Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; States of Washington and Oregon

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA63-7138; WA58-7133; OR57-7272; FRL-5700-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and

Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; States of

Washington and Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites public

comment on its proposed approval of revisions to the Washington and

Oregon State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and EPA's proposed

redesignation to attainment of the Portland/Vancouver (Pdx/Van)

interstate ozone (O3) nonattainment area. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA)

as amended in 1990, designations can be revised if sufficient data are

available to warrant such revisions. EPA is proposing to approve the

Washington and Oregon maintenance plans and other redesignation

submittals because they meet the maintenance plan and redesignation

requirements and will ensure that the area remains in attainment. The

approved maintenance plans will become a federally enforceable part of

the Oregon and Washington SIPs. In this action, EPA is also proposing

to approve the Washington and Oregon 1990 baseline emission inventories

for this area, revisions to the approved Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M) SIPs of both States, and a number of revisions to both SIPs.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,

SIP Manager, EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101.

Copies of the States' requests and other information supporting

this proposed action are available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and at the

States' offices: Washington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box

47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, and Oregon State Department of

Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Ennes, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-

107), EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553-6249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

EPA's discussion of the proposed approval is in the following

order:

I. Background

II. Evaluation Criteria

III. Review of State Submittal

A. Attainment of the O3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section

110 and Part D of the CAA

1. New Source Review (NSR)

2. Conformity

3. Emissions Inventory

4. Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) Requirements

5. Emission Statement

6. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

C. Section 107 (d)(3)(E)(iii), Permanent and Enforceable

Emission Reductions

D. Section 107 (d)(3)(E)(iv), Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

1. Attainment Emission Inventory

2. Maintenance Demonstration

3. Verification of Continued Attainment

4. Contingency Plan

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

IV. Supporting Rules

A. NSR Changes For Maintenance Plan

1. SWAPCA 400 ``General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources''

2. OAR Chapter 340 Division 28 ``Stationary Source Air Pollution

Control and Permitting Procedures''

B. SWAPCA 490 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources

Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds''

C. SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources

Emitting Gasoline Vapors

D. SWAPCA 493 ``VOC Area Source Rules''

E. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

1. Oregon I/M Submittal

12. Washington I/M Submittal

F. Oregon Miscellaneous O3 Supporting Rules

1. Background

2. Discussion

V. Proposed Action

VI. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) Impact

VII. Administrative Review

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Unfunded Mandates

I. Background

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) submitted maintenance plans and

requested redesignation of the Pdx/Van interstate nonattainment area

from nonattainment to attainment for O3. The SIP revision requests were

submitted by the WDOE on June 13, 1996, and by ODEQ on August 30, 1996.

No tribal lands are within the maintenance plan area nor have any

tribal lands been identified as being affected by the maintenance

plans.

The Pdx/Van air quality maintenance area (AQMA) was designated an

interstate O3 nonattainment area in 1978 under the 1977 CAA. On

November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted. (Pub. L.

101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). Under

section 181(a)(1) of the 1990 CAA, the area was further classified as a

``marginal'' O3 nonattainment area, and an attainment deadline of

November 15, 1993, was established. This interstate nonattainment area

consists of the southern portion of Clark County, Washington, and

portions of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties in Oregon.

The AQMA has ambient monitoring data that show no violations of the

O3

[[Page 10502]]

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) during the period of

1991 to the present. Public hearings on the redesignation requests were

held in Portland, OR, and Tigard, OR, on May 22, and 23, 1996,

respectively.

On October 18, 1996, EPA Region 10 determined that the information

received from the WDOE and ODEQ constituted a complete redesignation

request under the federal completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V, sections 2.1 and 2.2.

II. Evaluation Criteria

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, specifies that

the Administrator may not redesignate an area from nonattainment to

attainment unless certain conditions have been met. These conditions

are as follows:

A. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)--the Administrator determines that the

NAAQS has been attained in that area for the pollutant.

B. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)and (v)--the Administrator has fully

approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section

110(k) and the State has met all relevant requirements under section

110 and Part D.

C. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)--the Administrator determines that the

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission

reductions.

D. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)--the Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area.

III. Review of State Submittal

EPA proposes to find that the Washington and Oregon redesignation

requests for the Pdx/Van interstate area meets the requirements of

section 107(d)(3)(E), noted above. Following is a brief description of

how each of the 107(d)(3)(E) requirements is met. A Technical Support

Document (TSD), on file at the EPA Region 10 office (dockets OR57-7272

and WA58-7133), contains additional analysis of this redesignation

proposal.

A. Attainment of the O3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

An area may be considered as attaining the NAAQS for O3 if the

quality assured ambient air quality monitored data show that the

average annual number of ``expected'' O3 exceedances is less than or

equal to 1.0. There were no violations of the standard based on the

three year period 1991-1993. The ODEQ and WDOE submitted data from all

four of their monitoring locations in the Pdx/Van area which indicate

that no violations of the O3 standard have been measured since 1990.

Because the nonattainment area has complete quality-assured data

showing no violations of the O3 NAAQS over the most recent consecutive

three calendar year period, the area has met the condition of

attainment of the O3 NAAQS.

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D of the CAA

Section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that, for an area to be redesignated,

an area must have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and

Part D and that EPA may not approve redesignation of a nonattainment

area to attainment unless EPA has fully approved all of the SIP

requirements that were due under the 1990 CAA. Although section 110 was

amended in 1990, the Washington and Oregon SIPs approved by EPA for the

O3 marginal nonattainment area meet the requirements of amended section

110(a)(2). A number of the requirements did not change in substance

and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIPs met these

requirements.

The 1990 CAA required that nonattainment areas achieve specific new

requirements depending on the severity of the nonattainment

classification. As noted earlier, Pdx/Van was classified as a marginal

O3 nonattainment area. For the purposes of evaluating the request for

redesignation to attainment, EPA has approved all but the following

elements of the Pdx/Van SIP: the NSR programs; the 1990 base year

emission inventories; minor local Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rule changes (Washington only); and outstanding

source-specific RACT determinations ODEQ identified after submittal of

the redesignation request (OR only), (see discussion under 1, 3 and 4

below for details).

1. New Source Review (NSR)

The CAA required all classified nonattainment areas to meet several

requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that

increased emissions of VOCs will not result from any new or major

source modifications, and a general offset rule. Current guidance does

not require State NSR programs to be approved by EPA before approving

redesignation requests (see policy announced in the memorandum, ``Part

D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting

Redesignation to Attainment,'' dated October 14, 1994, from Mary D.

Nichols to Air Division Directors I-X,) . However, because the Pdx/Van

maintenance plan is relying on credit from a new hybrid NSR/Prevention

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, the State NSR programs need

EPA approval prior to redesignation.

The NSR program for WDOE was approved on June 2, 1995 (60 FR

28726). Further revisions to the Oregon NSR program and the Southwest

Air Pollution Control Agency (SWAPCA) NSR regulations are being

approved separately in a direct final action. SWAPCA is the local air

pollution control authority that developed and will be implementing the

maintenance plan in Vancouver, WA. In this notice, EPA is proposing to

approve the new hybrid PSD/NSR programs for both States.

Upon redesignation of the Pdx/Van area to attainment, the PSD

provisions contained in Part C of Title I of the CAA are applicable.

EPA's PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 will apply to the Vancouver area

and Oregon's PSD rules will apply in the Portland area.

2. Conformity

The WDOE submitted its transportation conformity SIP revision to

EPA on December 1, 1995. A determination that the submittal is

administratively and technically complete has not yet been made. The

WDOE has not submitted its general conformity SIP revision.

The ODEQ submitted its transportation conformity SIP revision to

EPA on April 14, 1995. EPA approved the transportation conformity rules

as a SIP revision on May 16, 1996. In addition, general conformity

requirements were submitted to EPA on September 27, 1995. A

completeness determination letter dated March 18, 1996, was sent to

ODEQ.

Although these four conformity SIP revisions have not all been

approved, EPA may approve this redesignation request. EPA has modified

its national policy regarding the interpretation of the provisions of

section 107(d)(3)(E) concerning the applicable requirements for

purposes of reviewing a carbon monoxide (CO) redesignation request and

the same modification applies to O3. (See 61 FR 2918, January 30,

1996.) The federal transportation and general conformity rules are

applicable until the EPA approves the State established conformity

regulations. Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements

regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment, and must

implement conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet

adopted, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as

not being

[[Page 10503]]

applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. It is noted that approval of the Pdx/Van redesignation request

does not obviate the need for the WDOE to submit the required general

conformity SIP revision to EPA.

3. Emissions Inventory

The CAA required an inventory of all actual emissions from all

sources, as described in section 172(c)(3), by November 15, 1992. Both

States submitted their original base year 1990 emission inventories

(EIs) on November 16, 1992. As part of the redesignation request, ODEQ

and WDOE submitted corrections to the base year 1990 emission inventory

for the Pdx/Van area. EPA guidance document from John Calcagni and

William Laxon entitled, ``Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base

Year Emission Inventories for Ozone and CO Nonattainment areas,'' 9/10/

92, states that for a moderate O3 nonattainment area the 1990 EI is not

subject to public review requirements until a Redesignation Request/

Maintenance Plan is submitted. Both State EIs went through public

review with the redesignation request and maintenance plans and met

this requirement. The EIs of both States have addressed all EPA

comments and meet all requirements identified by EPA. In this notice,

EPA is proposing to approve both emission inventories.

4. Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) Requirements

Areas designated nonattainment before the 1990 CAA amendments and

which retained that designation and were classified as marginal or

above as of enactment are required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA

to meet the RACT fix-up requirements. The Pdx/Van area was first

designated nonattainment in 1978 by the 1977 CAA, and, therefore, this

area is subject to the RACT fix-up requirement (requirements in place

before the 1990 CAA amendments).

SWAPCA adopted regulations on October 15, 1996, to meet the RACT

fix-up requirement (SWAPCA 400 and 490). These regulations are titled

``General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources'' and ``Emission

Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting Volatile Organic

Compounds.'' EPA is proposing to approve these regulations in this

notice.

Oregon submitted to EPA its RACT fix-up rules on May 14, 1991, and

the rules were approved by EPA on September 29, 1993.

EPA proposes to approve the redesignation request as meeting the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), based in part upon Oregon's

approved general RACT rule and other source-specific RACT rules for

which no categorical RACT requirements exist (non-Control Technology

Guidelines (CTG) sources). The ODEQ already has implemented most of the

RACT program, and is in the process of establishing RACT requirements

for a few remaining sources that require source-specific RACT

determinations. The ODEQ general RACT rule, which has been approved by

EPA, provides that ODEQ ``shall have RACT requirements developed on a

case-by-case basis.'' Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-22-104(5).

The rules establish a requirement that all non-CTG sources apply RACT

requirements, and they must apply for a RACT determination within three

months following notification by ODEQ. The RACT established by ODEQ

must be approved by EPA, and will be included in the source's operating

air permit.

EPA acknowledges that Oregon has not completed the process of

making RACT determinations for a few non-CTG sources in the

nonattainment area. While EPA guidance generally requires full

adoption, submission, and approval of these RACT determinations prior

to approval of a redesignation request, EPA has established an

exception to this general policy which it intends to invoke here. This

exception and its rationale were articulated in the Federal Register

Notice approving the redesignation request of Grand Rapids, Michigan,

61 FR 31831, 31833-34.

A requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) is that the State

comply with section l82(b)(2)(A) by submitting a SIP revision requiring

the implementation of RACT for certain sources. While EPA's

redesignation policy generally requires that these rules be adopted

prior to redesignation, upon redesignation they can become part of the

contingency plan portion of the maintenance plan. In its recent

approval of the redesignation request for Grand Rapids, EPA determined

that the requirement for RACT could be met in the form of the

submission and approval of a commitment to adopt and implement these

rules as contingency measures in the maintenance plan. Thus, EPA

created an exception to its general policy, which it justified in terms

of several factors: first, the RACT rules at issue were not needed to

bring about attainment of the O3 standard; second, the State

demonstrated maintenance of the standard without the implementation of

the measures at issue; and third, in the case of Grand Rapids, the

State committed to include the RACT rules as contingency measures in

the maintenance plan, while including other effective contingency

measures in the maintenance plan.

EPA believes that the rationale and justification for the exception

created in Grand Rapids apply with equal or greater force to Portland-

Vancouver. The Portland/Vancouver submission satisfies the first two

factors articulated as the basis for the Grand Rapids exception: the

RACT rules at issue are not necessary for attainment and maintenance of

the standard. As for the third factor, in lieu of contingency measures,

Oregon has committed to submit the adopted RACT determinations for

approval into the SIP. (See Docket File for letter dated February 7,

1997.)

At this time, ODEQ has notified all non-CTG sources that a RACT

determination is required. In a letter to EPA, ODEQ has committed to

initiate the public hearing process within three months of getting a

response from a source and, within six weeks, after the permit

revisions are finalized, to submit such source specific determinations

to EPA. ODEQ has established RACT rules for three non-CTG sources; EPA

has approved one and is processing the other two as direct final rules

in a separate action. ODEQ is in the process of proposing RACT

determinations for three other sources. In a separate parallel action

EPA is proposing to approve one of these three ODEQ RACT

determinations. ODEQ also sent initiating letters to seven recently

identified non-CTG sources, notifying them of the requirement to submit

a complete analysis of RACT requirements within three months, in

accordance with the ODEQ rules.

In addition, the non-CTG sources for which ODEQ has not yet

established RACT requirements are relatively minor sources and the

implementation of RACT requirements is not necessary for maintenance of

the NAAQS in the maintenance plan area, i.e., the maintenance plan did

not take credit for reductions and is not depending on these reductions

for maintenance. However, before EPA takes final action to approve the

redesignation, EPA will approve the specific RACT rules for two sources

whose emission reductions are identified and credited in the

maintenance plan. EPA notes that the area proposed for redesignation is

a marginal O3 nonattainment area which has not violated the NAAQS since

1991.

Therefore, the only difference between the Pdx/Van request and the

exception proposed for Grand Rapids is the commitment to complete the

adoption of RACT rules for sources that

[[Page 10504]]

it has identified, rather than a commitment to adopt such rules merely

as contingency measures. Since Oregon has already initiated and

committed to the adoption of RACT rules which will become part of the

SIP, and not merely contingency measures, the justification for

applying this exception here is equally as compelling as, if not more

compelling than, the case of Grand Rapids. EPA believes that there is

no significant environmental consequence to this application of the

exception here, and that it is legally permissible under the statutory

provisions governing redesignation. The VOC RACT rules remain

applicable requirements under section 107 and EPA believes that ODEQ's

initiation of the process for all sources, which it and the sources are

bound to complete under Oregon rules, meets the redesignation

requirements.

5. Emission Statement

Under section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, a State must require each

owner of a stationary source of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or

nitrogen oxides (NOx) located in a marginal nonattainment area to

submit an annual statement of actual emissions from that source. EPA

approved Washington's emission statement program on November 14, 1994,

and approved Oregon's program on March 24, 1994.

6. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

Section 182(a)(2)(b) of the CAA requires that any O3 nonattainment

area which has been classified as ``marginal'' or worse have an I/M

program. The original federal I/M regulations were codified at 40 CFR

part 51, Subpart S, and required States to submit an I/M SIP revision

which included all necessary legal authority and the items specified in

40 CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993.

EPA has previously determined that the two States'' I/M programs

(currently in operation) met the applicable regulations established in

40 CFR part 51, Subpart S. A basic I/M program has been in operation in

Portland since 1975 and became operational in the Vancouver portion of

the nonattainment area on June 1, 1993. Portland submitted I/M ``fix

ups'' on November 15, 1993, and June 13, 1994, to meet EPA basic I/M

requirements. These were approved by EPA on January 29, 1994, and

September 9, 1994. Information on the existing Washington I/M program

can be found in the Federal Register notice (61 FR 38086; July 23,

1996) finalizing EPA's approval of the program. These elements will not

be enumerated here. In EPA's view, the new revisions EPA proposes to

approve in this action also meet the applicable federal requirements

(see discussion below in IV.E).

C. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), Permanent and Enforceable Emission

Reductions

There are several control measures that were responsible for the

Pdx/Van nonattainment area achieving attainment of the O3 NAAQS. The

major measures are:

--The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program which reduces VOC and NOx

emissions as newer, cleaner vehicles replace older, high emitting

vehicles;

--Summertime Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 7.8 psi required for gasoline

for the Oregon portion of the AQMA. (Gasoline for Vancouver area

service stations is supplied by Portland bulk terminals and therefore

the area receives gasoline with 7.8 psi RVP);

--The major source NSR program which requires Lowest Achievable

Emission Rate and offsets;

--The Portland basic vehicle emission Inspection and Maintenance

program;

--Stage I vapor recovery for Portland and Vancouver;

--RACT applied to major industrial sources of VOC.

Emission reductions achieved through the implementation of these

control measures are permanent and enforceable when approved by EPA as

part of the SIP. In addition, there are a number of State and local

measures that are part of the maintenance plan which, upon EPA

approval, will be federally enforceable, including stage I & II

gasoline vapor recovery requirements, improvements in public transit,

transportation demand management measures, and traffic flow

improvements.

The ODEQ and WDOE have demonstrated that actual enforceable

emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement and

that O3 emissions are not artificially low due to a local economic

downturn or unusual or extreme occurrences in the weather patterns.

Data in the maintenance plan show the area has grown rapidly since the

early 1980's. The Pdx/Van area initially attained the NAAQS in 1991,

with monitored attainment through 1996 despite this growth. Also,

meteorological conditions during the attainment time period were

conducive to O3 formation. EPA finds that the combination of existing

EPA-approved SIP and federal measures contribute to the permanence and

enforceability of reduction in ambient O3 levels that have allowed the

area to attain the NAAQS.

D. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv), Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance

plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.

The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS

for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation

to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the States must

submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the

ten years following the initial ten-year period. To provide for the

possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must

contain contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation,

adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems.

In this notice, EPA is proposing approval of the Oregon and

Washington maintenance plans for the Pdx/Van marginal nonattainment

area because EPA finds that the submittal meets the requirements of

section 175A.

1. Attainment Emission Inventory

The maintenance plan should include an emission inventory

representative of the time period when monitoring data indicated

attainment. The attainment inventory uses 1992 as its base year and was

developed consistent with EPA guidance. Since air monitoring recorded

attainment in 1992, 1992 is an acceptable year for the attainment

inventory. A summary of the base year and projected maintenance year

inventories are shown in the tables below by pollutant for point, area,

biogenic, and mobile sources. Detailed inventory data are contained in

the docket maintained by EPA.

2. Maintenance Demonstration

The ODEQ and WDOE included in their submittals projected emission

inventories showing that future emissions will not exceed the levels

determined to ensure maintenance throughout the 10 year maintenance

time period. The States also performed modeling, although not required,

for this marginal nonattainment area. (Refer to EPA's TSD prepared for

this notice for more details regarding the projected inventories and

modeling for the Pdx/Van area.)

a. Projected Year Inventory. The States projected emission

inventories for the end of the maintenance period using appropriate

growth factors, consistent with EPA guidance. In addition, the States

made projections for the interim years of 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2003 to

supplement the 2006 projections. As

[[Page 10505]]

shown in the tables below, the 2006 VOC and NOx emission levels

are below the 1992 attainment emissions.

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

1990 1992 1996 1999 2001 2003 2006

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

Vancouver, WA, VOC Emission Projections (tons/day)

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

Point Sources...................... 5 4 4 4 4 5 5

Area Sources....................... 15 14 14 14 15 15 16

On-road............................ 22 16 13 11 9 9 9

Non-road........................... 8 8 9 9 10 9 9

Biogenic........................... 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

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

Total........................ 67 59 57 55 55 55 56

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

Portland, OR, VOC Emissions Projections (tons/day)

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

Point Sources...................... 40 36 37 41 42 45 48

Area Sources....................... 58 57 56 56 57 59 61

On-road............................ 114 92 70 52 47 44 41

Non-road........................... 38 39 41 38 41 39 36

Biogenic........................... 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

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

Total........................ 296 270 250 233 233 233 232

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

Vancouver, WA, NOX Emission Projections (tons/day)

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

Point Sources...................... 6 5 5 6 6 6 7

Area Sources....................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

On-road............................ 14 15 14 12 12 12 11

Non-road........................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 6

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

Total........................ 28 28 27 26 26 26 25

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

Portland, OR, NOX Emission Projections (tons/day)

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

Point Sources...................... 13 15 16 18 20 21 21

Area Sources....................... 12 12 13 13 13 13 14

On-road............................ 76 75 68 56 54 52 51

Non-road........................... 33 35 37 36 36 35 35

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

Total........................ 134 137 134 123 123 121 121

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

b. Modeled Attainment. EPA does not require modeling for marginal

nonattainment areas. However, the States performed modeling using the

Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach (EKMA). EKMA calculates the VOC

control requirement to attain the O3 standard considering expected

changes in emissions and transport of O3 precursors. (The EPA model,

OZIPM-4, was used to conduct the EKMA analysis.)

The historical trend of the measured ambient O3 data was

characterized using a regression analysis. The airshed capacity for the

AQMA was divided between the two States based on each area achieving

approximately an equal percent reduction from forecast emissions in

2006, the last year of the maintenance plan.

c. Control Measures. The States have adopted a number of new

control measures which include credit for some federal rules.

Additional information may be found on the following control measures

in part IV, or the TSD. The control measures are:

(1) Hybrid low enhanced vehicle inspection including On Board

Diagnostics (OBD).

(2) Expanded vehicle inspection boundary.

(3) RVP, fleet turnover, and National Low Emission Vehicles (NLEV)

(see below for additional details on NLEV).

(4) Employee commute options.

(5) Voluntary parking ratio program.

(6) Transportation control measures.

(7) New EPA nonroad engine rules.

(8) VOC Area Source Rules.

(9) Industrial permit limit (PSEL) donation program.

(10) Major NSR/PSD program.

(11) Source specific RACT requirements and a gasoline pipeline (see

part III. B. 4 for additional information on RACT).

(12) Public education and incentive program.

NLEV additional information: ODEQ and WDOE have included emission

reduction credits for the proposed NLEV (previously known as FedLEV)

program in on-road emission forecasts beginning in 2001. The NLEV

program was proposed by automobile manufacturers as an alternative to

the California LEV program recommended by States comprising the Ozone

Transport Commission (OTC). While it appears likely that NLEV will be

available in Oregon by 2001, implementation of the NLEV program depends

on negotiations among the automobile manufacturers and the OTC States,

and is not under the direct control of EPA.

Because the OTC States and automobile manufacturers have not yet

committed to the NLEV program and the program is not yet in place, EPA

has not authorized SIP credit for the program. This policy will change

in the near future if the NLEV program agreement is finalized. EPA,

however, is proposing approval of the Pdx/Van O3 maintenance plan

because:

--The maintenance year emission inventories are below the attainment

[[Page 10506]]

year (1992) emission inventories without taking any credit for

potential NLEV reductions.

--The maintenance plans have been designed to address the most adverse

meteorological conditions that might be expected during the maintenance

period.

--ODEQ and SWAPCA have committed to adopt a backup measure by 1999 if

NLEV will be delayed beyond 2001. (The back-up measure alone is not

sufficient justification for approval.)

3. Verification of Continued Attainment

Continued attainment of the O3 NAAQS in the marginal nonattainment

area depends, in part, on the efforts of the States of Washington and

Oregon in tracking indicators of continued attainment during the

maintenance period. The ODEQ and WDOE will analyze annually the O3 air

quality monitoring data to verify continued attainment of the O3

standard in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50 and EPA's redesignation

guidance. Permanent O3 monitoring stations are operated in compliance

with EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in 40 CFR Part 58 and, in

addition to periodic monitoring saturation studies, SWAPCA and ODEQ are

working on a ``future study'' which could result in recommendations to

add permanent additional monitors.

The ODEQ and WDOE have also committed to perform periodic emission

inventory reviews of the O3 maintenance plan. In preparing the updates,

ODEQ and SWAPCA will review the emission factors, growth factors, rule

effectiveness, and penetration factors, and other significant

assumptions used to prepare the emission forecast. Factors will be

confirmed or adjusted where more accurate information is available. Any

new emission sources will be included in the update. Updates will be

prepared for 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2006 and will be submitted to

EPA for review.

4. Contingency Plan

Section 175A requires a State to provide a contingency measure that

it will put into effect within some specified period of time after a

triggering event (e.g., exceedance or violation of a standard). In

addition, section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that all control measures

contained in the SIP prior to redesignation be retained as contingency

measures in the O3 maintenance plan. In both Oregon and Washington, the

following measures will be implemented in the Pdx/Van area if an actual

violation of the O3 NAAQS is recorded and validated:

--The NSR requirements for proposed major sources and major

modifications in the AQMA (and the area of significant air quality

impact) will change: specifically, the requirement to install Best

Available Control Technology (BACT) in the AQMA will be replaced with a

requirement for Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) controls and the

growth allowance will be eliminated and replaced with offsets. In

addition, in the Portland area, rules will be adopted to implement

requirements for reformulated gasoline, congestion pricing, or

equivalent emission reduction measures. These requirements will take

effect upon validation of a NAAQS violation.

--With an additional violation, area rules in Vancouver will be adopted

to implement a remote sensing I/M program, and further enhancements to

the I/M program, or an equivalent measure.

The Oregon and Washington contingency plans meet EPA's requirements

for redesignation.

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Oregon and

Washington have agreed to develop the next ten-year maintenance plan

(2007-2016) and submit it to EPA by December 31, 2004. Such a revised

SIP will provide for maintenance for an additional ten years.

IV. Supporting Rules

A. NSR Changes for Maintenance Plan

1. SWAPCA 400 ``General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources''

On December 11, 1996, WDOE submitted a revision of the SIP for the

State of Washington which consisted of various amended regulations for

a local air agency authority, SWAPCA. SWAPCA has amended its Permit to

Construct rules in SWAPCA 400 to establish a new program for

``maintenance areas'' (nonattainment areas which have been redesignated

by EPA to attainment). This new program, which EPA is proposing to

approve as a SIP revision, is basically a combination of nonattainment

area (Part D NSR) requirements and attainment area PSD requirements for

new major sources and major modifications to existing major sources in

attainment areas. Specifically, a new section--SWAPCA 400-111

``Requirements for Sources in a Maintenance Area''--was added which

requires new major sources and major modifications to existing sources

in maintenance areas to: comply with all applicable new source

performance standards (NSPS), national emission standards for hazardous

air pollutants (NESHAP), and State and local emission standards; not

cause any ambient air quality standard to be exceeded, not violate the

requirements for reasonable further progress, not delay the attainment

date for a nonattainment area, and not exceed emission levels or other

requirements in the maintenance plan; apply best available control

technology (BACT) for each maintenance pollutant (or precursor);

demonstrate that all major sources owned or operated by the source in

the State are in compliance with applicable requirements; provide

emission offsets (which may be met in whole or in part by an allocation

from the growth allowance in the SIP maintenance plan); demonstrate

that offsets will produce a net air quality benefit; conduct an

alternatives analysis; and comply with the PSD requirements, visibility

requirements, and SWAPCA air toxics requirements if applicable. The new

section also includes provisions which specify how the growth allowance

will be managed and allocated and specific requirements for acceptable

emission offsets. Finally, this new section includes a contingency plan

element that changes the BACT requirement to a LAER requirement, and

prohibits the use of any growth allowance if the contingency plan is

implemented due to a violation of an ambient air quality standard.

SWAPCA also made conforming changes to SWAPCA 400-030 ``Definitions,''

SWAPCA 400-040 ``General Standards for Maximum Emissions,'' SWAPCA 400-

050 ``Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units,''

SWAPCA 400-060 ``Emission Standards for General Process Units,'' SWAPCA

400-070 ``Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories,'' SWAPCA

400-101 ``Sources Exempt from Registration Requirements,'' SWAPCA 400-

105 ``Records, Monitoring and Reporting,'' SWAPCA 400-109 ``Notice of

Construction Application,'' SWAPCA 400-110 ``New Source Review,''

SWAPCA 400-112 ``Requirements for new Sources in Nonattainment Areas,''

SWAPCA 400-113 ``Requirements for New Sources in Attainment or

Nonclassifiable Areas,'' SWAPCA 400-114 ``Requirements for Replacement

or Substantial Alteration of Emission Control Technology at an Existing

Stationary Source,'' SWAPCA 400-171 ``Public Involvement,'' SWAPCA 400-

[[Page 10507]]

190 ``Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,'' SWAPCA 400-230

``Regulatory Actions and Civil Penalties,'' and SWAPCA 400-270

``Confidentiality of Records and Information,'' and added new sections

SWAPCA 400-116 ``Maintenance of Equipment,'' and SWAPCA 400-290

``Severability.'' A complete description of the changes and EPA's

review is found in the TSD.

2. OAR Chapter 340 Division 28 ``Stationary Source Air Pollution

Control And Permitting Procedures''

Oregon has amended its NSR Rules in OAR 340 Division 28 to

establish a new program for ``maintenance areas'' (nonattainment areas

which have been redesignated by EPA to attainment), which EPA proposes

to approve as part of the Oregon SIP. This new program is basically a

combination of nonattainment area (Part D NSR) requirements and

attainment area PSD requirements for new major sources and for major

modifications to existing major sources in attainment areas.

Specifically, a new section, OAR 340-028-1935 ``Requirements for

Sources in Maintenance Areas,'' was added which requires new major

sources and major modifications to existing sources in maintenance

areas to apply BACT for each maintenance pollutant (or precursor);

demonstrate that all major sources owned or operated by the source in

the State are in compliance; provide emission offsets (which may be met

in whole or in part by an allocation from the growth allowance in the

SIP maintenance plan); demonstrate that offsets will produce a net air

quality benefit; conduct an alternatives analysis; and comply with the

PSD requirements if applicable. This new section also includes a

contingency plan element that changes the BACT requirement to a LAER

requirement, and prohibits the use of any growth allowance if the

contingency plan is implemented due to a violation of an ambient air

quality standard. This section also includes requirements for

allocation of a growth allowance and clarifies that the nonattainment

area NSR provisions and not the maintenance plan NSR provisions

continue to apply until such time as EPA approves a request to

redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment. Conforming

changes were made to OAR 340-028-0110 ``Definitions,'' OAR 340-028-1900

``Applicability,'' OAR 340-028-1910 ``Procedural Requirements,'' OAR

340-028-1920 ``Review of New Sources and Modifications for Compliance

with Regulations,'' OAR 340-028-1930 ``Requirements for Sources in

Nonattainment Areas,'' OAR 340-028-1940 ``Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Requirements for Sources in Attainment or Unclassified

Areas,'' OAR 340-028-1960 ``Baseline for Determining Credit for

Offsets,'' OAR 340-028-1970 ``Requirements for Net Air Quality

Benefit,'' OAR 340-028-2000 ``Visibility Impact,'' and OAR 340-030-0111

``Emissions Offsets.'' A complete description of the changes and EPA's

review is found in the TSD.

B. SWAPCA 490 ``Emission Standards and Controls For Sources Emitting

Volatile Organic Compounds''

EPA proposes approval of changes to the SWAPCA 490 VOC Area Source

RACT Fix-up regulations to support the O3 maintenance plan. The

proposed changes include updated citations and technical clarification

to the whole of SWAPCA 490. The key modifications are: addition of

language to incorporate revised federal requirements of 40 CFR 63.420

for leak testing gasoline tankers; revision of the certification

sticker issuance to provide for a full year of applicability; and

clarification of the applicability of the rule to address the

maintenance plan area in addition to the nonattainment area.

The changes were locally effective November 1, 1996, and were

submitted to EPA on December 11, 1996. The submittal satisfies the

requirements of 40 CFR 63.420. The SWAPCA rules are at least as

stringent as the WDOE rules and thereby meet the requirements of the

CAA.

C. SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting

Gasoline Vapors''

On December 11, 1996, WDOE submitted a revision of the Washington

SIP which consisted of various amended SWAPCA regulations. EPA is

proposing to approve SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for

Sources Emitting Gasoline Vapors,'' as part of the Washington SIP

because it is consistent with EPA policy and strengthens the Washington

SIP. The changes include: clarification to existing language and

definitions; removal of obsolete compliance dates; changes consistent

with WDOE's federally approved regulations for Stage I requirements;

and provision of references to testing and reporting requirements. The

sections are as follows:

491-010 ``Policy and Purpose'' (explains the emission categories that

apply to this regulation).

491-015 ``Applicability'' (explains the type of gasoline movements to

which the regulation applies).

491-020 ``Definitions'' (clarifications/explanations specific to the

regulation).

491-030 ``Registration'' (provides for annual registration and fees of

owner or operator of gasoline loading terminal, bulk gasoline tank, or

gasoline dispensing facilities).

491-040 ``Gasoline Vapor Control Requirements'' (specifies: capacity

or throughput criteria for application of rule; and, permissible uses

for fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks, gasoline loading terminals, bulk

gasoline plants and transport tanks, gasoline dispensing facilities

(Stage I), and gasoline dispensing facilities (Stage II).

491-050 ``Failures, Certification, Testing and Recordkeeping''

(specifies: conditions where facilities are discontinued;

certifications needed for operation; performance criteria of vapor

collection systems; and, test procedure and test recordkeeping

requirements).

491-060 ``Severability'' (provides for separation of the rule into

parts should any provision be held invalid).

In this action today, EPA is proposing to approve all the sections

in SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting

Gasoline Vapors,'' which became State-effective on November 1, 1996.

D. SWAPCA 493 ``VOC Area Source Rules''

EPA proposes approval of SWAPCA 493. SWAPCA's rules are as

stringent as Oregon's rules which are discussed and proposed for

approval in this Federal Register action (OAR 340-022-0700 through -

340-022-1130 ``Area Source VOC Regulations''). SWAPCA rules are also

proposed for approval because they are at least as stringent as

Oregon's rules. These rules cover spray paints, architectural coatings,

motor vehicle refinishing, and area source common provisions. EPA is

allowing Vancouver, WA, to take credit for the consumer products

federal rule in the same way as allowed in the Grand Rapids maintenance

plan April 2, 1996, proposed rulemaking, page 14529.

E. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

As part of this action, EPA is also proposing to approve certain

modifications to Oregon's and Washington's I/M programs. The changes

affect the Pdx/Van maintenance plan in that the emission reduction

credit claimed for each State's I/M program effectiveness will, if

approved,

[[Page 10508]]

change from what EPA has allowed for these States in the past.

In Oregon the I/M modifications are directly solely at the Portland

I/M area. In Washington the revisions are directed to the statewide I/M

program, which includes Vancouver, Spokane, and the Puget Sound Area.

1. Oregon I/M Submittal

EPA proposes to approve the SIP revision submitted by the State of

Oregon. This revision continues to require the implementation of a

basic motor vehicle I/M program in the Portland Metropolitan Service

district and the Medford-Ashland AQMA. The intended effect of this

action is revision of the I/M test type for certain vehicles in the

Portland area. Under this plan, certain vehicles would be subject to

``enhanced'' testing even though EPA regulations for the area itself

only require compliance with a basic standard. In addition, EPA

proposes to approve the State's request to expand the Portland I/M area

boundary. This action is being taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air

Act.

a. Oregon I/M and Clean Air Act Requirements Background. The CAA

requires States to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or

implement new ones. Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires any O3 nonattainment

area which has been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant to section

181(a) of the Act) or worse to have an I/M program. All CO

nonattainment areas were also subject to this requirement.

In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to

publish updated guidance for State I/M programs, taking into

consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations

of these programs. The States were to incorporate this guidance into

the SIPs for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program.

On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final

regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to section 182

and 187 of the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51,

Subpart S, and requires States to submit I/M SIP revisions which

include all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40 CFR

51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. Oregon has met these

requirements; see Federal Register (FR) notice 59 FR 46557, published

on September 9, 1994.

On December 12, 1996, Oregon submitted additional revisions to

portions of the SIP concerned with I/M program modification,

implementation, and operation. These SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA

to determine completeness shortly after submittal, in accordance with

the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The

submittals were found to be complete, and letters dated February 10,

1997, were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ indicating the

completeness of the submittal.

EPA has previously designated two areas as CO nonattainment in

Oregon, one of which is also an O3 nonattainment area. The Portland CO

nonattainment area, classified as ``moderate,'' with a design value

less than or equal to 12.7 ppm, contains portions of the following

three counties: Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington. The Portland O3

nonattainment area, classified as ``marginal,'' consists of the AQMA.

The Medford CO nonattainment area, classified as ``moderate,'' also

with a design value less than or equal to 12.7 ppm, contains a portion

of Jackson County. The nonattainment designations for CO and O3 were

published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1991, and November 30,

1992, and have been codified in the CFR. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR, sections

81.300-81.437. Based on these nonattainment designations, basic I/M

programs have been required in both the Portland area and the Medford

area.

By this action, EPA is proposing to approve Oregon's submittal,

revising the I/M program in the Portland area. EPA has reviewed the

State submittal against the statutory requirements and for consistency

with the Agency's regulations. EPA summarizes below the requirements of

the Federal I/M regulations, as found in 40 CFR Part 51.350-51.373, and

its analysis of the State submittal. Parties desiring additional

details on the Federal I/M regulations are referred to the November 5,

1992, Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR Part 51.350-

51.373.

The State's December 12, 1996, submittal provides for replacement

of the existing I/M test type, for certain vehicles and model years, in

the Portland area beginning on September 1, 1997. Though Oregon will

continue to conduct a biennial, test-only I/M program in Portland,

following approval of the State's maintenance plan and redesignation

request, the program will be more effective than the current program,

and will meet the emission reduction requirements of the proposed O3

maintenance plan. Since the Portland area has not yet been designated

as in attainment of the CO NAAQS, the I/M program in that area will

also be required to continue meeting EPA's basic performance standard

and other basic program requirements contained in the Federal I/M rule.

No changes to the Medford basic program are proposed. (Refer to the

February 12, 1997, TSD in the docket for a complete description of the

SIP provisions which are not being changed.)

Testing will continue to be performed by ODEQ (with the exception

of those fleets which are self-tested). Other aspects of the Oregon I/M

program that will only change as noted below include: testing of 1975

and newer vehicles in Portland; test fees to ensure the State has

adequate resources to implement the program; enforcement by

registration denial; a repair effectiveness program; commitment to

testing convenience, quality assurance, data collection, zero waiver

rate, reporting, and test equipment and procedure specification for the

basic test; commitment to developing ``enhanced'' test procedure

specifications; commitment to ongoing public information and consumer

protection programs; inspector training and certification; and

penalties against inspector incompetence. An analysis of how the

revisions to the Oregon I/M program will meet the Federal SIP

requirements by section of the Federal I/M rule is provided below.

(1) Applicability. The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas

in detail and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the

legal authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries.

Portland's I/M program, specified in Oregon's Revised Statutes

(ORS) 815.300 and OAR 340-024-0301, has been implemented in portions of

Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. In this action the area

proposed for expansion includes portions of the three aforementioned

counties, plus the area within the counties of Columbia and Yamhill.

The legal authority for Oregon's Environmental Quality Commission (EQC)

to establish geographic boundaries is found in ORS 468A.390 and

815.300.

(2) Basic I/M Performance Standard. The Medford and Portland I/M

programs provided for in the existing CO SIP are required to meet a

performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the

affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard

sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in

order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also

[[Page 10509]]

provide that the program will meet the performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met.

As part of the 1994 SIP package, the State submitted a modeling

demonstration using the EPA computer model MOBILE5a, and showing that

the basic performance standard is met in both Portland and Medford. The

State has recently submitted a demonstration supporting the claimed

effectiveness of the proposed revision to the Portland program. The

proposed modifications to the Portland program are, in EPA's view,

sufficient to meet both the declared needs of the proposed Portland/

Vancouver O3 maintenance plan and the federal requirements for a basic

I/M program.

(3) Adequate Tools and Resources. The SIP needs to include a

description of the resources that will be used for program operation,

which includes:

--A detailed budget plan which describes the source of funds for

personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase of

necessary equipment, and any other requirements discussed throughout,

for the period prior to the next biennial self-evaluation required in

the Federal I/M rule, and;

--A description of personnel resources, the number of personnel

dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program

administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions, and the

training attendant to each function.

Oregon's I/M program, as set forth in ORS 468A.400, is funded

solely by collection of fees from vehicle owners at the time of passing

the I/M test. The fee has been $10 per certificate issued for ODEQ-

inspected vehicles, and $5 each from certificates issued by fleets.

Under the revision, these fees may be increased to: a maximum amount of

$10 for vehicles in Medford, a maximum of $21 for Portland vehicles,

and a range of from $5 to $10 per vehicle for fleets. No other changes

have been proposed in this action. EPA proposes to find that the Oregon

I/M program provides for adequate tools and resources to implement the

program.

(4) Test Frequency and Convenience. The SIP needs to include the

test schedule in detail, including the test year selection scheme if

testing is other than annual. Also, the SIP needs to include the legal

authority necessary to implement and enforce the test frequency

requirement and explain how the test frequency will be integrated with

the enforcement process.

The Oregon I/M program requires biennial inspections for all

subject motor vehicles (see ORS 468A.365). For new, Oregon licensed

vehicles the first test is required for reregistration two years after

initial registration. In addition, all gasoline powered heavy duty

trucks and most motor vehicles registered as government-owned vehicles

are required to be certified annually. Short waiting times and short

driving distances relating to network design are satisfactorily

addressed in the existing SIP.

EPA proposes to approve the following changes in this action:

continuation of the basic test for Portland area vehicles from three to

five years old (i.e., model years from three to five years old), and

model years between and including 1975 and 1980; modification to the

Portland program so that vehicles from six years old to model year 1981

will be required to undergo ``enhanced'' testing (including a purge

test); and, pressure tests on Portland-area gas caps as part of the

overall I/M testing.

(5) Vehicle Coverage. The SIP needs to include a detailed

description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the

program, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified,

including vehicles that are routinely operated in the area but may not

be registered in the area. EPA proposes to approve the following

changes to Portland area vehicle coverage, anticipated to be effective

by September 1, 1997: basic tests for light duty vehicles (LDVs) less

than or equal to five years old and between (and including) the model

years of 1975 and 1980; enhanced tests for light duty vehicles greater

than or equal to six years old, but less than model year 1981; annual

certification of government-owned vehicles which are part of fleets

numbering more than 50 vehicles; bi-annual certification of government-

owned vehicles which are part of fleets numbering less than 50

vehicles; and, annual certification of U.S. Government vehicles--except

for tactical military vehicles--operated in either the Portland or

Medford areas.

(6) Test Procedures and Standards. The SIP needs to include a

description of each test procedure used. The SIP also needs to include

the rule, ordinance, or law describing and establishing the test

procedures.

In the Portland I/M area all 1975 model and newer vehicles have

been subject to a two speed idle test. This action proposes to approve

modification of the Portland test type to include the existing idle

test and a new transient loaded test called ``BAR31.'' The new test

would be used on the model years of LDVs discussed above. The BAR31

test involves a maximum of four tests (second order equation,

symmetrical peak, acceleration/deceleration modes) of approximately 31

seconds of duration each. In OAR 340-024-0312(4)(a), Oregon also

proposed an additional test that would allow vehicles that failed all

four cycles to have their emissions extrapolated out to six cycles; if

the extrapolated ``sixth hill'' emissions passed the cutpoints, the

vehicle would pass. EPA proposes to disapprove this additional test. As

explained in the TSD, following negotiations between the State and EPA

concerning the type of BAR31 test to be administered, and the level of

credit appropriate for the implemented test, the State decided to

eliminate the sixth hill test. The agreed-upon level of credit allotted

to Oregon's BAR31 program does not, therefore, include this option.

Although State regulations still include this language regarding the

sixth hill extrapolation, ODEQ indicates it has no plans to allow its

use.

The Oregon BAR31 test has been reviewed by EPA, and approved. Its

application in Oregon's program has been accorded an initial level of

effectiveness (credit) commensurate with the State's supporting

documentation (available for review in the docket). The credit found to

be appropriate is approximately 90% of that accorded to IM240, the

Agency's recommended enhanced test-type. Specifically, it has 90%, 95%,

and 95% of the effectiveness of IM240 for reducing, respectively,

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. It is appropriate,

therefore, that the State refers to the BAR31 test as an ``enhanced''

test. Following implementation of the program, the State has committed

to auditing 0.1% of its fleet for four years with an IM240 test to

better quantify the actual effectiveness of the BAR31 test. Detailed

procedures for the BAR31 test will be developed pursuant to receipt of

the equipment.

The only change proposed to Portland's (or Medford's) basic program

test procedures EPA proposes to approve is the introduction of a gas

cap pressure test in Portland. OBD system checks for 1996 and newer

vehicles will start in the year 1998 for both basic and BAR31 tests.

(7) Test Equipment. The SIP needs to include written technical

specifications for all test equipment used in the program and shall

address each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M

rule. On June 21, 1996, the State received authorization from the

[[Page 10510]]

State Emergency Board to purchase the new enhanced testing equipment.

However, no revisions to the technical specifications of the equipment

to be used for I/M purposes have been proposed in this action. It is

anticipated that the State will document specifications for the new

enhanced equipment following purchase.

(8) Quality Control. The SIP needs to include a description of

quality control and record keeping procedures. The SIP needs to include

the procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and

establishing the procedures of quality control and requirements.

The existing Oregon I/M SIP narrative contains descriptions and

requirements establishing the quality control procedures in accordance

with the Federal I/M rule. These requirements help ensure that

equipment calibrations are properly performed and recorded, as well as

maintaining compliance document security. No revisions to the SIP have

been proposed in this action for the basic I/M program. Details about

the proposed Portland area's BAR31 enhanced testing methods are

contained in (new) OAR 340-024-0312.

(9) Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification.

The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the

written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.

The Oregon I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training,

certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training

will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule.

All inspectors are required to be certified to inspect vehicles in the

Oregon I/M program. The only change EPA proposes to approve as part of

this action to accept training credit is the calculation of overall I/M

emission reduction effectiveness.

(10) Improving Repair Effectiveness. The SIP needs to include a

description of the technical assistance program to be implemented, and

a description of the repair technician training resources available in

the community. Only one general update to the SIP has been proposed in

this action for ``improving repair effectiveness.'' The update EPA

proposes to approve is actually an addition to a previous program that

met federal requirements. The addition notes that since November 1995

an advisory committee has been working to develop a ODEQ Auto

Technician Emissions Training. The training program envisioned will be

voluntary and will issue certifications for two levels of repair

proficiency.

2. Washington I/M Submittal

EPA proposes to approve the SIP revision submitted by the State of

Washington for the purpose of approving changes to the I/M program for

Washington State. EPA proposes to approve changes to the Washington I/M

program that apply to Vancouver, Spokane, and the Puget Sound areas. On

December 20, 1996, Washington submitted SIP revision requests to the

EPA to satisfy the requirements of sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of

the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(4) and 7511a(c)(3)

(1990), and the Federal I/M rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S). These SIP

revisions will change certain provisions of the existing approved SIP

that require vehicle owners to comply with the Washington I/M program

in portions of the Washington counties of Clark, King, Pierce,

Snohomish, and Spokane. The three I/M areas currently operating

programs are associated with: (1) the Vancouver O3 nonattainment area,

proposed for re-designation, but currently classified as ``marginal,''

(2) the Spokane CO nonattainment area, classified as ``moderate,'' and

(3) the Puget Sound O3 attainment area. In addition, both the Puget

Sound area and Vancouver are now in attainment for CO, and have

continued I/M in their areas under an approved maintenance plan. The

revisions relate primarily to an additional allowable I/M test type,

allowable gas cap leak tests, and new federal OBD requirements.

a. Washington I/M and Clean Air Act Requirements Background Section

182(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires any O3 nonattainment area

which has been classified as ``marginal'' or worse (pursuant to section

181(a) of the Act) to establish an I/M program. These areas must

implement basic or enhanced I/M programs depending upon their specific

classifications. In particular, O3 nonattainment areas classified as

``serious'' or worse, with populations of 200,000 or more, and CO

``moderate'' or ``serious'' nonattainment areas, with design values

above 12.7 ppm and populations of 200,000 or more, are required to meet

EPA guidance for enhanced I/M programs.

Additionally, areas which have been re-designated from non-

attainment to attainment may continue to use I/M to reduce emissions.

I/M requirements within those areas'' maintenance plans seeking to

advance the air quality of the respective areas to attainment may,

therefore, be very similar to those requirements contained in previous

SIPs.

Prior to November 25, 1996, EPA had designated two areas as O3

nonattainment in the State of Washington. The Puget Sound O3

nonattainment area was classified as marginal, and contained portions

of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. The Vancouver non-attainment

area was also classified as marginal, and contained a portion of Clark

County. In an action taken on November 25, 1996, however, the Puget

Sound area was re-designated to attainment, leaving only one area in

nonattainment.

Likewise, prior to October 21, 1996, three areas in Washington

State were designated as CO nonattainment areas. Both the Spokane CO

nonattainment area (Spokane County) and the Puget Sound CO

nonattainment area (portions of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties)

had design values greater than 12.7 ppm and were designated as

``moderate plus.'' In addition, the Vancouver area was a ``moderate''

CO nonattainment area, with a design value below 12.7 ppm. The central

Puget Sound area had, and continues to have, an urbanized area

population of over one million, and Spokane had, and continues to have,

an urbanized area population in excess of 200,000.

Based on these nonattainment designations and populations, basic I/

M programs were required in the Vancouver and Puget Sound O3

nonattainment areas, while enhanced I/M programs were required in the

Puget Sound and Spokane CO nonattainment areas. On November 25, 1996,

however, the Puget Sound area was redesignated to attainment for CO and

O3, and on October 21, 1996, the Vancouver area was redesignated to

attainment for CO.

As a result of the redesignations of the Puget Sound area for O3

attainment, only one Washington area--Vancouver--continues to be (until

EPA approves the Pdx/Van maintenance plan and redesignation request)

classified as marginal O3 nonattainment. Vancouver is part of the

larger Pdx/Van nonattainment area. In addition, subsequent to the re-

designations noted above, only one area in Washington--Spokane--remains

designated as a CO (``moderate plus'') nonattainment area. Based on

these nonattainment designations and populations, an enhanced I/M

program continues to be required in Spokane, a basic program continues

to be required in Vancouver, and a program is still required by the

Puget Sound maintenance plan.

The I/M action being proposed herein (received by EPA on December

20, 1996) includes proposed changes to the I/M program in the State of

Washington. If the Vancouver area is redesignated to

[[Page 10511]]

attainment and the I/M proposals are approved, Washington will no

longer have any O3 nonattainment areas and I/M, for the purposes of

reducing ambient O3 levels, will only be required in Vancouver and

Puget Sound to meet reduction targets in the respective maintenance

plans. Only Spokane will remain a CO nonattainment area, and require an

enhanced I/M program. The Puget Sound and Vancouver areas, which

continue to be in CO attainment, will need I/M programs only to meet

the reduction targets of their maintenance plans.

EPA has reviewed the December 20, 1996, State submittal for

compliance with statutory requirements and for consistency with the

Agency's regulations. A summary of the EPA's analysis of why it is

proposing to approve the SIP revision is provided below. In addition, a

history and a summary to support approval of the Washington and Oregon

State submittals are contained in a TSD, dated February 12, 1997, which

is available from the EPA Region 10 Office (address provided above).

I/M programs have been running in the Puget Sound area since 1982,

in Spokane since 1985, and in Vancouver since 1993. Washington State's

current centralized, test only, biennial program meets the requirements

of EPA's low enhanced performance standard, and of other requirements

contained in the Federal I/M rule in the applicable nonattainment

areas. On December 20, 1996, Washington submitted an I/M SIP revision

that would provide for the continued implementation of I/M programs in

the Puget Sound, Spokane, and Vancouver areas, but revises State

regulations to allow for implementation of a different I/M test in

those areas. Emission testing is, and will continue to be, overseen by

the WDOE and performed by its I/M contractor. Public hearings for the

State's submittal were held in Vancouver, Bellevue, and Spokane on July

16, 17, and 18, 1996, respectively. A description of the existing

Washington I/M program can be found in the Federal Register notice (61

FR 38086; July 23, 1996) finalizing EPA's approval of the program.

These elements will not be enumerated here.

In EPA's view, the December 20 I/M SIP revisions continue to ensure

that Washington's centralized, test only, biennial program meets the

requirements of EPA's low enhanced performance standard, other

requirements contained in 40 CFR Subpart S in the applicable

nonattainment counties, the needs of the Spokane nonattainment area,

and the needs of the Puget Sound and (existing and newly proposed) CO

and O3 Vancouver maintenance plans.

The revisions to the State I/M program in the Puget Sound area

which EPA proposes to approve include:

A loaded idle test (i.e., continued operation of the

current testing regime), and the possibility of adopting an accelerated

simulation mode (ASM) and gas cap check test;

A program to continue evaluating on-road testing which is

designed to meet the EPA 0.5% requirement for the State's enhanced

program areas, or for areas seeking maintenance plan credit for such

testing; and,

A check of the OBD system for all vehicles 1996 and newer

(starting in 1998).

The proposed I/M program revisions in Spokane that EPA proposes to

approve include:

A loaded idle test (i.e., continued use of the current

test) and an ASM test; and,

A check of the OBD system for all vehicles 1996 and newer

(starting in 1998).

The I/M program revisions in Vancouver that EPA proposes to approve

include:

Continued operation of the current testing regime until

replaced by an ASM test;

An ASM and gas cap check test by 1998;

A check of the OBD system for all vehicles 1996 and newer

(starting in 1998);

Expansion of the Clark County testing area; and,

Exemption of vehicles three years old or newer in the

expanded Clark County area.

Although in Spokane and Vancouver the State plans by 1998 to

implement the ASM tests, and in all three areas implement OBD checks,

the regulations supporting this intention simply provide for the

``allowance'' of such tests. Gas cap checking is also a test which new

State regulations now ``allow,'' rather than commit to. The emissions

benefits to be gained by such enhancements are proposed in the Pdx/Van

maintenance plan. Implementation in Vancouver is scheduled for no later

than 1998.

An analysis of how the Washington I/M program continues to meet

EPA's I/M regulations is provided below. For the most part, the

Washington program has not been modified significantly; specific

information about portions of the program that have not been modified

are presented in the TSD.

(1) Applicability. The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas

in detail and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the

legal authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries.

The Washington I/M regulations specify that I/M programs will be

implemented in the areas described above. Although Vancouver has been

required to implement only a basic I/M program for its O3 and,

previously, for its CO nonattainment areas (and in the existing SIP the

performance of Vancouver's program was compared to EPA's basic

performance standard), the State chose to implement a ``low enhanced''

program in all areas that required I/M programs. The action proposed in

this notice, if approved, would allow the use of an ASM2525 low

enhanced I/M test in all three State areas (as well as other, more

minor I/M modifications noted above). The proposed O3 maintenance plan

for the Pdx/Van area, in fact, relies to a degree on the adoption of

ASM2525 in Vancouver by 1998.

(2) Enhanced and Basic I/M Performance Standard. The federal I/M

performance standard sets an emission reduction target that must be met

by a program in order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also

provide that the program will meet the performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met. The I/M programs in Vancouver and Spokane have been

required to meet a performance standard--basic and low enhanced,

respectively--for the pollutants that caused the affected areas to come

under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, I/M Requirements. If the redesignation

of Vancouver is approved, the area will no longer need to meet the

basic performance standard, except as specified in the maintenance

plan.

The State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA

computer model MOBILE5a showing that the low enhanced performance

standard will continue to be met for Spokane if ASM2525 is implemented.

The State has also submitted modeling for the areas of Vancouver and

Puget Sound that demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that implementation

of the new ASM2525 program will either meet or exceed the previously

calculated emission reductions expected from the current I/M test

types.

(3) Vehicle coverage. The SIP needs to include a detailed

description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the

program, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified,

including vehicles that are routinely operated in the area but may not

be registered in the area. Also, the SIP

[[Page 10512]]

needs to include a description of any special exemptions which will be

granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage and number of

subject vehicles which will be affected. Such exemptions need to be

accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In addition, the SIP

needs to include the legal authority or rule necessary to implement and

enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.

The State has not proposed any SIP revisions for these I/M

elements, other than to exempt all vehicles from testing in the

expanded Vancouver area (i.e., the new additional area included by the

expansion) if they are newer than four years old. The Washington

program continues to include coverage of all 1968 and newer model year

gasoline powered LDVs and light-duty and heavy-duty trucks registered

or required to be registered within the nonattainment areas, and fleets

primarily operated within an I/M program area. The starting model year

of a vehicle testing program may be changed each year to include the

most recent 24 model years. I/M testing exemptions are granted for

alternative fuel vehicles, electric vehicles, and motorcycles.

All subject fleets must complete the emission inspection process,

without a waiver option being available. Fleets may be inspected in

facilities other than the State's inspection stations, provided that

WDOE approves the alternative tests. Vehicles operated on federal

installations are required to be tested regardless of whether the

vehicles are registered in the State or local I/M area. Legal authority

for the vehicle coverage is contained in the Washington statutes and I/

M rule.

(4) Test procedures and standards. The SIP needs to include a

description of each test procedure used. The SIP also needs to include

the rule, ordinance, or law describing and establishing the test

procedures.

The existing Washington I/M SIP establishes test vehicle procedures

and standards that at a minimum are consistent with EPA regulations.

Test procedures and standards are specified in WAC 173-422-070. In

Washington, all 1968 and newer gasoline or diesel-fueled vehicles are

tested. Under the revised SIP, the State will test vehicles on a

steady-state dynamometer, or by a two-speed idle and 2500 RPM unloaded

test, or by ASM2525. Diesel vehicles will continue to be tested for

exhaust opacity only. Specified vehicles are tested using a transient

emissions test. In addition, starting in 1998, the State plans to

perform OBD checks of vehicles of model year 1996 or later.

(5) Test equipment. The SIP needs to include written technical

specifications for all test equipment used in the program and shall

address each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M

rule. The specifications need to describe the emission analysis

process, the necessary test equipment, the required features, and

written acceptance testing criteria and procedures.

The existing Washington I/M SIP describes the performance features

of computerized test systems, and exhaust gas analyzer specifications.

For transient emissions tests, EPA's ``High Tech I/M Test Procedures,

Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements and Equipment

Specifications'' Final Technical Guidance is followed. Regulations

covering ASM2525 specifications are included in WAC 173-422-070. EPA

understands that more detailed ASM2525, gas cap check, and OBD

operational and QA/QC equipment specifications and protocols will be

developed after the State has procured the test equipment.

(6) Quality control.

The SIP needs to include a description of quality control (QC) and

recordkeeping procedures. The SIP needs to include the procedures

manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the

procedures of QC.

The Washington I/M SIP continues to include a QC Plan that

specifies QC and periodic maintenance procedures. No changes have been

proposed, other than those new ASM2525 QC regulations contained in WAC

173-422-070. QC procedures for the existing program tests are specified

in WAC 173-422-120. The WDOE Emission Check staff perform inspections

to ensure that operation of the emission testing facilities,

calibration and maintenance of exhaust analyzers, test procedures, and

training of management and inspection personnel meet the standards

outlined in WAC 173-422.

F. Oregon Miscellaneous O3 Supporting Rules

EPA is proposing approval of the additions to OAR Chapter 340,

Divisions 22-0400 through -1130, 24-301, 30-0700 through -1190, and 31-

0500 through--0530.

The additions to Divisions 22, 24, 30 and 31 submitted to the EPA

on August 30, 1996, satisfy the requirements of section 110 of the CAA

and 40 CFR Part 51.

The EPA is also proposing approval of Oregon's request for

modification of Test Method 24 for Morton Traffic Markings' use of

methacrylate multicomponent coatings, as submitted on September 23,

1996. This request for modification was to assist in determining

compliance with Oregon OAR 340-22-1020.

1. Background

The ODEQ submitted to EPA additions to OAR, Divisions 22, 24, 30,

and 31 on August 30, 1996. The additions were State-effective on:

August 12, 1996, for Division 24; August 14, 1996, for Divisions 22 and

30; and August 19, 1996, for Division 31.

The additions contained supporting regulations to ODEQ's O3

maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Portland AQMA. The

submittals included Oregon's Stage II regulations (OAR 340-022-0400

through -0403), Area Source VOC regulations (OAR 340-022-0700-1130),

Motor Vehicle Inspection Boundary (OAR-340-024 0301), Industrial

Emissions Management program (OAR-340-030-0700 through -0740), Employee

Commute Options Program (OAR 340-030-0800 through -1040), Voluntary

Maximum Parking Ratios Program (OAR-340-030-1100 through -1190), and

Boundary Descriptions and Nonattainment and Maintenance Area

Designations (OAR 340-031-0500, -520, and -0530).

2. Discussion

Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations (OAR 340-22-0400 through -0403)

and Area Source VOC Regulations for General Gaseous Emissions (OAR 340-

22-0700 through -1130) were submitted for Federal approval for the

first time. These new rules included statements of purpose,

definitions, general provisions, applicability, compliance schedules,

standards and exemptions, requirements, inspection and testing

procedures, recordkeeping and reporting, and other exemptions for

gasoline vapors from gasoline transfer and dispensing operations, motor

vehicle refinishing, consumer products, spray paints, and architectural

coatings. The cited VOC emissions limits within these regulations are

at least as stringent as the Federal rules which have been promulgated

and approved. The EPA does not have emissions limits promulgated for

spray paints and only has proposed rules for architectural coatings and

consumer products.

Oregon also submitted a request for modification of Test Method 24

for Morton Traffic Markings' determination of VOC content for

methacrylate multicomponent coatings. Upon review of that modification,

EPA is proposing approval of the modification, with the condition added

that a limit be set at ten

[[Page 10513]]

percent for how much sample can be lost while breaking up the

compounds.

Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340-

024-0301) was submitted for Federal approval for the first time. This

new rule described the boundary designations for motor vehicle emission

control inspection, test criteria, methods and standards. These

boundary designations have been reviewed and are proposed for approval.

Industrial Emissions Management Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-

0700 through -0740); Employee Commute Options Program Regulations (OAR

340-030-0800 through -1040); and Voluntary Maximum Parking Ratios

Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-1100 through -1190) were submitted for

Federal approval for the first time. OAR 340-030-0700 through -0740

contained: statement of application, definition of terms, unused Plant

Site Emission Limit (PSEL) donation program, industrial growth

allowances, and industrial growth allowance allocation. These have been

reviewed and are proposed for approval. The TSD contains additional

discussion.

Definitions of Boundaries (OAR 340-031-0500), Nonattainment Area

(OAR 340-031-0520), and Maintenance Areas (OAR 340-031-0530) were

submitted for Federal approval for the first time. An identical copy of

these rules was also submitted as part of the CO redesignation request

for the Portland Metro area. The definitions of boundaries,

nonattainment areas, and maintenance areas listed in these rules have

been reviewed and are proposed for approval.

V. Proposed Action

EPA proposes to approve the Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver,

Washington, interstate O3 maintenance plan and request for

redesignation to attainment because ODEQ and WDOE have demonstrated

compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for

redesignation. EPA also proposes to approve the 1990 O3 Emission

Inventories, changes to the NSR programs, regulations implementing the

hybrid low enhanced I/M programs, an expanded vehicle inspection

boundary, minor RACT rule changes (Vancouver only), Employee Commute

Options rule (Portland only), voluntary parking ratio rule (Portland

only), PSEL management rules (Portland only), and local area source

supporting rules.

The regulations EPA proposes to approve for the Vancouver,

Washington, portion are found in the following: SWAPCA 400 ``General

Regulations for Air Pollution Sources''; SWAPCA 490 ``Emission

Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting Volatile Organic

Compounds''; SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources

Emitting Gasoline Vapors''; and SWAPCA 493, ``VOC Area Source Rules.''

The amendments to SWAPCA 400, 490, and 491 became effective on November

21, 1996. The amendments to SWAPCA 493 became effective on May 25,

1996. The Washington I/M SIP revision (WAC 173-422, sections -030, -

050, -060, -070, -170, and -190) was adopted by the State on November

9, 1996.

The regulations EPA proposes to approve for the Portland, Oregon,

portion are found in the following: Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations

(OAR 340-022-0400 through -340-022-0404); Area Source VOC Regulations

(OAR 340-022-0700 through -340-022 1130); Industrial Emissions

Management Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-0700 through -340-030-

0740); Employee Commute Options Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-0800

through -340-030-1040); Voluntary Maximum Parking Ratios Program

Regulations (OAR 340-030-1100 through -340-030-1190). The above five

amendments to the OAR became effective on August 14, 1996. The

following three amendments became effective on August 19, 1996:

Definitions of Boundaries (OAR 340-031-0500); Nonattainment Areas (OAR

340-031-0520); Maintenance Areas (OAR 340-031-0530). The amendment to

Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340-024-

0301) became effective August 12, 1996. The Oregon I/M revisions

(Section 3.1, OAR 340-24-300 through -340-24-355; and section 5.4) were

adopted by the State on November 14, 1996. Oregon NSR revisions were

submitted by ODEQ on or before January 22, 1997.

EPA is soliciting public comment on its proposed approval of

revisions to the Washington and Oregon SIPs and their request to

redesignate to attainment the Pdx/Van O3 area. Comments will be

considered before taking final action.

Interested parties are invited to comment on all aspects of this

proposed approval. Comments should be submitted to the address listed

in the front of this Notice. Public comments postmarked by April 7,

1997 will be considered in the final rulemaking action taken by EPA.

VI. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) Impact

On December 13, 1996, EPA published proposed revisions to the O3

and particulate matter (PM) NAAQS. Also on December 13, 1996, EPA

published its proposed policy regarding the interim implementation

requirements for O3 or PM during the time period following any

promulgation of a revised O3 or PM NAAQS (61 FR 65751). This IIP

includes proposed policy regarding O3 redesignation actions submitted

to and approved by EPA prior to promulgation of a new O3 standard, as

well as those submitted prior to and approved by EPA after the

promulgation date of a new or revised O3 standard.

Complete redesignation requests, submitted by States and processed

by EPA prior to the promulgation date of the new or revised O3

standard, will be approved based on the maintenance plan's ability to

demonstrate attainment of the current 1-hour standard and compliance

with existing redesignation criteria. Any redesignation requests

submitted prior to promulgation, which are not acted upon by EPA prior

to that promulgation date, must then also include a maintenance plan

which demonstrates attainment of both the current one-hour standard and

the new or revised O3 standard to be considered for redesignation.

As discussed previously, the Pdx/Van redesignation request

demonstrates attainment under the current one-hour O3 standard. Since

the EPA plans to approve this request prior to the promulgation date of

the new or revised O3 standard, the Pdx/Van redesignation request meets

the proposed IIP.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Review

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the EPA Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, EPA Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or

[[Page 10514]]

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA

may certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D, of the

CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The

CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. 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

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the 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 on by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: February 26, 1997.

Charles Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

[FR Doc. 97-5642 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P