\7\ July 5, 1990, memorandum entitled PM-10 SIP Demonstrations
for Small Isolated Areas With Spatially Uniform Emissions, from
Robert D Bauman, Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-
14) and Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch
(MD-14) to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is appropriate in certain situations to rely on a receptor
mode (RM) demonstration (i.e., use of receptor modeling, emission
inventories, design value obtained by air quality monitoring, and
proportional modeling) as the basis for a control strategy
demonstration.
It is EPA's Regional Offices' responsibility to decide whether or
not that a receptor modeling demonstration is adequate to demonstrate
attainment. In making its' decision, EPA must consider the following:
(1) the spatial representativeness of the monitoring network and the
spacial uniformity of emissions, (2) the temporal representativeness of
the monitoring network, and (3) the impact of only a few, relatively
well characterized source categories.
During development of the Oakridge moderate area PM-10 attainment
plan, LRAPA did not use dispersion modeling to estimate the design
values or in the attainment and maintenance demonstrations. Instead,
LRAPA conducted an attainment demonstration based upon receptor
modeling-proportional roll-back calculations to estimate the emission
reductions required in 2000 to achieve the NAAQS. EPA reviewed LRAPA's
demonstration in accordance with the above criteria and has determined
the demonstration approach to be acceptable. See the technical support
document for this action for more details.
LRAPA conducted PM-10 saturation studies in 1991 and 1994 to
evaluate the location of the monitoring site near the Willamette
Activities Center (WAC). These studies, in general, showed that
although the WAC site was located near the area of highest
concentrations, three other areas measured higher concentrations during
the saturation studies. The site which measured the highest values is
referred to as the Cline Street site. It was located in a neighborhood
area west and a little south of the WAC site. Concentrations measured
at the Cline Street site were about 20% higher than those measured at
the WAC site. Even though the relationship between the WAC and Cline
Street values is not linear, the 20% relationship does occur at the
higher concentrations of interest. To account for this difference, the
attainment year design value was adjusted upward.
LRAPA utilized EPA's ``table look-up'' method to estimate the 1991
baseline design concentration. This method allows the use of the fourth
highest actual base year measured value to be used. The fourth highest
measured concentration at the WAC site for the calendar years 1991,
1992, and 1993 was 178 g/m\3\. To account for the difference
between the WAC site and the levels measured during the saturation
studies at the Cline Street site, the table look-up value was increased
by 20%. This resulted in an adjusted base year design value of 214
g/m\3\. (178 x 1.2 = 213.6).
Based on the above design values, LRAPA estimates that year 2000
worst case day emissions must be reduced by 30.6%, which equals 294.1
pounds per day. The previously discussed control measures are designed
to reduce projected 2000 worst case day emissions by 306 pounds per day
(11.9 pounds per day beyond the amount needed for attainment).
According to the principle of proportional roll-back modeling, a
reduction of 294.1 pounds from Oakridge's PM-10 emission sources will
result in a year 2000 worst case day ambient concentration of 119.7
g/m\3\ at the WAC site, and 147.3 g/m\3\ at the Cline
Street site. See the technical support document for this action for
more details.
EPA is approving the attainment demonstration. It is EPA's opinion
that the appropriate air quality model was used and all significant
emission sources and impacts were considered. The attainment plan
demonstrates that the area will attain the 24-hour PM-10
[[Page 12756]]
NAAQS by December 31, 2000. And, the annual standard which has never
been exceeded, will continue to be maintained. EPA has also considered
the fact that the area has not experienced an exceedance of the 24-hour
NAAQS in the last five years (1993 through 1998).
5. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements that are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance
addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e) (57 FR 13539-
13542).
LRAPA's technical analysis of potential candidate control measures
indicated that emissions from industrial point sources were
insignificant--approximately 5.5 pounds per day equaling 0.6%
contribution on a 24-hour worst case day basis. Also, historical
violations of the 24-hour standard have occurred during periods of
extensive poor ventilation (stagnation conditions) and cold
temperatures.
Therefore, EPA believes that sources of PM-10 precursors do not
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS and
hereby grants the exclusion from control requirements authorized under
section 189(e) for major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors.
Note that, while EPA is making a general finding for the Oakridge
area about precursor contribution to PM-10 NAAQS exceedances, this
finding is based on the current character of the area including, for
example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It is possible,
therefore, that future growth could change the significance of
precursors in the area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress
The PM-10 nonattainment area plans demonstrating attainment must
contain quantitative emission reduction milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP), as defined in
section 171(1) of the Act, toward timely attainment. While section
189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones are to be achieved
until an area is redesignated attainment, it is silent in indicating
the starting point for counting the first three-year period or how many
milestones must be initially addressed. In the General Preamble, EPA
addressed this statutory gap indicating that the starting point would
begin from the due date for the applicable implementation plan revision
containing the control measures for the area (i.e., November 15, 1991
for initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas) and that at least two
milestones must be initially addressed. See 57 FR 13539.
States containing moderate nonattainment areas designated
subsequent to enactment of the 1990 Amendments are expected to
initially submit two milestones. States are required to submit SIP's
for these areas 18 months after their redesignation as nonattainment.
The attainment date for new PM-10 nonattainment areas is ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year after the effective date of an area's designation as
nonattainment. Oakridge was designated as nonattainment effective on
January 24, 1994, therefore the attainment date for Oakridge is
December 31, 2000.
Because the SIP revision, including the quantitative milestones
element, for a new nonattainment area is due 18 months after the area
is designated as nonattainment, the first 3-year milestone is to be
achieved 4 \1/2\ years after the nonattainment redesignation. Since
Oakridge's redesignation became effective on January 20, 1994, the
first 3-year milestone must be achieved by July 20, 1998 (i.e., 1\1/2\
years prior to the attainment deadline). The second quantitative
milestone must be achieved three years after the first milestone or
7\1/2\ years after the nonattainment designation. For Oakridge, the
second quantitative milestone must be achieved by July 20, 2001. The
second quantitative milestone should provide for continued emission
reduction progress toward attainment and should provide for continued
maintenance of the NAAQS after the attainment date for the
area.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 189(c) of the Act provides that quantitative
milestones are to be achieved ``until the area is redesignated
attainment''. However, this endpoint for quantitative milestones is
speculative because redesignation of an area as attainment is
contingent upon several factors and future events. Therefore, EPA
believes it is reasonable for States to initially address at least
the first two milestones. Addressing two milestones will ensure that
the State continues to maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date
for at least some period during which an area could be redesignated
attainment. However, in all instances, additional milestones must be
addressed if an area is not redesignated attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SIP demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31,
2000, and maintenance of the NAAQS through the year 2003, satisfying
two milestones. In addition, all controls measures were implemented by
August 1996. Therefore, EPA is approving the submittal as meeting the
quantitative milestone requirement currently due. Finally, once a
milestone date has passed, the State will have to demonstrate that the
milestone was, in fact, achieved for the Oakridge area as provided in
Section 189(c)(2) of the Act.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the LRAPA, ODEQ and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of
SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum
(with attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan
provisions also must contain a program to provide for enforcement of
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act).
The particular control measures contained in the SIP were addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT)''. These control
measures apply to each of the identified major sources of PM-10
emissions in the Oakridge area, including woodstoves and road dust. The
SIP provides that the control measures apply throughout the entire
nonattainment area. EPA has carefully reviewed the control measures for
each of the major PM-10 sources and determined that the proposed SIP as
a whole, provides for adequate control of these sources.
During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory
authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of
point source permit limitations. Even though this SIP revision does not
contain additional point source controls to attain the standard,
existing and federally approved point source emission limitations are
relied upon to maintain and demonstrate attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS
in the Oakridge area.
EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision
required by ORS 468.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being
imposed for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the
adequate enforcement authority that a state must demonstrate to obtain
SIP approval, as specified in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40
CFR 51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would
preclude federal approval of a PM-10 nonattainment area SIP revision.
[[Page 12757]]
EPA notified Oregon of the deficiency. To correct the problem the
Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126
on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph 468.126(2)(e)
which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS
468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify a
state program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to
EPA's understanding of the application of 468.126(2)(e) and agreed
that, if federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-
day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for
violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.
Another enforcement issue is Oregon's audit privilege and immunity
law. Nothing in this action should be construed as making any
determination or expressing any position regarding Oregon's Audit
Privilege Act, ORS 468.963 enacted in 1993, or its impact upon any
approved provision in the SIP, including the revision at issue here.
The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the
question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other
Clean Air Act Program resulting from the effect of Oregon's audit
privilege and immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal
enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.
In regard to a separate enforceability issue, the following is a
summary of the state, city, and interagency commitments which EPA is
approving as part of the SIP.
A. Voluntary Woodstove Curtailment Program. This program was
adopted by LRAPA on July 18, 1996, and the State of Oregon on October
11, 1996. Details of the program are discussed in the TSD to this
action and the SIP revision.
B. Winter Road Sanding Program, Oregon Department of Transportation
Highway Division Commitment. Sanding and maintenance of U.S. Highway 58
through Oakridge is the responsibility of the Oregon Department of
Transportation, Highway Division, Region 3. Since 1995, a chemical de-
icing compound has been specified for use in Oakridge. The Highway
Department is committed to and intends on using anti-icing chemicals
within the City of Oakridge into the future.
The Governor of Oregon designated the Lane Regional Air Pollution
Authority as lead organization for implementing, maintaining, and
enforcing PM-10 control strategies in Lane County. The TSD contains a
discussion of the personnel and funding intended to support effective
implementation of the control strategy. Thus, EPA has determined that
the control measures contained in the SIP revision for Oakridge are
sufficient and the LRAPA has adequate enforcement capabilities to
ensure compliance with those control measures.
8. Contingency Measures
The Clean Air Act requires each state containing PM-10
nonattainment areas to adopt contingency measures for such areas that
will take effect without further action by the state or EPA's
Administrator upon a determination by EPA that an area has failed to
make reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the standards, as
described in Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. Pursuant to Section 172(b),
the Administrator has determined that Oakridge shall include
contingency measures with their Attainment Plan no later than July 20,
1995 (see 57 FR 13510-13512, 13543-13544, and 58 FR 67344-67341). EPA
guidance recommends that the emission reductions expected from
implementation of the contingency measures equal twenty-five percent of
the total reduction in actual emissions in the plan's control strategy
(57 FR 13544). However, the CAA does not specify how many contingency
measures are needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must
be provided by these measures (57 FR 13511). EPA believes that,
consistent with the statutory scheme, contingency measures must at a
minimum provide for continued progress toward the attainment goal in
the interim period after an area fails to attain and while additional
measures required as a result of being reclassified to serious are
being adopted (57 FR 13511).
On August 15, 1996, the Oakridge City Council passed Ordinance No.
815. This ordinance granted the city the authority to implement a
mandatory woodstove curtailment program. A mandatory program would be
implemented if the city's voluntary program did achieve the necessary
emission reductions needed to satisfy the attainment plan's first
milestone, or if the area did not attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2000 attainment.
EPA is approving the contingency measure for the Oakridge
nonattainment area. The authority to implement the above measures will
go into effect upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to
attain, or prior to the attainment date, if milestones for the area are
not being met.
III. Implications of This Action
EPA is approving the December 9, 1996, PM-10 attainment plan for
the Oakridge nonattainment area. Among other things, LRAPA has
demonstrated that the Oakridge moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2000. Note that EPA's action
includes approval of the contingency measure for the Oakridge
nonattainment area.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 14, 1999,
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
April 14, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on May 14, 1999, and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If
[[Page 12758]]
EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,
copies of any written communications from the governments, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local
and tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded
mandates.
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 14, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the State of Oregon
[[Page 12759]]
was approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register on
July 1, 1982.
Dated: February 20, 1999.
Chuck Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart MM--Oregon
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(127) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1970 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(127) December 9, 1996, letter from the Director, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, to the Region 10 Regional Administrator, EPA,
submitting the Attainment Plan for the Oakridge, Oregon PM-10
nonattainment area as a revision to its SIP.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Oakridge, dated August
1996, and Appendices XII, XIII and XIV.
(ii) Additional Material: Appendix I through VI and VIII through XI
of the State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Oakridge dated August
1996.
[FR Doc. 99-6259 Filed 3-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
