[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8563-8565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3679]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR11-2-6854; FRL-5145-3]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action 
to approve a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) submitted 
by the State of Oregon for the purpose of bringing about the attainment 
of the national ambient air quality standards (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 La Grande, Oregon.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be effective on March 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and information supporting 
today's action are available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations: EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101, and the State of Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality, 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Montel Livingston, Air and Radiation 
Branch (AT-082), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 553-
0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Union County, La Grande, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), 
was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as moderate under 
sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), upon 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 19901 (see 56 
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR Sec. 81.338). The air quality 
planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are set 
out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Act.2 EPA has issued a 
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA 
intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted under Title I of 
the Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM-10 
nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 
16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)).

    \1\The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant 
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 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. sections 7401, et seq.
    \2\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Oregon was required to submit for the La Grande PM-10 
nonattainment area, among other things, the following provisions by 
November 15, 1991:
    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 December 10, 1993;
    2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the 
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by 
that date is impracticable;
    3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three 
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
    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).
    Additional provisions are due at a later date. States with initial 
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit 
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major 
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such 
States also were required to submit contingency measures by November 
15, 1993, which become effective without further action by the State or 
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve 
RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline 
(see section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544).
    To address the CAAA of 1990, Oregon submitted a PM-10 nonattainment 
area SIP for La Grande, Oregon, on November 15, 1991. EPA reviewed the 
November 15, 1991, SIP revision according to its interpretation of 
subpart 1 and 4 of Part D of Title I of the Act. EPA concluded from its 
review that the SIP met the applicable requirements of the Act and EPA, 
therefore, indicated that it was approving the plan to be effective on 
August 30, 1994, unless adverse or critical comments were received by 
August 1, 1994, (see 59 FR 33914, July 1, 1994).
    On July 1, 1994, EPA also published an accompanying proposed rule 
(see 59 FR 33941) explaining that if adverse comments were received on 
the prospective final rule approval of the La Grande PM-10 SIP, then 
the final rule would be withdrawn and all comments would be responded 
to in relation to the proposal. The notice also indicated that anyone 
wishing to comment should do so by August 1, 1994. [[Page 8564]] 
    EPA received an adverse comment on August 1, 1994, on its approval 
of the SIP. The effective date of the rule was withdrawn on September 
13, 1994, to allow time for EPA to review and respond to the comment. 
See 59 FR 46929. EPA has thoroughly considered the comment in 
determining the appropriate action on the La Grande PM-10 SIP. The 
response to the comment is presented in the ``Response to Comments'' 
section below.
    EPA is approving the La Grande PM-10 SIP as described in the July 
1, 1994, Federal Register Notice at 59 FR 33914 and its accompanying 
technical support document and proposed in the July 1, 1994, Federal 
Register Notice at 59 FR 33941.

II. Response To Comments

A. Source Apportionment

    The commenter questioned the validity of using Chemical Mass 
Balance (CMB) for source apportionment of the various smoke sources in 
the area. Commenter was concerned that CMB may not accurately 
distinguish between residential wood combustion, industrial emissions, 
field burning, and other open burning and therefore could lead to a 
control strategy that is not going to work properly. The Commenter did 
not provide specific evidence that the attainment demonstration is 
actually flawed, but rather raised as a concern the possibility that 
the source apportionment was inaccurate.
    EPA has broad discretion in determining what modeling is 
appropriate for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. The CAA only 
requires that an attainment demonstration include ``Air Quality 
Modeling'' and does not describe a particular analysis. CAA 
Sec. 181(B)(i). In contrast, CAA Sec. 182(c)(2)(A) specifies that 
attainment demonstrations for serious ozone nonattainment areas must be 
based on photochemical grid modeling or an alternate analytical model 
that EPA determines to be at least as effective. See also, Central 
Arizona Water Conservation Dist. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, (9th cir.), 
cert. denied 1114 Sup. Ct. 94, (1993).
    As indicated in the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13539, EPA has 
developed a supplemental attainment demonstration policy for initial 
PM-10 nonattainment areas such as La Grande, Oregon. An earlier April 
2, 1991, memorandum titled, ``PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final 
Staff Work Product'' contained ``Attachment 5'' describing the same 
policy. The policy sets out specific criteria for attainment 
demonstrations based on proportional rollback analysis and explains 
that such analysis may be appropriate in cases where ``time 
constraints, inadequate resources, inadequate data bases, lack of a 
model for some unique situations, and other unavoidable circumstances 
would leave an area unable to submit an attainment demonstration'' by 
November 15, 1991. The policy further explains that its application is 
reserved for those initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that have 
``completed the technical analysis * * * and made a good-faith effort 
to submit a final SIP by their November 15, 1991, due date.'' The CAA 
gave states containing initial moderate PM-10 areas only a limited 
time--1 year from designation--to develop comprehensive control 
strategies and attainment demonstrations. CAA 189(A)(2)(a).
    As discussed in the July 1, 1994, Federal Register and the 
technical support document for that notice, the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted an attainment demonstration 
based upon receptor modeling (Chemical Mass Balance version 7.0) and 
proportional emission inventory roll-back analysis. The results of the 
emission inventory and CMB analysis were consistent between themselves 
in identifying woodsmoke and soil dust as the major sources of PM-10 on 
exceedance days (e.g. local woodsmoke = 61 percent and 60 percent and 
soil dust = 38 percent and 32 percent for CMB and rollback methods, 
respectively). Control strategies for the area were developed based on 
this analysis. The CMB modeling was conducted according to EPA 
guidance. It was used in lieu of dispersion modeling because at the 
time the attainment plan was being developed, valid historical 
meteorological data was not available. It would not have been possible 
for the state to use dispersion modeling and still submit the SIP by 
November 15, 1991.
    Therefore, because ODEQ followed EPA guidance, used the approved 
EPA CMB model, and because the CMB results were verified by the 
emission inventory, EPA is satisfied that the source apportionment 
provided by ODEQ in the La Grande PM-10 SIP is adequate. EPA has also 
considered the fact that, since implementation of the control 
strategies in 1991, the area has not exceeded the PM-10 NAAQS. The last 
measured 24-hour PM-10 exceedance occurred on January 28, 1991, 
indicating that the selected measures, are likely to be sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS and protect public health.

B. Potential Impact From Point Source Located Outside Nonattainment

    The commenter questioned why the emissions from a large industrial 
source located ``within close proximity to the PM-10 nonattainment 
area'' was not accounted for in the SIP. The comment did not contain 
any specific data showing the sources' impact on the nonattainment area 
and did not provide any technical support for the general concern.
    The source in question is Boise Cascade's Island City facility. 
This major source is located approximately five kilometers northeast of 
the La Grande PM-10 monitor and three kilometers from the nonattainment 
area border. The Island City facility is about fifty-five feet lower in 
elevation and is down valley from the PM-10 monitor.
    It is the State's contention that the results from both the CMB 
modeling and wintertime PM-10 saturation surveys,3 indicate that 
this point source is not a significant contributor to the nonattainment 
problem. The CMB modeling, based on the analysis of 43 PM-10 samples 
(seven of which exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS), showed La Grande 
industrial source category emissions to be insignificant. The emission 
inventory showed industrial emissions to be less than five percent on a 
worst case day basis. Wintertime PM-10 saturation surveys conducted in 
1985, 1989, and 1990, do not indicate a significant impact from the 
source. For these reasons, EPA thinks the State's contention is 
reasonable and it is EPA's position that the implemented control 
measures will bring the area into attainment of the NAAQS by the 
December 31, 1994, attainment date. See 59 FR 33918 and its 
accompanying support documents for a description of the control 
measures. Also, as previously stated, the area has not exceeded the 
NAAQS since 1991, indicating that the implemented control measures are 
sufficient to attain the NAAQS.

    \3\Short term intensive ambient monitoring studies in which 
portable PM-10 samplers are distributed throughout a small 
geographical study area to better characterize PM-10 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further address the adequacy of the attainment demonstration and 
the point source issue, EPA reviewed the effectiveness of the control 
measures. Because the control strategies are achieving greater emission 
reductions than anticipated and accounted for in the SIP, EPA's 
analysis indicates that even if the Island City facility had a 
significant impact on the nonattainment area or influenced the 
background concentration, the area will still attain [[Page 8565]] the 
24-hour NAAQS. Information supporting this analysis is contained in the 
docket supporting this notice.

C. Open Burning, Field and Forestry Slash Burning

    Finally, the commenter expressed concern ``about when open burning 
is allowed and that field and forestry slash burning be allowed to 
increase without good monitoring.'' Again the comment was only a 
general concern and did not provide any specific information to support 
it.
    As discussed in the July 1, 1994, Federal Register, 59 FR 33914 and 
further explained in its technical support document, open, field and 
forestry slash burning activities either do not occur, are adequately 
controlled or are not allowed during the time period when exceedances 
of the 24-hour NAAQS typically occur.

IV. Significance of Today's Action

    EPA is approving this plan revision submitted to EPA for the La 
Grande nonattainment area. Among other things, ODEQ has demonstrated 
that the La Grande moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the 
PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Note that this action includes 
approval of the contingency measures for the La Grande nonattainment 
area which take effect without further action by the State or EPA, upon 
a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make reasonable 
further progress (RFP) or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable 
statutory deadline.

V. Administrative Review

    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 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. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined 
that this action conforms with those requirements.
    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.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from 
E.O. 12866 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 April 17, 1995. 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), 42 U.S.C. 
7607(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 was approved by the Director of the Office of 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: January 17, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
    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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart MM--Oregon

    2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (107) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (107) On November 15, 1991, the ODEQ submitted a PM-10 
nonattainment area SIP for La Grande, Oregon.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) November 15, 1991 letter from ODEQ to EPA Region 10 submitting 
the PM-10 nonattainment area SIP for La Grande, Oregon.
    (B) PM-10 Control Strategy for Particulate Matter, October 1991, La 
Grande, Oregon Nonattainment Area, as adopted by the Environmental 
Quality Commission on November 8, 1991.

[FR Doc. 95-3679 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P