Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Oregon

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR-61-7276; FRL-6307-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves the State

implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for

the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the national ambient

air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The

implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy certain

Federal requirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment area PM-

10 SIP for the Oakridge, Oregon, PM-10 nonattainment area. The

rationale for the approval is set out both in this action and in

supporting technical information which is available at the address

indicated. The final action to approve this plan would have the effect

of making requirements adopted by the State of Oregon, federally

enforceable by EPA.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 14, 1999, without

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 14, 1999.

If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

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

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

Seattle, Washington 98101. Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-

1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Region 10 Office of

Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,

(206) 553-6510.

[[Page 12752]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The area within the Oakridge, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)

was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as moderate under

section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),1 on December

21, 1993. See 57 FR 43846 (September 22, 1992), 58 FR 67334 (December

21, 1993) and 40 CFR 81.338. The Oakridge designation became effective

on January 20, 1994. The air quality planning requirements for moderate

PM-10 nonattainment areas 2 are set out in Subparts 1 and 4

of Title I of the Act.3 EPA has issued a ``General

Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to

review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title I of the Act,

including those State submittals containing PM-10 nonattainment area

SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations

here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title

I advanced in this document and the supporting rationale. In this

rulemaking action for the PM-10 SIP for the Oakridge nonattainment

area, EPA's action is consistent with its interpretations, discussed in

the General Preamble, and takes into consideration the specific factual

issues presented in the SIP. Additional information supporting EPA's

action on this particular area is available for inspection at the

address as indicated above.

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

\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant

changes to the Act. See Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. References

herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the Act''). The Clean

Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401,

et seq.

\2\ The requirements which are the subject of this document

arise under the pre-existing PM NAAQS. EPA promulgated a new PM

NAAQS on July 18, 1997, which became effective on September 16,

1997.

\3\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment

areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically

applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and

Subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the

relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,

as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.

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

A State containing a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area designated

after the 1990 Amendments is required to submit, among other things,

the following provisions within 18 months of the effective date of the

designation (i.e., these provisions were due for the Oakridge area by

July 20, 1995):

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures

(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in

the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of

reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no

later than four years after designation (i.e., January 20, 1998);

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the

plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the effective date

of designation (i.e., December 31, 2000), or a demonstration that

attainment by that date is impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which demonstrate reasonable further

progress (RFP) toward the attainment date (i.e., December 31, 2000 for

Oakridge). Since the SIP for a new nonattainment area is due 18 months

after the area is designated as nonattainment, the first 3-year

milestone is to be achieved 4\1/2\ years after nonattainment

designation (i.e., July 20, 1998 for Oakridge) and the second milestone

must be achieved three years after the first milestone or 7\1/2\ years

after nonattainment designation (i.e., July 20, 2001);

4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary

sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines

that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which

exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the

Act; and

5. Contingency measures which consist of other available measures

that are not part of the area's control strategy. These measures must

take effect without further action by the State or EPA, upon EPA's

determination that the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM-10

NAAQS by the applicable deadline. See section 172(c)(9) of the Act.

II. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's

review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). The State of Oregon

submitted the Oakridge PM-10 SIP on December 9, 1996. The Oakridge

moderate area attainment plan includes, among other things, technical

analyses, control measures to satisfy the RACM requirement, and a

demonstration (including air quality modeling) that attainment and

maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS will be achieved by the required dates.

In this final rulemaking, EPA announces its approval of those elements

of the Oakridge PM-10 SIP which were due on July 20, 1995, and

submitted on December 9, 1996.

In addition, EPA has determined that major sources of precursors of

PM-10 do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the

NAAQS in Oakridge.4

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

\4\ The consequences of this finding are to exclude these

sources from the applicability of PM-10 nonattainment area control

requirements. Note that EPA's finding is based on the current

character of the area including, for example, the existing mix of

sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth

could change the significance of precursors in the area.

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

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements

in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to

EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation

plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and

public hearing.5 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly

provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable

notice and public hearing.

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

\5\ Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of

Section 110(a)(2).

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

EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)

and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are

set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt

of the submission.

The State of Oregon and the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority

(LRAPA) held a concurrent public hearing on the Oakridge attainment

plan on July 18, 1996. As a result of the hearing, the plan was adopted

by the LRAPA Board of Directors on August 13, 1996. The plan was

subsequently adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

(OEQC) on October 11, 1996, and became state effective November 4,

1996.

2. Accurate Emission Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. The emission

[[Page 12753]]

inventory also should include a comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of allowable emissions in the area. See section 110(a)(2)(K).

Because the submission of such inventories is a necessary adjunct to an

area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot

practicably attain), the emission inventories must be received with the

submission (see 57 FR 13539).

The base year for analysis was 1991. This year was chosen because

the highest observed ambient PM-10 concentration occurred in 1991.

There were nine exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS with a high of 187

g/m3. In addition to the base year inventory (1991), an

interim year inventory (1997), a design year inventory (2000 attainment

year), and a maintenance demonstration year inventory (2003) was

developed.

The 1991 inventory identified that, on a 24-hour, worst case day,

the major sources of PM-10 emissions are residential wood combustion

(76.3%), paved roads (12.6%), unpaved roads (7.6%), winter road sanding

(0.9%), transportation (1.9%), industrial point source (0.6%) and other

(.3%) with total PM-10 emissions equaling 983.1 pounds per day.

After implementation of all control measures, LRAPA estimates that

the 24-hour 2000 attainment year inventory will be as follows:

residential wood combustion (72%), paved roads-including sanding (21%),

unpaved roads (3.0%), transportation (3.0%), industrial point source

(.01%), and other (less than .01%) with total PM-10 emissions equaling

655.1 pounds per day.

The emission inventory was originally reviewed and commented on by

EPA in 1995 while in draft form. The issues raised by EPA during that

time were resolved before the December 9, 1996, submittal.

EPA is approving the emission inventory because it is accurate and

comprehensive, and provides a sufficient basis for determining the

adequacy of the attainment demonstration for this area consistent with

the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the

Act.6

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

\6\ EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior to

the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the

1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this

document appears to be consistent with the revised Act.

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

The December 9, 1996, submittal also establishes an emission budget

for the Oakridge nonattainment area, which is to be used for Federal

conformity purposes. The PM-10 mobile source emission budget for 2000

is 175 pounds per day and for 2003 is 178.8 pounds per day.

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, the moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas, designated after

the 1990 Amendments, must submit provisions to assure that RACM

(including RACT ) are implemented no later than January 20, 1998 (see

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)) of the Clean Air Act. The General

Preamble contains a detailed discussion of EPA's interpretation of the

RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-

13561). In broad terms, the State should identify available control

measures and evaluate them for their reasonableness in light of the

feasibility of the controls and the attainment needs of the area. See

57 FR 13540-13544. A State may reject an available control measure if

the measure is technologically infeasible or the cost of the control is

unreasonable. In addition, RACM does not require controls on emissions

from sources that are insignificant (i.e., de minimis) and does not

require the implementation of all available control measures where an

area demonstrates timely attainment and the implementation of

additional controls would not expedite attainment. Thus, RACT does not

require additional controls for the stationary sources in the Oakridge

nonattainment area because point source emissions in the area are de

minimis and additional control of such sources would not expedite

attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.

Based on the control measures adopted (described below), the SIP

demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2000. The

SIP also demonstrates continued maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS between

December 2000 and December 2003. Accordingly, the attainment

demonstration does not include additional industrial controls beyond

those currently required by the Oregon SIP. The Plan's attainment

demonstration, contingency measures, and RFP are discussed in more

detail later in this document.

Because the area has not violated the annual standard, LRAPA did

not specifically develop or implement control measures designed to

reduce annual emissions. However, reductions achieved on an annual

basis as a result of the control measures designed to reduce 24-hour

emissions, will assist in keeping the area in attainment with the

annual NAAQS.

Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard is based on the following:

(1) woodstove replacement program, (2) voluntary wood burning

curtailment program, (3) reduction in winter road sanding, and (4) road

paving.

Summary--Attainment Strategies

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

Credit Emission

----------------------------------------- requested reductions

(percent) #per day

Control Measures--2000 -------------------------------

24-Hour 24-Hour

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

Woodstove Removal....................... 12 86

Voluntary Curtailment Program........... 25 157

Winter Road Sanding..................... 75 7

Unpaved Roads........................... 75 56

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

Total Reductions.................... .............. 306

Reductions Needed by 12/31/00....... .............. 294

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

Excess Reductions................... .............. 12

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

[[Page 12754]]

A. Woodstove Replacement Program

Oakridge's woodstove replacement program started in 1993 with

funding from EPA, ODEQ, and LRAPA. The program was structured to

provide up to $2,500 per low or moderate income households for

installation of approved alternative heat sources, either as no

interest loans or grants.

LRAPA estimates that on a worse-case day basis, 86 pounds per day

of PM-10 will be removed from the airshed. These reductions were

calculated based on the number of woodstoves replaced, and what type of

heating system replaced them. As of July 1996, a total of 130

uncertified woodstoves had been replaced resulting in an estimated 12%

reduction in emissions.

Of the first 115 uncertified stoves that were replaced, 42% opted

for pellet stoves, 40% opted for EPA certified stoves, 11% opted for

heat pumps or electric furnaces, 3% opted for propane gas furnaces, and

3% opted for oil furnaces.

Accordingly, EPA accepts LRAPA's 12% credit on a 24-hour basis and

believes the woodstove removal program meets the RACM requirement.

B. Voluntary Woodstove Curtailment Program

A voluntary wood burning advisory program has provided daily wood

burning advisories during the wood burning season in Oakridge since

1989. The program is operated by LRAPA, in cooperation with the City of

Oakridge and local news media and utilizes a ``red-yellow-green''

system. In 1993, the public education component of the program was

enhanced in an effort to keep the program a voluntary one.

Daily wood heating advisories are disseminated by LRAPA via local

television and radio stations, an advisory information telephone line,

and are published each day in the regional newspaper throughout

November and February each winter season. LRAPA also maintains an

advisory phone line. During the 1996/1997 season, over 480 60-second

spots were aired on area radio stations between December 1 and January

31. These announcements covered topics such as clean burning, using

seasoned wood, and the health affects of wood smoke.

In addition, LRAPA contracted with an Oakridge resident to carry

out public education strategies such as, but not limited to, (1)

manning a booth at Oakridge's Health Fair, (2) conducting door-to-door

visitation to homes with smokey chimneys and, (3) conducting drive-by

surveys during green, yellow and red days. A ``tarp giveaway'' campaign

was also implemented. In exchange for participating in a short survey,

residents were given tarps to cover their wood to keep it dry.

Woodburning curtailment advisories are made daily during the

woodheating season (November 1 through February 28). The advisory is

based on measured air quality, expressed as the standard Air Pollution

Index (API) and forecast meteorological conditions. A forecast of

either ``green'', ``yellow'', or ``red'' is determined and provided to

radio stations between 12:00 and 4:00 p.m. and to the city for

inclusion on a cable access station by 4:00 p.m. A green advisory is

issued when NAAQS exceedances are unlikely and the API is less than 63.

A yellow advisory is made when the API is greater than 63 but less than

75 and the forecast is for marginal smokie dispersion conditions. Under

this advisory, residents are advised to burn wood sparingly, and only

if alternatives are unavailable. A red advisory is make when the API is

greater than 75, and the forecast is for marginal or poor smoke

dispersion conditions. Under a red advisory, residents are requested

not to burn wood unless they do not have an alternative heat source.

The Oakridge curtailment program includes a surveillance and

tracking element. LRAPA's contractor conducts drive-by compliance

surveys on green, yellow, and red days using established survey routes.

But, since the program in voluntary and not mandatory, enforcement

action is not taken against residents who do not comply with the

advisories. However, in-home field visits are conducted when the

contractor observes activities such as dense smoke being emitted from a

chimney. The purpose of these visits is to educate the home owner in

the proper use of a woodstove, (e.g. using clean, dry wood etc.).

Considering the above program elements, length of time the program

has been in place (since 1989 with an enhanced program enacted in

1995), LRAPA's belief that the public is ``acceptive'' of the program

demonstrated by home owner's response to a tarp give-away and in-home

visits, EPA believes that the 25% credit on a 24-hour basis is

achievable and is being achieved. EPA, therefore, accepts the credit

claimed and has determined that the voluntary curtailment program is

sufficient to meet RACM.

C. Winter Road Sanding

The second largest source of PM-10 emissions in the Oakridge

nonattainment area is paved road dust of which winter road sanding is a

contributor. Winter road sanding emissions peak during periods when

temperatures drop below freezing and U.S. Highway 58 is icy or snowy.

During these periods, the Highway Division of the Oregon Department of

Transportation (the Highway Department) applies grit to aid traction

along the heavily traveled 1.9 miles of U.S. Highway 58 that traverses

the length of the nonattainment area. LRAPA estimated that on a worst

case day in the 1991 base year, PM-10 emissions from the sanding

practices accounted for 8.6 pounds.

The strategy developed to reduce road sanding emissions is for the

Highway Department to use a chemical de-icing compound, calcium

magnesium acetate (CMA) on Highway 58 instead of grit. The material is

to be applied either in pellet form or dissolved in water. It

effectively inhibits ice formation down to temperatures normally

encountered in Oakridge and eventually is washed off the roadway

without residual particulate. The use of CMA has been specified for use

in Oakridge since 1995. The Highway Department is committed to using

the anti-icing chemicals within the City of Oakridge into the future.

EPA accepts the above strategy as being RACM and grants the 75%

emission reduction credit.

D. Road Paving

Prior to the 1991 base year, there were approximately 2.4 miles of

unpaved roads within the nonattainment area. LRAPA estimated that

emissions from unpaved roads accounted for 10.6 tons per year (74

pounds per day). Due to an ongoing paving program, between 1991 and

1995, virtually all of Oakridge's unpaved roads and numerous unpaved

commercial driveways and parking lots have been paved.

LRAPA requests an estimated 75% net emission reduction credit from

this strategy. Converting an unpaved road to a paved road will not

reduce emission on a roadway 100%. This is because in time, materials

from other activities such as track out, will become deposited on the

recently paved surfaces resulting in an increase in paved road

emissions. However, any resulting emissions are insignificant compared

to the reduction in unpaved road emissions.

EPA accepts LRAPA's 75% net reduction credit as being conservative

and approves this measure as being RACM.

RACM does not require additional controls on other area sources

since the plan demonstrates attainment of the NAAQS and implementation

of

[[Page 12755]]

additional controls would not further expedite attainment. However, the

State of Oregon through their smoke management plan, has established a

special protection zone (SPZ) around the nonattainment area. Prescribed

burning in the SPZ is allowed only when the smoke management

meteorologist believes there will be no measurable smoke impacts within

the PM-10 nonattainment area. The SPZ encompasses the area within a

twenty mile radius of the nonattainment area. Other burning

restrictions apply on ``red'' advisory days. See Appendix VII of the

Oakridge attainment plan for further details. LRAPA does not request

credit for this measure but a revision to Oregon's Smoke Management

Plan establishing the SPZ around Oakridge, is pending before EPA.

EPA has reviewed LRAPA's submittal and associated documentation and

concluded that they adequately justify the control measures to be

implemented. Implementation of the Oakridge PM-10 attainment plan

control strategy will result in the attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable and no later than December 31, 2000. In

addition, EPA believes it is reasonable and adequate to assume that

protection of the 24-hour standard will be sufficient to protect the

annual standard as well. By this document, EPA is approving LRAPA's

control strategy as satisfying the RACM (including RACT) requirement.

4. Demonstration

As noted, moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas designated subsequent

to enactment of the 1990 Amendments must submit a demonstration

(including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for

attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end

of the sixth calendar year after an area's designation to attainment

(see section 188(c)(1) of the Act). In the case of Oakridge, this

attainment deadline is December 31, 2000, or the State must show that

attainment by December 31, 2000, is impracticable.

The attainment demonstration presented in the December 9, 1996,

submittal indicates that the PM-10 NAAQS will be attained by 2000 in

the Oakridge area. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic

meter (g/m3 ), and the standard is attained when

the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average

concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or less

than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50 g/

m3, and the standard is attained when the expected annual

arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 g/

m3 (id.).

Generally, EPA recommends that attainment be demonstrated according

to the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987), which presents

three methods. Federal regulations require demonstration of attainment

``by means of a proportional model or dispersion model or other

procedure which is shown to be adequate and appropriate for such

purposes'' (40 CFR 51.112). The preferred method is the use of both

dispersion and receptor modeling in combination. The regulation and the

guideline also allows the use of dispersion modeling alone, or the use

of two receptor models in combination with proportional rollback.

In addition, EPA has developed a supplemental attainment

demonstration policy for airsheds where receptor modeling, coupled with

proportional (rollback) modeling, is adequate to identify source

contributions and demonstrate attainment.7 The policy states

that:

\7\ July 5, 1990, memorandum entitled PM-10 SIP Demonstrations

for Small Isolated Areas With Spatially Uniform Emissions, from

Robert D Bauman, Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-

14) and Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch

(MD-14) to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X.

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

It is appropriate in certain situations to rely on a receptor

mode (RM) demonstration (i.e., use of receptor modeling, emission

inventories, design value obtained by air quality monitoring, and

proportional modeling) as the basis for a control strategy

demonstration.

It is EPA's Regional Offices' responsibility to decide whether or

not that a receptor modeling demonstration is adequate to demonstrate

attainment. In making its' decision, EPA must consider the following:

(1) the spatial representativeness of the monitoring network and the

spacial uniformity of emissions, (2) the temporal representativeness of

the monitoring network, and (3) the impact of only a few, relatively

well characterized source categories.

During development of the Oakridge moderate area PM-10 attainment

plan, LRAPA did not use dispersion modeling to estimate the design

values or in the attainment and maintenance demonstrations. Instead,

LRAPA conducted an attainment demonstration based upon receptor

modeling-proportional roll-back calculations to estimate the emission

reductions required in 2000 to achieve the NAAQS. EPA reviewed LRAPA's

demonstration in accordance with the above criteria and has determined

the demonstration approach to be acceptable. See the technical support

document for this action for more details.

LRAPA conducted PM-10 saturation studies in 1991 and 1994 to

evaluate the location of the monitoring site near the Willamette

Activities Center (WAC). These studies, in general, showed that

although the WAC site was located near the area of highest

concentrations, three other areas measured higher concentrations during

the saturation studies. The site which measured the highest values is

referred to as the Cline Street site. It was located in a neighborhood

area west and a little south of the WAC site. Concentrations measured

at the Cline Street site were about 20% higher than those measured at

the WAC site. Even though the relationship between the WAC and Cline

Street values is not linear, the 20% relationship does occur at the

higher concentrations of interest. To account for this difference, the

attainment year design value was adjusted upward.

LRAPA utilized EPA's ``table look-up'' method to estimate the 1991

baseline design concentration. This method allows the use of the fourth

highest actual base year measured value to be used. The fourth highest

measured concentration at the WAC site for the calendar years 1991,

1992, and 1993 was 178 g/m\3\. To account for the difference

between the WAC site and the levels measured during the saturation

studies at the Cline Street site, the table look-up value was increased

by 20%. This resulted in an adjusted base year design value of 214

g/m\3\. (178 x 1.2 = 213.6).

Based on the above design values, LRAPA estimates that year 2000

worst case day emissions must be reduced by 30.6%, which equals 294.1

pounds per day. The previously discussed control measures are designed

to reduce projected 2000 worst case day emissions by 306 pounds per day

(11.9 pounds per day beyond the amount needed for attainment).

According to the principle of proportional roll-back modeling, a

reduction of 294.1 pounds from Oakridge's PM-10 emission sources will

result in a year 2000 worst case day ambient concentration of 119.7

g/m\3\ at the WAC site, and 147.3 g/m\3\ at the Cline

Street site. See the technical support document for this action for

more details.

EPA is approving the attainment demonstration. It is EPA's opinion

that the appropriate air quality model was used and all significant

emission sources and impacts were considered. The attainment plan

demonstrates that the area will attain the 24-hour PM-10

[[Page 12756]]

NAAQS by December 31, 2000. And, the annual standard which has never

been exceeded, will continue to be maintained. EPA has also considered

the fact that the area has not experienced an exceedance of the 24-hour

NAAQS in the last five years (1993 through 1998).

5. PM-10 Precursors

The control requirements that are applicable to major stationary

sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10

precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in that area (see

section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance

addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e) (57 FR 13539-

13542).

LRAPA's technical analysis of potential candidate control measures

indicated that emissions from industrial point sources were

insignificant--approximately 5.5 pounds per day equaling 0.6%

contribution on a 24-hour worst case day basis. Also, historical

violations of the 24-hour standard have occurred during periods of

extensive poor ventilation (stagnation conditions) and cold

temperatures.

Therefore, EPA believes that sources of PM-10 precursors do not

contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS and

hereby grants the exclusion from control requirements authorized under

section 189(e) for major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors.

Note that, while EPA is making a general finding for the Oakridge

area about precursor contribution to PM-10 NAAQS exceedances, this

finding is based on the current character of the area including, for

example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It is possible,

therefore, that future growth could change the significance of

precursors in the area.

6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress

The PM-10 nonattainment area plans demonstrating attainment must

contain quantitative emission reduction milestones which are to be

achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment

and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP), as defined in

section 171(1) of the Act, toward timely attainment. While section

189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones are to be achieved

until an area is redesignated attainment, it is silent in indicating

the starting point for counting the first three-year period or how many

milestones must be initially addressed. In the General Preamble, EPA

addressed this statutory gap indicating that the starting point would

begin from the due date for the applicable implementation plan revision

containing the control measures for the area (i.e., November 15, 1991

for initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas) and that at least two

milestones must be initially addressed. See 57 FR 13539.

States containing moderate nonattainment areas designated

subsequent to enactment of the 1990 Amendments are expected to

initially submit two milestones. States are required to submit SIP's

for these areas 18 months after their redesignation as nonattainment.

The attainment date for new PM-10 nonattainment areas is ``as

expeditiously as practicable'' but no later than the end of the sixth

calendar year after the effective date of an area's designation as

nonattainment. Oakridge was designated as nonattainment effective on

January 24, 1994, therefore the attainment date for Oakridge is

December 31, 2000.

Because the SIP revision, including the quantitative milestones

element, for a new nonattainment area is due 18 months after the area

is designated as nonattainment, the first 3-year milestone is to be

achieved 4 \1/2\ years after the nonattainment redesignation. Since

Oakridge's redesignation became effective on January 20, 1994, the

first 3-year milestone must be achieved by July 20, 1998 (i.e., 1\1/2\

years prior to the attainment deadline). The second quantitative

milestone must be achieved three years after the first milestone or

7\1/2\ years after the nonattainment designation. For Oakridge, the

second quantitative milestone must be achieved by July 20, 2001. The

second quantitative milestone should provide for continued emission

reduction progress toward attainment and should provide for continued

maintenance of the NAAQS after the attainment date for the

area.8

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

\8\ Section 189(c) of the Act provides that quantitative

milestones are to be achieved ``until the area is redesignated

attainment''. However, this endpoint for quantitative milestones is

speculative because redesignation of an area as attainment is

contingent upon several factors and future events. Therefore, EPA

believes it is reasonable for States to initially address at least

the first two milestones. Addressing two milestones will ensure that

the State continues to maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date

for at least some period during which an area could be redesignated

attainment. However, in all instances, additional milestones must be

addressed if an area is not redesignated attainment.

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

This SIP demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31,

2000, and maintenance of the NAAQS through the year 2003, satisfying

two milestones. In addition, all controls measures were implemented by

August 1996. Therefore, EPA is approving the submittal as meeting the

quantitative milestone requirement currently due. Finally, once a

milestone date has passed, the State will have to demonstrate that the

milestone was, in fact, achieved for the Oakridge area as provided in

Section 189(c)(2) of the Act.

7. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by

the LRAPA, ODEQ and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) of the

Act and 57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum

(with attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan

provisions also must contain a program to provide for enforcement of

control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act).

The particular control measures contained in the SIP were addressed

above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT)''. These control

measures apply to each of the identified major sources of PM-10

emissions in the Oakridge area, including woodstoves and road dust. The

SIP provides that the control measures apply throughout the entire

nonattainment area. EPA has carefully reviewed the control measures for

each of the major PM-10 sources and determined that the proposed SIP as

a whole, provides for adequate control of these sources.

During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory

authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of

point source permit limitations. Even though this SIP revision does not

contain additional point source controls to attain the standard,

existing and federally approved point source emission limitations are

relied upon to maintain and demonstrate attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS

in the Oakridge area.

EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision

required by ORS 468.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being

imposed for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the

adequate enforcement authority that a state must demonstrate to obtain

SIP approval, as specified in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40

CFR 51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would

preclude federal approval of a PM-10 nonattainment area SIP revision.

[[Page 12757]]

EPA notified Oregon of the deficiency. To correct the problem the

Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126

on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph 468.126(2)(e)

which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS

468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify a

state program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to

EPA's understanding of the application of 468.126(2)(e) and agreed

that, if federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-

day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for

violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.

Another enforcement issue is Oregon's audit privilege and immunity

law. Nothing in this action should be construed as making any

determination or expressing any position regarding Oregon's Audit

Privilege Act, ORS 468.963 enacted in 1993, or its impact upon any

approved provision in the SIP, including the revision at issue here.

The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the

question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other

Clean Air Act Program resulting from the effect of Oregon's audit

privilege and immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law

can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal

enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under

the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211

or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,

independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen

enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise

unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.

In regard to a separate enforceability issue, the following is a

summary of the state, city, and interagency commitments which EPA is

approving as part of the SIP.

A. Voluntary Woodstove Curtailment Program. This program was

adopted by LRAPA on July 18, 1996, and the State of Oregon on October

11, 1996. Details of the program are discussed in the TSD to this

action and the SIP revision.

B. Winter Road Sanding Program, Oregon Department of Transportation

Highway Division Commitment. Sanding and maintenance of U.S. Highway 58

through Oakridge is the responsibility of the Oregon Department of

Transportation, Highway Division, Region 3. Since 1995, a chemical de-

icing compound has been specified for use in Oakridge. The Highway

Department is committed to and intends on using anti-icing chemicals

within the City of Oakridge into the future.

The Governor of Oregon designated the Lane Regional Air Pollution

Authority as lead organization for implementing, maintaining, and

enforcing PM-10 control strategies in Lane County. The TSD contains a

discussion of the personnel and funding intended to support effective

implementation of the control strategy. Thus, EPA has determined that

the control measures contained in the SIP revision for Oakridge are

sufficient and the LRAPA has adequate enforcement capabilities to

ensure compliance with those control measures.

8. Contingency Measures

The Clean Air Act requires each state containing PM-10

nonattainment areas to adopt contingency measures for such areas that

will take effect without further action by the state or EPA's

Administrator upon a determination by EPA that an area has failed to

make reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the standards, as

described in Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. Pursuant to Section 172(b),

the Administrator has determined that Oakridge shall include

contingency measures with their Attainment Plan no later than July 20,

1995 (see 57 FR 13510-13512, 13543-13544, and 58 FR 67344-67341). EPA

guidance recommends that the emission reductions expected from

implementation of the contingency measures equal twenty-five percent of

the total reduction in actual emissions in the plan's control strategy

(57 FR 13544). However, the CAA does not specify how many contingency

measures are needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must

be provided by these measures (57 FR 13511). EPA believes that,

consistent with the statutory scheme, contingency measures must at a

minimum provide for continued progress toward the attainment goal in

the interim period after an area fails to attain and while additional

measures required as a result of being reclassified to serious are

being adopted (57 FR 13511).

On August 15, 1996, the Oakridge City Council passed Ordinance No.

815. This ordinance granted the city the authority to implement a

mandatory woodstove curtailment program. A mandatory program would be

implemented if the city's voluntary program did achieve the necessary

emission reductions needed to satisfy the attainment plan's first

milestone, or if the area did not attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the

December 31, 2000 attainment.

EPA is approving the contingency measure for the Oakridge

nonattainment area. The authority to implement the above measures will

go into effect upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to

attain, or prior to the attainment date, if milestones for the area are

not being met.

III. Implications of This Action

EPA is approving the December 9, 1996, PM-10 attainment plan for

the Oakridge nonattainment area. Among other things, LRAPA has

demonstrated that the Oakridge moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will

attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2000. Note that EPA's action

includes approval of the contingency measure for the Oakridge

nonattainment area.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 14, 1999,

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

April 14, 1999.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public

is advised that this rule will be effective on May 14, 1999, and no

further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

[[Page 12758]]

EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the

extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected

State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,

copies of any written communications from the governments, and a

statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process

permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local

and tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded

mandates.

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the

extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected

tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,

E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal

governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect

their communities.

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 14, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for

the State of Oregon

[[Page 12759]]

was approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register on

July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 20, 1999.

Chuck Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart MM--Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(127) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(127) December 9, 1996, letter from the Director, Oregon Department

of Environmental Quality, to the Region 10 Regional Administrator, EPA,

submitting the Attainment Plan for the Oakridge, Oregon PM-10

nonattainment area as a revision to its SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Oakridge, dated August

1996, and Appendices XII, XIII and XIV.

(ii) Additional Material: Appendix I through VI and VIII through XI

of the State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Oakridge dated August

1996.

[FR Doc. 99-6259 Filed 3-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P