[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28531-28541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14120]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR-14-1-5535; FRL-5514-3]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposed approval of a 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 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 the Klamath Falls, Oregon, PM-10 nonattainment area.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before July 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston, 
SIP Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, Docket #OR-14-1-
5535, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101.
    Copies of the State's request 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 the Oregon Department 
of Environmental Quality, 811 SW., Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 
97204-1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air 
Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206) 
553-6510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

A. 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

    The area within the Klamath Falls, 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 
1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 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 SIPs 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)). 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 proposed approval and 
the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action for the PM-10 SIP 
for the Klamath Falls nonattainment area, EPA's proposed 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 indicated 
above. EPA will consider any comments received by the date indicated 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 may 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas 
(those areas designated nonattainment under Section 107(d)(4)(B)) were 
required to submit, 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 3 years 
and which demonstrate Reasonable Further

[[Page 28532]]

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.
    States with initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were 
required to: 1) 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)); and 2) submit contingency measures by 
November 15, 1993, which were to 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). Oregon has made submittals in response to both of the above 
described requirements. EPA intends to address that submittal 
containing the new source review permit program in a separate action.

B. Plan Development

    The Klamath Falls Attainment Plan was developed by the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in consultation with 
officials of the City and County of Klamath Falls, the Oregon 
Department of Transportation, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and 
EPA.
    The original Attainment Plan was developed under the CAA prior to 
the amendments of 1990 and adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality 
Commission (OEQC) on January 31, 1991. To address the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments, the Plan was initially revised and adopted by the OEQC 
on November 8, 1991. This version of the Plan was submitted to EPA on 
November 15, 1991. The Plan was revised again and adopted by the OEQC 
on August 18, 1995, and submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995. 
Therefore, the 1991 and 1995 submittals constitute the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment 
area. This action will address the 1991 and 1995 submittals.
    The 1991 Plan was revised for four main reasons. The first was to 
update the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) estimates and emission 
inventory. The Oregon Department of Transportation has provided ODEQ 
with more accurate information to determine the Plan's base year and 
attainment year transportation emissions. These emissions are referred 
to as the area's transportation emission budget.
    The second reason was to account for additional emission reductions 
due to the area's woodstove replacement program that were not accounted 
for in the 1991 Plan. The 1991 Plan estimated that 325 woodstoves would 
be replaced when, in reality, 743 stoves were replaced.
    The third reason was to analyze what effect an increase in an 
allowable emission limit has had on the Plan's attainment 
demonstration. Since the Plan was first developed in 1991, the state 
has revised Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 25, 
Sections 305, 320, and 325, resulting in an increase in the allowable 
emission limit for a Jeld-Wen hardboard plant located in the 
nonattainment area. Because attainment of the NAAQS is determined based 
on, among other things, allowable point source emissions, the State 
needed to review the Plan's attainment demonstration to show that the 
increase in allowable emissions would not jeopardize attainment of the 
NAAQS.
    In fact, the 1991 Plan already accounted for the revised limit. 
During development of the 1991 attainment plan, ODEQ was aware that the 
hardboard rule emission limit would be revised in the future. In 
anticipation of the Division 25 revision (1995), ODEQ estimated that 
Jeld-Wen's allowable emissions would increase by 129 pounds per day, up 
to a maximum of 24 tons per year. Therefore, ODEQ allocated these extra 
emissions to Jeld-Wen's inventoried emissions and used these 
``adjusted'' emissions in the Plan's 1994 attainment demonstration. 
When the hardboard rule was finalized (1995), the plant's emissions did 
not increase by the estimated 24 tons per year. Instead, the revised 
emission limit resulted in an allowable increase of only 13.1 tons per 
year--10.9 tons per year less than the amount originally allotted in 
the 1991 plan (24 tons per year estimated in 1991 minus 13.1 tons per 
year finalized in 1995).
    The revision to Division 25 was adopted by the OEQC on January 20, 
1995, and became state-effective February 17, 1995. It was submitted to 
EPA as a revision to the Oregon SIP on August 29, 1995, and will be 
reviewed in accordance with the CAA in a separate technical support 
document and rulemaking action.
    The fourth main reason the 1991 Plan was revised was to use a 1995 
dispersion modeling analysis to re-evaluate the effect a Weyerhaeuser 
Company facility has on the Plan's attainment demonstration. The 1995 
analysis indicates that the facility's impact, at the monitoring site 
upon which the Plan's attainment demonstration is based, is not 
significant. This analysis is discussed in more detail in the 
Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration section of the Technical Support 
Document (TSD) that corresponds with this action.

II. This Action

    Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's 
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA 
is proposing to approve the plan revisions submitted to EPA on November 
15, 1991, and September 22, 1995. EPA has determined that the 
submittals meet all of the applicable requirements of the Act due on 
November 15, 1991, with respect to moderate area PM-10 submittals. 
Also, as described in Part II.5 below, EPA is proposing to grant the 
exclusion from PM-10 control requirements applicable to major 
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors. In addition, as described in 
Part II.7 below, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted 
on November 15, 1991, as meeting the requirement for contingency 
measures.

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.3 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.

[[Page 28533]]

    The State of Oregon held a public hearing on the 1991 Plan on 
October 24, 1991. This Plan was submitted to EPA for review on November 
15, 1991. The Attainment Plan was subsequently revised in 1995. Public 
hearings for this revision were held on June 16 and 20, 1995. This 1995 
revision was submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995, as a revision to 
the Oregon SIP.
    The SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA to determine completeness 
shortly after submittal, in accordance with the completeness the 
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Letters dated May 7, 
1992, and February 28, 1996, were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ 
indicating the completeness of the submittals and the next steps to be 
taken in the review process. In this action EPA is proposing to approve 
the State of Oregon's PM-10 SIP submittal for the Klamath Falls PM-10 
nonattainment area and invites public comment on the action.
2. Accurate Emissions 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 emissions inventory should also include a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions 
in the area. See, e.g., Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act. Because the 
submission of such inventories is necessary to an area's attainment 
demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably 
attain), the emissions inventories must be received with the submission 
(see 57 FR 13539).
    The base year for analysis was 1986 (July 1, 1986, through June 30, 
1987). This year was chosen because it represents some of the most 
severe air quality episodes the area has experienced. There were forty 
days when monitored concentrations of PM-10 were above the 24-hour 
standard. In addition to the base year inventory (1986), a design year 
inventory (1994 attainment year), and a maintenance demonstration year 
inventory (2004) were developed.
    The 1986 inventory identified that, on a 24-hour, worst case day, 
the major sources of PM-10 emissions are residential wood combustion 
(80%), fugitive dust (winter road sanding) (8%), industry (7%), 
transportation (4%), and other (1%). Annual emissions for the same 
timeframe are residential wood combustion (61%), fugitive dust (10%), 
industry (10%), solid waste disposal (which includes residential open 
burning, on-site incineration, and agricultural burning) (9%), 
transportation (8%), and other (2%).
    After implementation of all control measures, ODEQ estimates that 
the 24-hour 1994 attainment year inventory will be as follows: industry 
(43%), residential woodburning (21%), transportation (18%), fugitive 
dust (16%), other (2%), and solid waste disposal (0%). Annual emissions 
for the 1994 attainment year are estimated to be: industry (30%), 
residential woodburning (24%), fugitive dust (20%), transportation 
(17%), other (6%), and solid waste disposal (3%).
    The emission inventory was originally reviewed and commented on by 
EPA in October 1991, when this SIP revision was in draft form. The 
issues raised by EPA during October 1991 were resolved by ODEQ before 
the November 15, 1991, SIP revision was submitted.
    EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it 
generally appears to be 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 CAA.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  The 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 Act. See Section 
193 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RACM (Including RACT)
    As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were 
required to submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are 
implemented no later than December 10, 1993 (see Sections 172(c)(1) and 
189(a)(1)(C)). 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).
    ODEQ performed a cost and technical analysis of the area's emission 
sources to evaluate available control measures needed to bring the area 
into attainment with the NAAQS. Results of the emission inventory and 
Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) analysis indicated that, overwhelmingly, 
emissions from residential wood combustion were the most significant 
contributor to exceedances of the NAAQS on a 24-hour, worst case day 
basis. This analysis also indicated that industrial emissions were 
relatively minor (7%) when compared to residential wood combustion 
(80%). ODEQ's analysis further showed that attainment of the NAAQS can 
be demonstrated by controlling RACM sources (e.g., wood smoke, road 
sanding, and open burning) instead of industrial sources.
    It is EPA's policy that RACM (including RACT) 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 (see 57 FR 13540-13544). Based 
on the available control measures adopted (described below), the SIP 
demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The 
SIP also demonstrates continued maintenance of the NAAQS between 
December 1994 and the year 2004. Accordingly, the attainment 
demonstration does not include additional industrial controls beyond 
those currently required by the Oregon SIP. However, ODEQ has included 
additional point source controls as a contingency measure should the 
area not attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994, or demonstrate RFP. The 
Plan's attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and RFP are 
discussed in more detail later in this document. In conclusion, EPA 
proposes to approve the existing industrial controls as meeting the 
RACM (including RACT) requirement.
    Attainment of the 24-hour standard is based on the following: (1) A 
mandatory woodstove curtailment program, (2) a woodstove certification 
program, (3) a woodstove removal program, and (4) reduction in winter 
road sanding emissions.
    Attainment of the annual standard is based upon: (1) A mandatory 
woodstove curtailment program, (2) woodstove certification program, (3) 
a reduction in winter road sanding emissions, (4) a woodstove opacity 
limitation, and (5) a year-round prohibition on agricultural open 
burning. The following table summarizes the anticipated emission 
reductions and their associated reduction credits.

[[Page 28534]]



                                         Summary--Attainment Strategies                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Credit requested         Emission reductions  
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number per    Tons per 
                  Attainment measures--1994                                                 hour         year   
                                                                24-Hour       Annual   -------------------------
                                                                                         (24-Hour)     (Annual) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstove curtailment.......................................          86%          74%       16,625          938
Woodstove certification.....................................          24%          24%          582           78
Opacity restriction--20%....................................          (*)           5%  ...........           12
Woodstove removal...........................................          53%         (**)          973  ...........
Winter road sanding.........................................          60%          60%        1,265           17
Agricultural burning........................................        (***)         100%  ...........          156
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total reductions......................................  ...........  ...........       19,445         1201
      Reductions needed by 12/31/94.........................  ...........  ...........       18,877         1035
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Excess reductions.....................................  ...........  ...........          568         166 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable on a 24-hour worst case day basis: woodstoves would not be in use due to the curtailment       
  program.                                                                                                      
** Not quantified.                                                                                              
*** Not applicable; this activity did not occur during exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS.                        

A. Mandatory Woodburning Curtailment Program

    On July 31, 1991, the Klamath County Board of Commissions adopted 
Ordinance No. 63 (codified as Chapter 406), establishing a mandatory 
woodburning curtailment program. The City of Klamath Falls adopted 
Ordinance No. 6630 on September 16, 1991, which grants Klamath County 
the authority to implement the Klamath County Air Quality Program 
(Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls. The program 
became fully implemented within the nonattainment area on November 1, 
1991. Prior to the mandatory program, a voluntary program had been 
operated by Klamath County since 1988. The following is a brief 
discussion of the program's key elements. For a detailed analysis and 
discussion, the reader is referred to the TSD that corresponds with 
this action.
    Daily wood heating advisories are disseminated by the County via 
local television and radio stations. The County also maintains a 
burning advisory telephone system which, during the 1990/1991 
woodheating season, answered 122,000 public calls. An additional 5,000 
calls were handled by the Klamath County Air Quality staff. During the 
1992/1993 woodheating season, there were 160,311 public calls. The 
increase in calls between the two seasons seems to indicate an increase 
in public awareness of the wood heating advisory and of the purpose of 
the curtailment program.
    For a specified period of time, Klamath County Air Quality could 
grant an exemption from complying with the curtailment program during 
poor air quality periods provided that the solid fuel-fired heating 
appliance is the sole source of heat for a specific residence. However, 
after December 31, 1992, it became unlawful for a solid fuel-fired 
heating appliance to be the sole source of heat in any nonowner 
(tenant-occupied) dwelling. Exemptions to this phaseout can be granted 
to landlords due to low income. This sole source, low income, nonowner-
occupied exemption terminates December 31, 1997. All sole source, low 
income, nonowner-occupied dwellings must have a secondary source of 
heat by that time. In addition, all sole source heat households, except 
those that are tenant-occupied, had until December 31, 1995, to install 
a secondary heat source. No exemptions will be issued after this date 
unless the household (person) qualifies under a low income exemption.
    A person who demonstrates economic need by certifying through proof 
that his/her income is less than 1.2 times the low income guidelines 
established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, may be granted a low income exemption from installing a 
secondary form of heat to be used during yellow and red curtailment 
days. After December 31, 1995, no further exemptions will be granted.
    Woodburning curtailment forecasts are made twice daily at 7 am and 
4 pm during the woodheating season (October 1 through March 31). The 
curtailment calls are based on a forecast algorithm using: National 
Weather Service upper air and barometric pressure data; forecasts of 
synoptic meteorology; surface temperatures; and wind speed and 
direction. Nephelometer measurements of hourly light scattering and 
local observations of air quality conditions are also used. (Appendix 7 
of ODEQ's Attainment Plan contains a more detailed discussion).
    Woodburning curtailment advisories are issued at three levels. A 
green advisory is issued when NAAQS exceedances are unlikely. 
Woodburning is unrestricted during these periods but the public is 
asked to follow good woodburning practices. Green advisories are issued 
when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to not exceed 80 g/
m3 for a 24-hour average.
    A yellow advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast 
to exceed or are exceeding 81 g/m3 for a 24-hour average. 
The public is asked to curtail all unnecessary woodburning. However, 
permitted pellet stoves and certified stoves may be used; and dwellings 
granted exemptions described above may burn.
    A red advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to 
exceed or are exceeding 150 g/m3 for a 24-hour average. 
No person can operate any solid fuel-fired heating appliance, except 
for a permitted pellet stove, during a red advisory, unless an 
exemption has been granted by the County.
    In addition, during a yellow or red advisory, all open burning, 
including burn barrels/incineration is prohibited unless a variance has 
been approved by Klamath County Air Quality.
    The Klamath Falls curtailment program includes a surveillance and 
enforcement element. A standard operating procedure and evaluation 
measure has been developed to be used during yellow and red advisories. 
During surveillance and effectiveness evaluations, infra-red detectors 
are used at night to detect ``hot'' chimneys. Visible emission readings 
are taken during the daytime hours.

[[Page 28535]]

    When Klamath County Air Quality inspectors have visually observed 
that a person has violated the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance, 
Ordinance Number 63, a Notice and Order setting forth the alleged 
violation is required to be issued. The Notice will require the alleged 
violator to take corrective action, such as to cease and desist from 
operating the noncomplying appliance.
The violator is to notify Klamath County Air Quality that corrective 
action has been taken.
    In cases when a person has not complied with the Notice and Order, 
the County is required to issue a Compliance Order and/or Summons and 
Complaint with the Court of competent jurisdiction for violation of the 
ordinance. The County may also obtain injunctive relief, abate the 
nuisance, or otherwise correct the violation of the ordinance through 
the Court.
    Continued operation of a solid-fuel fired device without an 
exemption, or performing open burning following the declaration of a 
red or yellow advisory, will result in enforcement action. The 
penalties which may be imposed upon conviction based on Summons and 
Complaint for a violation of any provision of Chapter 406.100 (General 
Rules and Regulations) and Chapter 406.150 (Pollution Prohibitions), 
excluding Prohibited Materials Burning, of the ordinance are:
    (1) First offense violators may receive a warning and be fined $25.
    (2) Second offense violators shall be fined $100.
    (3) Subsequent offense violators shall be fined a maximum of $250 
per occurrence.
    The County has conducted several curtailment surveys since the 
1989/1990 woodheating season. During this voluntary compliance period 
(the program was not a mandatory one until 1991), red advisory 
nighttime compliance rates ranged from about 37% to 50% when compared 
to the number of woodstoves being used during a green advisory 
nighttime baseline. The green advisory nighttime baseline was also 
established during the 1989/1990 woodheating season.
    For the January 1993 and December 1993 to January 1994 periods, 
five red advisory day surveys were conducted in the morning hours. When 
compared to the 1989/1990 green advisory baseline, compliance rates for 
the five red advisory days were about 95%. This comparison may not be 
entirely applicable given the nighttime baseline and the morning 
compliance survey. However, it does provide some indication of overall 
compliance during red curtailment days.
    During the 1994/1995 winter season, only two red advisory calls 
were made. An evening red advisory occurred on November 22, 1994, and a 
daytime red advisory occurred on January 17, 1995. During these two 
events, the County did not conduct surveys. However, both red 
advisories were preceded by yellow advisories; therefore, survey data 
collected during the yellow advisories can give an indication of 
compliance on red advisory nights. The data show compliance with the 
yellow advisories, ranging from 84% to 97%.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This discussion is based on information in a memorandum from 
David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated March 4, 
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the above program elements, survey results, and the 
phasing out of the sole source and low income exemptions, EPA believes 
that the 86% credit requested by ODEQ on a 24-hour basis is achievable 
and is being achieved and, therefore, accepts the credit claimed. EPA 
also accepts ODEQ's annual credit of 74%. In acceptance of the credits, 
EPA considered the fact that the nonattainment area has not had a 
monitored exceedance of the 24-hour standard since January 1991, and 
the area has not exceeded the annual standard since 1989.

B. Woodstove Certification

    In 1983, the Oregon Legislature directed the ODEQ to require that 
all new woodstoves sold in the State be certified through laboratory 
testing. As a result, stoves sold after July 1986 were required to emit 
particles at a rate at least 50% less than conventional woodstoves. 
After July 1988, new woodstoves were required to have a particle 
emission rate at least 70% less than conventional woodstoves.
    The OEQC adopted on March 2, 1990, revisions to Oregon's Woodstove 
Certification Program, making it consistent with EPA's New Source 
Performance Standard (NSPS) 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA. Currently, all 
woodstoves sold in the State of Oregon must be both ODEQ and EPA-
certified. The SIP revision was approved by EPA as part of the Oregon 
SIP on June 9, 1992 (see 57 FR 24373).
    ODEQ estimates that the woodstove certification program provides a 
24% credit against baseline 1986 woodstove emissions by 1994.6 
Oregon has historically pursued an aggressive woodstove certification 
program. Oregon was the first state in the Nation to adopt, implement, 
and enforce a program of this type (1984). EPA promulgated the NSPS on 
February 26, 1988, modeled after Oregon's program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This estimate uses a 1986 baseline inventory and assumes or 
relies on: 1) a 1% annual growth in firewood consumed by woodstoves; 
2) information from building permit authorities in Klamath Falls 
that essentially all permitted installations are certified stoves, 
and that about 20% of these are pellet stoves; 3) a useful stove 
life of 20 years; 4) the fact that typical certified woodstoves and 
pellet stoves respectively emit 50% and 90% less PM-10 than a 
conventional stove. EPA believes this is an accurate portrayal of 
the situation in Klamath Falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected emission reductions in conjunction with a statewide 
ban (OAR 340-34-010) on the sale of used uncertified stoves, a ban on 
the installation of used uncertified stoves, and Oregon's model 
woodstove certification program supports EPA's acceptance of Oregon's 
woodstove certification credit claim.

C. Woodstove Removal and Home Weatherization Program

    Between May 1990 and December 1993 the City and County of Klamath 
Falls received funds totalling approximately $1.9 million from the 
State of Oregon Community Block Grant funds for a home weatherization 
and woodstove replacement program. Woodstoves in 743 low income, sole 
source homes have been replaced by natural gas (90%), oil (6%), 
electric (2%), certified stove (1%), and propane (1%) heating sources. 
These funds were administered under Klamath Falls's Particulate Urban 
Resources Effort (PURE) project. The average cost of converting and 
weatherizing each home was $2,200.
    For the 1994 attainment year, ODEQ estimates that total PM-10 
emissions from low income, sole source homes have been reduced by 973 
pounds per day, which equates to 67 tons per year. ODEQ therefore 
requests a 53% credit for this strategy (973 lbs per day 1994 
controlled/1843 lbs per day 1994 uncontrolled). This 53% credit is 
calculated for replacing uncertified woodstoves as follows: Electric 
heat (100% PM-10 reduction), natural gas (99% PM-10 reduction), propane 
(99% PM-10 emission reduction), oil (99% PM-10 reduction), and 
certified woodstoves (50% PM-10 reduction). Because of the demonstrated 
success of the program, EPA proposes to accept the 53% credit requested 
by ODEQ.

D. Winter Road Sanding Control Program

    Winter road sanding has been shown to adversely affect the PM-10 
levels throughout the Western United States, including Klamath Falls, 
in areas that experience measurable snowfall. The silt-laden, friable 
sand is placed on roads by local and state highway

[[Page 28536]]

departments to provide better traction on snow and ice. However, once 
the snow has melted and the roads have dried out, the remaining dry, 
silty road sand is easily resuspended by moving vehicular traffic.
    In Klamath Falls, winter road sanding emissions peak during periods 
when several inches of snow cover the area. During these periods, as 
much as 70 cubic yards per day of aggregate are spread on roads within 
the UGB. Because snow covers the roadways and landscape, it is ODEQ's 
position that essentially all of the fugitive dust emissions (during 
this time period) are assumed to originate from road sanding. Chemical 
analysis of PM-10 samples collected on days exceeding the 24-hour NAAQS 
indicated that 9% of the PM-10 mass was soil dust. Road sanding 
emissions were therefore estimated to be of similar magnitude in the 
emission inventory, or approximately 1,900 pounds per day during the 27 
days per year when road sanding occurs. The worst case day emission 
estimates provide the basis for the annual emission estimates for road 
sanding.
    Sanding materials used in the Klamath Falls area are obtained from 
a gravel pit located near Merrill, Oregon, where volcanic cinders, pea 
gravel, silts, and clays have been deposited. Nearly all of the 
aggregate used within the UGB is applied by the Oregon Department of 
Transportation Highway Division, mostly on US 97, South Sixth Street, 
Alameda Bypass, and the South Side Bypass. The City, County, and State 
all maintain sections of Washburn Way and other streets in south 
suburban Klamath Falls. The City maintains streets within the Central 
Business District.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Klamath Falls, 
October 1991, Section 12.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oregon requests a 60% credit for its winter road sanding control 
strategy. The 60% credit is based on the Highway Division's commitment 
to reduce winter road sanding by 60% through: (1) Replacement of 
aggregate with a de-icing material; (2) a reduction in the amount of 
aggregate applied; and (3) rapid cleanup using street washing or 
sweeping of road sanding materials used on major thoroughfares. During 
worst case winter days, ODEQ estimates that this strategy will reduce 
emissions by 1,265 pounds per day and, on an annual basis, it will 
reduce emissions by 17 tons per year. EPA proposes to accept ODEQ's 
projection that the road sanding measures will reduce PM-10 emissions 
from winter road sanding by 60%. See Appendix 4 of the SIP for 
additional information.

E. 20% Woodstove Opacity Limitation

    The Klamath County woodsmoke control ordinance (No. 63) provides 
for a year-round 20% woodstove plume opacity limitation. Visible 
emissions are not to exceed 20% opacity for a period or periods 
aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour period. The 
ordinance does, however, grant an exemption during a fire's start-up 
period. Visible emission are exempt during a fifteen minute start-up 
period provided they do not exceed 40% opacity. If the opacity is 
greater than 40% during start-up, then the stove is in violation of the 
ordinance.
    The 5% emission reduction credit requested by ODEQ is reasonable 
and is consistent with the recommendations in EPA's Guidance Document 
for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures and, 
therefore, EPA proposes to approve it.

F. Open Burning Restriction

    Chapter 406 of the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance regulates 
residential open burning, including burn barrels/incinerators and 
agricultural burning. Residential open burning, including burn barrels/
incinerators, is prohibited during red and yellow advisories within 
Klamath County unless a variance has been approved by Klamath County. 
ODEQ does not request any credit for this strategy.
    Agricultural open burning within the nonattainment area and within 
one-fourth mile of the nonattainment area boundary is prohibited 
throughout the year. ODEQ estimates that the elimination of 
agricultural burning will reduce PM-10 emissions by 156 tons on an 
annual basis and requests a 100% emission reduction credit for 
elimination of this activity. EPA believes ODEQ's claim is reasonable 
and, therefore, proposes to approve this control measure.

G. Other Sources

    Where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to the PM-10 
problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable and 
would not constitute RACM to require the sources to implement 
potentially available control measures (see 57 FR at 13540). The State 
does, however, have in place the following measures which will further 
reduce PM-10 emissions. The State does not request any emission 
reduction credits for the measures.
1. Fugitive Dust--Paved and Unpaved Roads
    ODEQ determined through their analysis of the nonattainment area, 
on a 24-hour, worst case day basis, that PM-10 emissions of re-
entrained road dust from paved and unpaved roads are negligible due to 
snow cover. The application of road sanding materials is the main 
source of road traffic-related emissions. On an annual basis, emissions 
from paved and unpaved roads account for 163 tons, or approximately 8% 
of the 1986 annual emission inventory.
    Even though reducing emissions from this source category is not 
needed to attain the standard, the State does regulate this category. 
Referencing the suggested available fugitive dust control measures 
listed in Appendix C1 (57 FR 18072), rules requiring measures 1, 2, 3, 
4, 10, 11, and 12 are currently part of the Oregon SIP and are 
contained in OAR 340, Division 21. These rules are enforced under OAR 
340-21-060. The rules were previously approved by EPA and are contained 
in the State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program; Volume 2; The 
Federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (and other State 
Regulations).
2. Prescribed Burning
    Historically, PM-10 emissions from prescribed burning and slash 
burning have not significantly impacted on the nonattainment area on 
either a 24-hour basis (zero emissions) or on an annual basis (zero 
emissions); however, this activity does have the potential to 
significantly impact on the area.
    To address this issue, a voluntary smoke management program was 
developed and implemented. The provisions of this program are 
coordinated by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODOF) which provides 
daily smoke management forecasts and advisories for Klamath County. A 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in 1991 by and between the 
Klamath-Lake District of ODOF, Cavenham Forest Industries (Bend, 
Oregon), Modoc Lumber Company, Thomas Lumber Company, Weyerhaeuser 
Company (Klamath Falls), Whiskey Creek Timber Company, Winema National 
Forest, Fremont National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management 
(Lakeview District). The MOU provides that the parties will abide by 
the elements of the smoke management plan and is based on a cooperative 
operations plan that was in effect January 10, 1990, between the above 
parties.
    EPA has reviewed ODEQ's submittals and associated documentation and 
concluded that they adequately justify the control measures to be 
implemented. Because all control measures were implemented by the

[[Page 28537]]

CAA RACM implementation date of December 10, 1993, implementation of 
the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment plan control strategies has 
resulted in meeting the requirement of the Act that the attainment of 
the PM-10 NAAQS be achieved as expeditiously as practicable and no 
later than December 31, 1994.
4. Demonstration
    As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must 
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that 
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable 
but no later than December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act). The General Preamble sets out EPA's guidance on the use of 
modeling for moderate area attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR 13539). 
Alternatively, the State must show attainment by December 31, 1994, or 
that attainment is impracticable. 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 section 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50 
g/m/3, 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 Section 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.
    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 Klamath Falls. The Preamble provides 
additional flexibility in meeting the PM-10 attainment demonstration 
requirements. 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 explains that 
in certain circumstances a modified attainment demonstration may be 
appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It may be reasonable to accept a 
modified attainment demonstration 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.''
    During development of the Klamath Falls initial moderate area PM-10 
attainment plan, ODEQ did not use dispersion modeling to estimate the 
design values or in the attainment and maintenance demonstrations. This 
was due to: (1) the lack of adequate historical meteorological data, 
(2) the late receipt in the development process of spatially resolved 
emission inventory data needed for modeling, (3) the intense and 
extremely shallow inversions and calm winds (typical wind speeds during 
exceedances days are less than one meter per second) are not conducive 
to dispersion modeling (EPA does not have and has not developed an 
approved guideline model for conditions of this type), and (4) the fact 
that on winter days, when worst case air quality conditions occur, the 
airshed is heavily dominated by emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces, 
and road sanding.
    ODEQ conducted an attainment demonstration based upon receptor 
modeling proportional roll-back calculations to estimate the emission 
reductions required in 1994 to achieve the NAAQS. Emission inventory 
estimates were reconciled with Chemical Mass Balance (version 7.0) 
receptor modeling. Results from two emission estimation methods, 
emission inventory and receptor modeling, were in agreement that 
woodsmoke and soil dust are the major sources of emissions on 
exceedance days. According to the emission inventory, woodsmoke equals 
80% and soil dust equals 8% of total PM-10 particulate. According to 
the CMB analysis, woodsmoke equals 82% and soil dust equals 10.9% of 
particulate.
    EPA guidance on CMB modeling specifies that the apportionment 
should account for at least 80% of the measured aerosol mass. ODEQ's 
analysis accounted for 96% of the mass.
    ODEQ determined the 1994 24-hour, worst case day design value 
(without controls) to be 600 g/m3 based on monitored data 
utilizing EPA's graphical procedure, including adjustments for emission 
growth. The 1994 annual design value (without controls) was determined 
to be 82, g/m3 calculated as an arithmetic average. Monitored 
concentrations for the 3-year period July 1, 1986, through June 30, 
1989, were used in both cases. Appendix 1 of the SIP lists the 24-hour 
concentrations used to determine the design values, and Appendix 2 
provides detailed information on the design value calculations, 
including which concentrations were used when data from different 
methods were collected on the same day.
    The Attainment Plan has been criticized for not requiring 
implementation of point source emission controls on a Weyerhaeuser 
facility located outside, but near, the nonattainment area. As 
discussed in the Area Designation History section of the Technical 
Support Document (TSD), it was ODEQ's position, during establishment of 
the Klamath Falls PM-10 Group I Areas of Concern, that the Weyerhaeuser 
facility did not significantly impact on the Peterson School ambient 
monitoring site during exceedance days (significant is defined as 5 
g/m3). ODEQ took the same position, when by operation of 
law, the Klamath Falls Group I area (as defined by the UGB), was 
designated as a moderate nonattainment area on November 15, 1990. The 
classification of the Klamath Falls area as a Group I area and, its 
subsequent designation as a nonattainment area, was based on technical 
information available at that time. This information did not indicate 
that Weyerhaeuser significantly impacted on the Peterson School 
monitoring site. To support ODEQ's position, ODEQ committed to 
requiring Weyerhaeuser to dispersion model the plant's impact. A 
preliminary 1992 modeling analysis was performed and followed by a 
definitive 1995 modeling analysis. The model used was the EPA point 
source guideline model-ISCST2. [ISCST3 was not yet available when the 
modeling was performed.]
    The 1995 analysis indicates that on exceedance days, the 
Weyerhaeuser facility does not have a significant impact at the 
Peterson School site, which is the site on which attainment with the 
NAAQS is determined.8 The source's modeled 1995 allowable 
emissions are drastically lower than 1992 allowable emissions. This is 
due to, among other things, the facility forfeiting unassigned plant 
site emission limits and replacing five hog fuel-fired

[[Page 28538]]

boilers with natural gas fired boilers. Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser's Air 
Contaminant Discharge Permit, issued on November 20, 1995, reflects an 
allowable pounds per hour limit of 111 (down from the previously 
permitted limit of 152 pounds per hour). The analysis, and subsequent 
permit, account for emission credits of 11.79 pounds per hour (down 
from the previous permitted level of 332 pounds per hour). Forfeiting 
of unassigned emission credits reduces allowable emissions alone by 
over 600 tons per year to a 1995 permitted level of 371 tons.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\  This statement is based on information in a letter from 
David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated February 
6, 1996.
    \9\  EPA is aware, however, that a recent (1995) modeling 
analysis that looked at impacts from the Weyerhaeuser facility in 
the area outside of the UGB indicates that the facility may be 
causing an exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS at an unmonitored site. 
EPA is working with the State to resolve this distinct and separate 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the previously discussed design values, ODEQ estimates 
that 1994 worst case day emissions must be reduced by 75.6%, which 
equals 18,877 pounds per day. Thus, percent reduction required=((1994 
design value-24-hour standard)/(1994 design value-background) x 100); 
or, [((60-1350 g/m3)/(600-7 g/
m3)] x 100=75.6%. Annual emissions for the projected 1994 
attainment year must be reduced by 47%, which equals 1035 tons. Percent 
reduction required=[((82-50 g/m3)/(82-15 g/
m3)] x 100=47%.
    ODEQ estimates that 1994 24-hour, worst case day emissions must be 
reduced by 18,877 pounds to attain the 24-hour NAAQS, and annual 
emissions must be reduced by 1035 tons in order to attain the annual 
NAAQS. The previously discussed control measures are designed to reduce 
projected 1994 worst case day emissions by 19,445 pounds (568 pounds 
beyond the level needed for attainment and annual emissions by 1,201 
tons (166 tons beyond the level needed for attainment). According to 
the principle of proportional roll-back modeling, a reduction of 19,445 
pounds from the Klamath Falls PM-10 emission sources will result in a 
1994 worst case day ambient concentration of 136.5 g/m3. 
An annual reduction of 1,201 tons will result in an annual 
concentration of 44.9 g/m3. Both values demonstrate 
attainment with their respective standards.
    EPA proposes to approve 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 attainment by December 31, 1994. EPA has 
also considered the fact that, based on monitored air quality for the 
calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, the area has, in fact, 
attained both the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. As to the adequacy of the 
nonattainment area boundary, the UGB was established as the 
nonattainment area boundary upon passage of the CAAA of 1990 and, 
therefore, the existing nonattainment area boundary is defined in the 
CAA itself.
5. PM-10 Precursors
    The control requirements which 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 in excess of 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) (see 57 FR 
13539-13542).
    As previously discussed, ODEQ's technical analysis of candidate 
control measures indicated that emissions from industrial point sources 
had substantially less of an impact on the 24-hour standard than 
residential wood combustion (7% vs. 80%). Previous violations of the 
24-hour standard occurred during periods of extensive poor ventilation 
(stagnation conditions) and cold temperatures. In addition, the CMB 
analysis indicates that secondary particulate is not a major component 
of the area's PM-10 emissions. This analysis identified that, on an 
average winter exceedance day, 3.2% of the mass (10.7 g/
m3) comprises secondary particulate. On an annual basis, 1.9% of 
the mass (1.5 g/m3) comprises secondary particulate.
    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 Klamath 
Falls 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 plan revisions demonstrating 
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be 
achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment 
and which demonstrates RFP, as defined in Section 171(1), toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(c) of the CAA).
    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 3-year 
period or how many milestones must be initially addressed. In the 
General Preamble, EPA addressed the statutory gap in the starting point 
for counting the 3-year milestone, indicating that it 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) (see 57 FR 13539).
    As to the number of milestones, EPA believes that at least two 
milestones must be initially addressed. Thus, the submittal to address 
the SIP revisions due on November 15, 1991, for the initial moderate 
PM-10 nonattainment areas must demonstrate that two milestones will be 
achieved (First milestone: November 15, 1991, through November 15, 
1994; Second milestone: November 15, 1994, through November 15, 1997).
    For the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that demonstrate 
attainment, the emissions reduction progress made between the SIP 
submittal (due date of November 15, 1991) and the attainment date of 
December 31, 1994 (46 days beyond the November 15, 1994, milestone 
date) will satisfy the first quantitative milestone (see 57 FR 13539). 
For areas that demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the 
milestones beyond the attainment achievement date should, at a minimum, 
provide for continued maintenance of the standards.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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, 
1994, and maintenance of the NAAQS through the year 2004, satisfying 
five milestones. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the submittal as 
meeting the

[[Page 28539]]

quantitative milestone requirement currently due. Finally, once a 
milestone has passed, the State will have to demonstrate that the 
milestone was, in fact, achieved for the Klamath Falls 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 
ODEQ and EPA (See Sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). 
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 must also contain 
a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures and 
other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C)).
    The particular control measures contained in the SIP were addressed 
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control 
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that 
discussion, including woodstoves and other wood burning activities. The 
SIP provides that the control measures apply throughout the entire 
nonattainment area.
    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 the SIP 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.
    EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision 
required by ORS.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being imposed 
for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate 
enforcement authority the 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.
    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 the 
State's 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.
    In regard to a separate enforceability issue, the following is a 
summary of the city, county, and interagency commitments which EPA 
proposes to approve as part of the SIP as either a required control 
measure or SIP strengthening measure. The content of the two ordinances 
and their relationship to the SIP control strategies are discussed in 
more detail in the TSD.
City and County Ordinances
    A. City of Klamath Falls--Ordinance No. 6630. The ordinance grants 
Klamath County the authority to implement the Klamath County Air 
Quality Program (Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls 
(authority to regulate--control measure).
    B. Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance No. 63. This ordinance adds 
Chapter 406 to the Klamath County Code and is entitled the ``Klamath 
County Clean Air Ordinance.'' The provisions in Chapter 406 establish 
the mandatory air quality program, area boundaries, and enforcement 
controls (control measure).
    C. Klamath County Air Quality Program--Resolution 89-116. This 
resolution recognizes the need for establishing control strategies 
(measures) to reduce PM-10 concentrations in Klamath County (SIP 
strengthening measure).
Interagency Commitments
    A. Winter Road Sanding Program, Oregon Department of Transportation 
Highway Division--Memorandum of Understanding. This sets forth the 
Highway Department's commitment to: (1) replace cinder sanding material 
with a liquid de-icing agent, (2) minimize street sanding application 
rates consistent with traffic safety objectives, (3) rapid cleanup of 
sanding materials, and (4) ``review construction contract Standard 
Specifications and Project Provisions for compatibility with local 
ordinances concerning trackout. Tracking mud onto a highway is a 
citable offense (control measure).
    B. Voluntary Smoke Management Plans. EPA is proposing to approve 
both of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) contained in Appendix 4 
of the SIP as SIP strengthening measures. One MOU is between members of 
Klamath County's forestry community. The other MOU is between the 
Klamath County Farm Bureau of Directors.
    ODEQ's submittal and the TSD contain further information on 
enforceability requirements. In addition, the TSD contains a discussion 
of the personnel and funding intended to support effective 
implementation of the control strategy.
8. Contingency Measures
    As provided in Section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate 
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include 
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These measures 
must be submitted by November 15, 1993, for the initial moderate 
nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should 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 a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP 
or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. 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 (see 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 (see 57 FR 13511). The Klamath Falls nonattainment area 
SIP contains the following contingency measures:
    a. Uncertified woodstove removal: The 1991 Oregon Legislature 
authorized by statute the removal and destruction of uncertified 
woodstoves upon sale of a home within any area that fails to meet the 
PM-10 SIP attainment date of December 31, 1994. EPA approved these 
rules (OAR 340-34-200 through 215) as part of the Oregon SIP on June 9, 
1992 (see 57 FR 24373).
    b. Industrial Emissions: ODEQ developed an industrial contingency 
plan designed to reduce industrial emissions should an area fail to 
attain by the CAA attainment date. The regulations requiring emission 
reductions, with specific source emission limits, are contained in OAR 
340-21-200 through 245. EPA approved

[[Page 28540]]

these rules as part of the SIP on August 19, 1992 (see 57 FR 37468). 
The rules apply to existing sources in all of Oregon's PM-10 
nonattainment areas. The sources regulated include wood waste boilers, 
wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing 
plants, and air conveying systems. The rules also require fugitive 
emission control plans for large sawmills, plywood mills or veneer 
manufacturing plants, hardboard plants, and charcoal manufacturing 
plants. In addition, OAR 340-21-200 through 340-21-245 applies to a 
major source located outside of a PM-10 nonattainment area which has a 
significant impact upon a nonattainment area. According to OAR 340-21-
210(2)(b), upon request by ODEQ, the owner or operator of any source 
with the potential to have a significant impact on a PM-10 
nonattainment area shall conduct, prior to the attainment date required 
in the Clean Air Act and in accordance with a study protocol approved 
by ODEQ, a receptor and dispersion modeling study of the impact of 
emissions from the source on the PM-10 nonattainment area. As 
previously stated, significant impact is defined as 5g/
m63.
    c. The continuation of the woodstove certification program after 
December 31, 1994), will provide a net reduction in residential wood 
burning emissions between the years 1994 and 2004, and on into the 
future.
    d. Chapter 406.650(1) through Chapter 406.650(9) of the Klamath 
County Clean Air Ordinance delineates the contingency measures adopted 
by Klamath County. They include, among other things, measures to 
further reduce woodsmoke and fugitive dust.
    As stated above, the industrial contingency rules apply to existing 
sources in all of Oregon's PM-10 nonattainment areas. In actuality, 
because of the PM-10 source mix in the area, the measures applicable to 
the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment area include wood waste boilers, 
wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing 
plants, air conveying systems, fugitive emission control plans, and the 
analysis of the impact of emissions from a source outside the area 
which has the potential to have a significant impact on the 
nonattainment area (such as the Weyerhaeuser facility).
    Also, as previously discussed, in 1995 ODEQ determined through a 
dispersion modeling study that Weyerhaeuser does not have a significant 
impact at the monitoring site of reference (Peterson School) during 
NAAQS exceedance days, and therefore is not subject to the PM-10 
industrial contingency measures.
    ODEQ estimates that PM-10 emissions would be reduced an additional 
108 tons per year by the year 2000 through implementation of the 
woodstove contingency measures. Industrial emissions would be reduced 
an additional 132 tons per year through installation of point source 
controls to meet the industrial contingency measure requirement. 
Additional reductions which cannot be quantified by the emission 
inventory would be achieved through the fugitive dust control 
contingency measures. Total reductions are estimated at a minimum of 
240 tons per year (nonattainment area industries only), which is 23% of 
the total annual emission reduction needed for attainment.
    The SIP provides that each of the above contingency measures would 
have taken effect without further action by the State or EPA had EPA 
determined that the Klamath Falls nonattainment area has failed to 
achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 standard by the statutory attainment 
date of December 31, 1994.
    EPA is proposing to approve the Klamath Falls nonattainment area 
contingency measures.

III. Implications of This Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the 1991 Attainment Plan and the 1995 
revision to the Plan as submitted to EPA for the Klamath Falls 
nonattainment area on November 15, 1991, and September 22, 1995, 
respectively. Among other things, ODEQ has demonstrated that the 
Klamath Falls moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the PM-10 
NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In fact, the area has not experienced an 
exceedance of the NAAQS since 1991. Note that EPA's action includes 
approval of the contingency measures for the Klamath Falls 
nonattainment area.

IV. 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).
    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 proposed action promulgated 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 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.
    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 3 action by the EPA 
Region 10 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, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management

[[Page 28541]]

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 
review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, and Particulate matter.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: May 24, 1996.
Jane S. Moore,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14120 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P