[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10501-10514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[WA63-7138; WA58-7133; OR57-7272; FRL-5700-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; States of
Washington and Oregon
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites public
comment on its proposed approval of revisions to the Washington and
Oregon State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and EPA's proposed
redesignation to attainment of the Portland/Vancouver (Pdx/Van)
interstate ozone (O3) nonattainment area. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
as amended in 1990, designations can be revised if sufficient data are
available to warrant such revisions. EPA is proposing to approve the
Washington and Oregon maintenance plans and other redesignation
submittals because they meet the maintenance plan and redesignation
requirements and will ensure that the area remains in attainment. The
approved maintenance plans will become a federally enforceable part of
the Oregon and Washington SIPs. In this action, EPA is also proposing
to approve the Washington and Oregon 1990 baseline emission inventories
for this area, revisions to the approved Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) SIPs of both States, and a number of revisions to both SIPs.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before April 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
Copies of the States' requests and other information supporting
this proposed action are available for inspection during normal
business hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and at the
States' offices: Washington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box
47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, and Oregon State Department of
Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-1390.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Ennes, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-
107), EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553-6249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
EPA's discussion of the proposed approval is in the following
order:
I. Background
II. Evaluation Criteria
III. Review of State Submittal
A. Attainment of the O3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
1. New Source Review (NSR)
2. Conformity
3. Emissions Inventory
4. Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) Requirements
5. Emission Statement
6. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
C. Section 107 (d)(3)(E)(iii), Permanent and Enforceable
Emission Reductions
D. Section 107 (d)(3)(E)(iv), Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
1. Attainment Emission Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Verification of Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
IV. Supporting Rules
A. NSR Changes For Maintenance Plan
1. SWAPCA 400 ``General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources''
2. OAR Chapter 340 Division 28 ``Stationary Source Air Pollution
Control and Permitting Procedures''
B. SWAPCA 490 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources
Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds''
C. SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources
Emitting Gasoline Vapors
D. SWAPCA 493 ``VOC Area Source Rules''
E. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
1. Oregon I/M Submittal
12. Washington I/M Submittal
F. Oregon Miscellaneous O3 Supporting Rules
1. Background
2. Discussion
V. Proposed Action
VI. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) Impact
VII. Administrative Review
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates
I. Background
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) submitted maintenance plans and
requested redesignation of the Pdx/Van interstate nonattainment area
from nonattainment to attainment for O3. The SIP revision requests were
submitted by the WDOE on June 13, 1996, and by ODEQ on August 30, 1996.
No tribal lands are within the maintenance plan area nor have any
tribal lands been identified as being affected by the maintenance
plans.
The Pdx/Van air quality maintenance area (AQMA) was designated an
interstate O3 nonattainment area in 1978 under the 1977 CAA. On
November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted. (Pub. L.
101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). Under
section 181(a)(1) of the 1990 CAA, the area was further classified as a
``marginal'' O3 nonattainment area, and an attainment deadline of
November 15, 1993, was established. This interstate nonattainment area
consists of the southern portion of Clark County, Washington, and
portions of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties in Oregon.
The AQMA has ambient monitoring data that show no violations of the
O3
[[Page 10502]]
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) during the period of
1991 to the present. Public hearings on the redesignation requests were
held in Portland, OR, and Tigard, OR, on May 22, and 23, 1996,
respectively.
On October 18, 1996, EPA Region 10 determined that the information
received from the WDOE and ODEQ constituted a complete redesignation
request under the federal completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, sections 2.1 and 2.2.
II. Evaluation Criteria
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, specifies that
the Administrator may not redesignate an area from nonattainment to
attainment unless certain conditions have been met. These conditions
are as follows:
A. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)--the Administrator determines that the
NAAQS has been attained in that area for the pollutant.
B. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)and (v)--the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k) and the State has met all relevant requirements under section
110 and Part D.
C. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)--the Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.
D. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)--the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area.
III. Review of State Submittal
EPA proposes to find that the Washington and Oregon redesignation
requests for the Pdx/Van interstate area meets the requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E), noted above. Following is a brief description of
how each of the 107(d)(3)(E) requirements is met. A Technical Support
Document (TSD), on file at the EPA Region 10 office (dockets OR57-7272
and WA58-7133), contains additional analysis of this redesignation
proposal.
A. Attainment of the O3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
An area may be considered as attaining the NAAQS for O3 if the
quality assured ambient air quality monitored data show that the
average annual number of ``expected'' O3 exceedances is less than or
equal to 1.0. There were no violations of the standard based on the
three year period 1991-1993. The ODEQ and WDOE submitted data from all
four of their monitoring locations in the Pdx/Van area which indicate
that no violations of the O3 standard have been measured since 1990.
Because the nonattainment area has complete quality-assured data
showing no violations of the O3 NAAQS over the most recent consecutive
three calendar year period, the area has met the condition of
attainment of the O3 NAAQS.
B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that, for an area to be redesignated,
an area must have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
Part D and that EPA may not approve redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment unless EPA has fully approved all of the SIP
requirements that were due under the 1990 CAA. Although section 110 was
amended in 1990, the Washington and Oregon SIPs approved by EPA for the
O3 marginal nonattainment area meet the requirements of amended section
110(a)(2). A number of the requirements did not change in substance
and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIPs met these
requirements.
The 1990 CAA required that nonattainment areas achieve specific new
requirements depending on the severity of the nonattainment
classification. As noted earlier, Pdx/Van was classified as a marginal
O3 nonattainment area. For the purposes of evaluating the request for
redesignation to attainment, EPA has approved all but the following
elements of the Pdx/Van SIP: the NSR programs; the 1990 base year
emission inventories; minor local Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) rule changes (Washington only); and outstanding
source-specific RACT determinations ODEQ identified after submittal of
the redesignation request (OR only), (see discussion under 1, 3 and 4
below for details).
1. New Source Review (NSR)
The CAA required all classified nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that
increased emissions of VOCs will not result from any new or major
source modifications, and a general offset rule. Current guidance does
not require State NSR programs to be approved by EPA before approving
redesignation requests (see policy announced in the memorandum, ``Part
D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment,'' dated October 14, 1994, from Mary D.
Nichols to Air Division Directors I-X,) . However, because the Pdx/Van
maintenance plan is relying on credit from a new hybrid NSR/Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, the State NSR programs need
EPA approval prior to redesignation.
The NSR program for WDOE was approved on June 2, 1995 (60 FR
28726). Further revisions to the Oregon NSR program and the Southwest
Air Pollution Control Agency (SWAPCA) NSR regulations are being
approved separately in a direct final action. SWAPCA is the local air
pollution control authority that developed and will be implementing the
maintenance plan in Vancouver, WA. In this notice, EPA is proposing to
approve the new hybrid PSD/NSR programs for both States.
Upon redesignation of the Pdx/Van area to attainment, the PSD
provisions contained in Part C of Title I of the CAA are applicable.
EPA's PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 will apply to the Vancouver area
and Oregon's PSD rules will apply in the Portland area.
2. Conformity
The WDOE submitted its transportation conformity SIP revision to
EPA on December 1, 1995. A determination that the submittal is
administratively and technically complete has not yet been made. The
WDOE has not submitted its general conformity SIP revision.
The ODEQ submitted its transportation conformity SIP revision to
EPA on April 14, 1995. EPA approved the transportation conformity rules
as a SIP revision on May 16, 1996. In addition, general conformity
requirements were submitted to EPA on September 27, 1995. A
completeness determination letter dated March 18, 1996, was sent to
ODEQ.
Although these four conformity SIP revisions have not all been
approved, EPA may approve this redesignation request. EPA has modified
its national policy regarding the interpretation of the provisions of
section 107(d)(3)(E) concerning the applicable requirements for
purposes of reviewing a carbon monoxide (CO) redesignation request and
the same modification applies to O3. (See 61 FR 2918, January 30,
1996.) The federal transportation and general conformity rules are
applicable until the EPA approves the State established conformity
regulations. Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment, and must
implement conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet
adopted, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as
not being
[[Page 10503]]
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request. It is noted that approval of the Pdx/Van redesignation request
does not obviate the need for the WDOE to submit the required general
conformity SIP revision to EPA.
3. Emissions Inventory
The CAA required an inventory of all actual emissions from all
sources, as described in section 172(c)(3), by November 15, 1992. Both
States submitted their original base year 1990 emission inventories
(EIs) on November 16, 1992. As part of the redesignation request, ODEQ
and WDOE submitted corrections to the base year 1990 emission inventory
for the Pdx/Van area. EPA guidance document from John Calcagni and
William Laxon entitled, ``Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base
Year Emission Inventories for Ozone and CO Nonattainment areas,'' 9/10/
92, states that for a moderate O3 nonattainment area the 1990 EI is not
subject to public review requirements until a Redesignation Request/
Maintenance Plan is submitted. Both State EIs went through public
review with the redesignation request and maintenance plans and met
this requirement. The EIs of both States have addressed all EPA
comments and meet all requirements identified by EPA. In this notice,
EPA is proposing to approve both emission inventories.
4. Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) Requirements
Areas designated nonattainment before the 1990 CAA amendments and
which retained that designation and were classified as marginal or
above as of enactment are required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
to meet the RACT fix-up requirements. The Pdx/Van area was first
designated nonattainment in 1978 by the 1977 CAA, and, therefore, this
area is subject to the RACT fix-up requirement (requirements in place
before the 1990 CAA amendments).
SWAPCA adopted regulations on October 15, 1996, to meet the RACT
fix-up requirement (SWAPCA 400 and 490). These regulations are titled
``General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources'' and ``Emission
Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting Volatile Organic
Compounds.'' EPA is proposing to approve these regulations in this
notice.
Oregon submitted to EPA its RACT fix-up rules on May 14, 1991, and
the rules were approved by EPA on September 29, 1993.
EPA proposes to approve the redesignation request as meeting the
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), based in part upon Oregon's
approved general RACT rule and other source-specific RACT rules for
which no categorical RACT requirements exist (non-Control Technology
Guidelines (CTG) sources). The ODEQ already has implemented most of the
RACT program, and is in the process of establishing RACT requirements
for a few remaining sources that require source-specific RACT
determinations. The ODEQ general RACT rule, which has been approved by
EPA, provides that ODEQ ``shall have RACT requirements developed on a
case-by-case basis.'' Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-22-104(5).
The rules establish a requirement that all non-CTG sources apply RACT
requirements, and they must apply for a RACT determination within three
months following notification by ODEQ. The RACT established by ODEQ
must be approved by EPA, and will be included in the source's operating
air permit.
EPA acknowledges that Oregon has not completed the process of
making RACT determinations for a few non-CTG sources in the
nonattainment area. While EPA guidance generally requires full
adoption, submission, and approval of these RACT determinations prior
to approval of a redesignation request, EPA has established an
exception to this general policy which it intends to invoke here. This
exception and its rationale were articulated in the Federal Register
Notice approving the redesignation request of Grand Rapids, Michigan,
61 FR 31831, 31833-34.
A requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) is that the State
comply with section l82(b)(2)(A) by submitting a SIP revision requiring
the implementation of RACT for certain sources. While EPA's
redesignation policy generally requires that these rules be adopted
prior to redesignation, upon redesignation they can become part of the
contingency plan portion of the maintenance plan. In its recent
approval of the redesignation request for Grand Rapids, EPA determined
that the requirement for RACT could be met in the form of the
submission and approval of a commitment to adopt and implement these
rules as contingency measures in the maintenance plan. Thus, EPA
created an exception to its general policy, which it justified in terms
of several factors: first, the RACT rules at issue were not needed to
bring about attainment of the O3 standard; second, the State
demonstrated maintenance of the standard without the implementation of
the measures at issue; and third, in the case of Grand Rapids, the
State committed to include the RACT rules as contingency measures in
the maintenance plan, while including other effective contingency
measures in the maintenance plan.
EPA believes that the rationale and justification for the exception
created in Grand Rapids apply with equal or greater force to Portland-
Vancouver. The Portland/Vancouver submission satisfies the first two
factors articulated as the basis for the Grand Rapids exception: the
RACT rules at issue are not necessary for attainment and maintenance of
the standard. As for the third factor, in lieu of contingency measures,
Oregon has committed to submit the adopted RACT determinations for
approval into the SIP. (See Docket File for letter dated February 7,
1997.)
At this time, ODEQ has notified all non-CTG sources that a RACT
determination is required. In a letter to EPA, ODEQ has committed to
initiate the public hearing process within three months of getting a
response from a source and, within six weeks, after the permit
revisions are finalized, to submit such source specific determinations
to EPA. ODEQ has established RACT rules for three non-CTG sources; EPA
has approved one and is processing the other two as direct final rules
in a separate action. ODEQ is in the process of proposing RACT
determinations for three other sources. In a separate parallel action
EPA is proposing to approve one of these three ODEQ RACT
determinations. ODEQ also sent initiating letters to seven recently
identified non-CTG sources, notifying them of the requirement to submit
a complete analysis of RACT requirements within three months, in
accordance with the ODEQ rules.
In addition, the non-CTG sources for which ODEQ has not yet
established RACT requirements are relatively minor sources and the
implementation of RACT requirements is not necessary for maintenance of
the NAAQS in the maintenance plan area, i.e., the maintenance plan did
not take credit for reductions and is not depending on these reductions
for maintenance. However, before EPA takes final action to approve the
redesignation, EPA will approve the specific RACT rules for two sources
whose emission reductions are identified and credited in the
maintenance plan. EPA notes that the area proposed for redesignation is
a marginal O3 nonattainment area which has not violated the NAAQS since
1991.
Therefore, the only difference between the Pdx/Van request and the
exception proposed for Grand Rapids is the commitment to complete the
adoption of RACT rules for sources that
[[Page 10504]]
it has identified, rather than a commitment to adopt such rules merely
as contingency measures. Since Oregon has already initiated and
committed to the adoption of RACT rules which will become part of the
SIP, and not merely contingency measures, the justification for
applying this exception here is equally as compelling as, if not more
compelling than, the case of Grand Rapids. EPA believes that there is
no significant environmental consequence to this application of the
exception here, and that it is legally permissible under the statutory
provisions governing redesignation. The VOC RACT rules remain
applicable requirements under section 107 and EPA believes that ODEQ's
initiation of the process for all sources, which it and the sources are
bound to complete under Oregon rules, meets the redesignation
requirements.
5. Emission Statement
Under section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, a State must require each
owner of a stationary source of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or
nitrogen oxides (NOx) located in a marginal nonattainment area to
submit an annual statement of actual emissions from that source. EPA
approved Washington's emission statement program on November 14, 1994,
and approved Oregon's program on March 24, 1994.
6. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
Section 182(a)(2)(b) of the CAA requires that any O3 nonattainment
area which has been classified as ``marginal'' or worse have an I/M
program. The original federal I/M regulations were codified at 40 CFR
part 51, Subpart S, and required States to submit an I/M SIP revision
which included all necessary legal authority and the items specified in
40 CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993.
EPA has previously determined that the two States'' I/M programs
(currently in operation) met the applicable regulations established in
40 CFR part 51, Subpart S. A basic I/M program has been in operation in
Portland since 1975 and became operational in the Vancouver portion of
the nonattainment area on June 1, 1993. Portland submitted I/M ``fix
ups'' on November 15, 1993, and June 13, 1994, to meet EPA basic I/M
requirements. These were approved by EPA on January 29, 1994, and
September 9, 1994. Information on the existing Washington I/M program
can be found in the Federal Register notice (61 FR 38086; July 23,
1996) finalizing EPA's approval of the program. These elements will not
be enumerated here. In EPA's view, the new revisions EPA proposes to
approve in this action also meet the applicable federal requirements
(see discussion below in IV.E).
C. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions
There are several control measures that were responsible for the
Pdx/Van nonattainment area achieving attainment of the O3 NAAQS. The
major measures are:
--The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program which reduces VOC and NOx
emissions as newer, cleaner vehicles replace older, high emitting
vehicles;
--Summertime Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 7.8 psi required for gasoline
for the Oregon portion of the AQMA. (Gasoline for Vancouver area
service stations is supplied by Portland bulk terminals and therefore
the area receives gasoline with 7.8 psi RVP);
--The major source NSR program which requires Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate and offsets;
--The Portland basic vehicle emission Inspection and Maintenance
program;
--Stage I vapor recovery for Portland and Vancouver;
--RACT applied to major industrial sources of VOC.
Emission reductions achieved through the implementation of these
control measures are permanent and enforceable when approved by EPA as
part of the SIP. In addition, there are a number of State and local
measures that are part of the maintenance plan which, upon EPA
approval, will be federally enforceable, including stage I & II
gasoline vapor recovery requirements, improvements in public transit,
transportation demand management measures, and traffic flow
improvements.
The ODEQ and WDOE have demonstrated that actual enforceable
emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement and
that O3 emissions are not artificially low due to a local economic
downturn or unusual or extreme occurrences in the weather patterns.
Data in the maintenance plan show the area has grown rapidly since the
early 1980's. The Pdx/Van area initially attained the NAAQS in 1991,
with monitored attainment through 1996 despite this growth. Also,
meteorological conditions during the attainment time period were
conducive to O3 formation. EPA finds that the combination of existing
EPA-approved SIP and federal measures contribute to the permanence and
enforceability of reduction in ambient O3 levels that have allowed the
area to attain the NAAQS.
D. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv), Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS
for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the States must
submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the
ten years following the initial ten-year period. To provide for the
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation,
adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems.
In this notice, EPA is proposing approval of the Oregon and
Washington maintenance plans for the Pdx/Van marginal nonattainment
area because EPA finds that the submittal meets the requirements of
section 175A.
1. Attainment Emission Inventory
The maintenance plan should include an emission inventory
representative of the time period when monitoring data indicated
attainment. The attainment inventory uses 1992 as its base year and was
developed consistent with EPA guidance. Since air monitoring recorded
attainment in 1992, 1992 is an acceptable year for the attainment
inventory. A summary of the base year and projected maintenance year
inventories are shown in the tables below by pollutant for point, area,
biogenic, and mobile sources. Detailed inventory data are contained in
the docket maintained by EPA.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The ODEQ and WDOE included in their submittals projected emission
inventories showing that future emissions will not exceed the levels
determined to ensure maintenance throughout the 10 year maintenance
time period. The States also performed modeling, although not required,
for this marginal nonattainment area. (Refer to EPA's TSD prepared for
this notice for more details regarding the projected inventories and
modeling for the Pdx/Van area.)
a. Projected Year Inventory. The States projected emission
inventories for the end of the maintenance period using appropriate
growth factors, consistent with EPA guidance. In addition, the States
made projections for the interim years of 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2003 to
supplement the 2006 projections. As
[[Page 10505]]
shown in the tables below, the 2006 VOC and NOx emission levels
are below the 1992 attainment emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1992 1996 1999 2001 2003 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver, WA, VOC Emission Projections (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................... 5 4 4 4 4 5 5
Area Sources....................... 15 14 14 14 15 15 16
On-road............................ 22 16 13 11 9 9 9
Non-road........................... 8 8 9 9 10 9 9
Biogenic........................... 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 67 59 57 55 55 55 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland, OR, VOC Emissions Projections (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................... 40 36 37 41 42 45 48
Area Sources....................... 58 57 56 56 57 59 61
On-road............................ 114 92 70 52 47 44 41
Non-road........................... 38 39 41 38 41 39 36
Biogenic........................... 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 296 270 250 233 233 233 232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver, WA, NOX Emission Projections (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................... 6 5 5 6 6 6 7
Area Sources....................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
On-road............................ 14 15 14 12 12 12 11
Non-road........................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 28 28 27 26 26 26 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland, OR, NOX Emission Projections (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................... 13 15 16 18 20 21 21
Area Sources....................... 12 12 13 13 13 13 14
On-road............................ 76 75 68 56 54 52 51
Non-road........................... 33 35 37 36 36 35 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 134 137 134 123 123 121 121
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Modeled Attainment. EPA does not require modeling for marginal
nonattainment areas. However, the States performed modeling using the
Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach (EKMA). EKMA calculates the VOC
control requirement to attain the O3 standard considering expected
changes in emissions and transport of O3 precursors. (The EPA model,
OZIPM-4, was used to conduct the EKMA analysis.)
The historical trend of the measured ambient O3 data was
characterized using a regression analysis. The airshed capacity for the
AQMA was divided between the two States based on each area achieving
approximately an equal percent reduction from forecast emissions in
2006, the last year of the maintenance plan.
c. Control Measures. The States have adopted a number of new
control measures which include credit for some federal rules.
Additional information may be found on the following control measures
in part IV, or the TSD. The control measures are:
(1) Hybrid low enhanced vehicle inspection including On Board
Diagnostics (OBD).
(2) Expanded vehicle inspection boundary.
(3) RVP, fleet turnover, and National Low Emission Vehicles (NLEV)
(see below for additional details on NLEV).
(4) Employee commute options.
(5) Voluntary parking ratio program.
(6) Transportation control measures.
(7) New EPA nonroad engine rules.
(8) VOC Area Source Rules.
(9) Industrial permit limit (PSEL) donation program.
(10) Major NSR/PSD program.
(11) Source specific RACT requirements and a gasoline pipeline (see
part III. B. 4 for additional information on RACT).
(12) Public education and incentive program.
NLEV additional information: ODEQ and WDOE have included emission
reduction credits for the proposed NLEV (previously known as FedLEV)
program in on-road emission forecasts beginning in 2001. The NLEV
program was proposed by automobile manufacturers as an alternative to
the California LEV program recommended by States comprising the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC). While it appears likely that NLEV will be
available in Oregon by 2001, implementation of the NLEV program depends
on negotiations among the automobile manufacturers and the OTC States,
and is not under the direct control of EPA.
Because the OTC States and automobile manufacturers have not yet
committed to the NLEV program and the program is not yet in place, EPA
has not authorized SIP credit for the program. This policy will change
in the near future if the NLEV program agreement is finalized. EPA,
however, is proposing approval of the Pdx/Van O3 maintenance plan
because:
--The maintenance year emission inventories are below the attainment
[[Page 10506]]
year (1992) emission inventories without taking any credit for
potential NLEV reductions.
--The maintenance plans have been designed to address the most adverse
meteorological conditions that might be expected during the maintenance
period.
--ODEQ and SWAPCA have committed to adopt a backup measure by 1999 if
NLEV will be delayed beyond 2001. (The back-up measure alone is not
sufficient justification for approval.)
3. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the O3 NAAQS in the marginal nonattainment
area depends, in part, on the efforts of the States of Washington and
Oregon in tracking indicators of continued attainment during the
maintenance period. The ODEQ and WDOE will analyze annually the O3 air
quality monitoring data to verify continued attainment of the O3
standard in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50 and EPA's redesignation
guidance. Permanent O3 monitoring stations are operated in compliance
with EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in 40 CFR Part 58 and, in
addition to periodic monitoring saturation studies, SWAPCA and ODEQ are
working on a ``future study'' which could result in recommendations to
add permanent additional monitors.
The ODEQ and WDOE have also committed to perform periodic emission
inventory reviews of the O3 maintenance plan. In preparing the updates,
ODEQ and SWAPCA will review the emission factors, growth factors, rule
effectiveness, and penetration factors, and other significant
assumptions used to prepare the emission forecast. Factors will be
confirmed or adjusted where more accurate information is available. Any
new emission sources will be included in the update. Updates will be
prepared for 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2006 and will be submitted to
EPA for review.
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A requires a State to provide a contingency measure that
it will put into effect within some specified period of time after a
triggering event (e.g., exceedance or violation of a standard). In
addition, section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that all control measures
contained in the SIP prior to redesignation be retained as contingency
measures in the O3 maintenance plan. In both Oregon and Washington, the
following measures will be implemented in the Pdx/Van area if an actual
violation of the O3 NAAQS is recorded and validated:
--The NSR requirements for proposed major sources and major
modifications in the AQMA (and the area of significant air quality
impact) will change: specifically, the requirement to install Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) in the AQMA will be replaced with a
requirement for Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) controls and the
growth allowance will be eliminated and replaced with offsets. In
addition, in the Portland area, rules will be adopted to implement
requirements for reformulated gasoline, congestion pricing, or
equivalent emission reduction measures. These requirements will take
effect upon validation of a NAAQS violation.
--With an additional violation, area rules in Vancouver will be adopted
to implement a remote sensing I/M program, and further enhancements to
the I/M program, or an equivalent measure.
The Oregon and Washington contingency plans meet EPA's requirements
for redesignation.
5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Oregon and
Washington have agreed to develop the next ten-year maintenance plan
(2007-2016) and submit it to EPA by December 31, 2004. Such a revised
SIP will provide for maintenance for an additional ten years.
IV. Supporting Rules
A. NSR Changes for Maintenance Plan
1. SWAPCA 400 ``General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources''
On December 11, 1996, WDOE submitted a revision of the SIP for the
State of Washington which consisted of various amended regulations for
a local air agency authority, SWAPCA. SWAPCA has amended its Permit to
Construct rules in SWAPCA 400 to establish a new program for
``maintenance areas'' (nonattainment areas which have been redesignated
by EPA to attainment). This new program, which EPA is proposing to
approve as a SIP revision, is basically a combination of nonattainment
area (Part D NSR) requirements and attainment area PSD requirements for
new major sources and major modifications to existing major sources in
attainment areas. Specifically, a new section--SWAPCA 400-111
``Requirements for Sources in a Maintenance Area''--was added which
requires new major sources and major modifications to existing sources
in maintenance areas to: comply with all applicable new source
performance standards (NSPS), national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP), and State and local emission standards; not
cause any ambient air quality standard to be exceeded, not violate the
requirements for reasonable further progress, not delay the attainment
date for a nonattainment area, and not exceed emission levels or other
requirements in the maintenance plan; apply best available control
technology (BACT) for each maintenance pollutant (or precursor);
demonstrate that all major sources owned or operated by the source in
the State are in compliance with applicable requirements; provide
emission offsets (which may be met in whole or in part by an allocation
from the growth allowance in the SIP maintenance plan); demonstrate
that offsets will produce a net air quality benefit; conduct an
alternatives analysis; and comply with the PSD requirements, visibility
requirements, and SWAPCA air toxics requirements if applicable. The new
section also includes provisions which specify how the growth allowance
will be managed and allocated and specific requirements for acceptable
emission offsets. Finally, this new section includes a contingency plan
element that changes the BACT requirement to a LAER requirement, and
prohibits the use of any growth allowance if the contingency plan is
implemented due to a violation of an ambient air quality standard.
SWAPCA also made conforming changes to SWAPCA 400-030 ``Definitions,''
SWAPCA 400-040 ``General Standards for Maximum Emissions,'' SWAPCA 400-
050 ``Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units,''
SWAPCA 400-060 ``Emission Standards for General Process Units,'' SWAPCA
400-070 ``Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories,'' SWAPCA
400-101 ``Sources Exempt from Registration Requirements,'' SWAPCA 400-
105 ``Records, Monitoring and Reporting,'' SWAPCA 400-109 ``Notice of
Construction Application,'' SWAPCA 400-110 ``New Source Review,''
SWAPCA 400-112 ``Requirements for new Sources in Nonattainment Areas,''
SWAPCA 400-113 ``Requirements for New Sources in Attainment or
Nonclassifiable Areas,'' SWAPCA 400-114 ``Requirements for Replacement
or Substantial Alteration of Emission Control Technology at an Existing
Stationary Source,'' SWAPCA 400-171 ``Public Involvement,'' SWAPCA 400-
[[Page 10507]]
190 ``Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,'' SWAPCA 400-230
``Regulatory Actions and Civil Penalties,'' and SWAPCA 400-270
``Confidentiality of Records and Information,'' and added new sections
SWAPCA 400-116 ``Maintenance of Equipment,'' and SWAPCA 400-290
``Severability.'' A complete description of the changes and EPA's
review is found in the TSD.
2. OAR Chapter 340 Division 28 ``Stationary Source Air Pollution
Control And Permitting Procedures''
Oregon has amended its NSR Rules in OAR 340 Division 28 to
establish a new program for ``maintenance areas'' (nonattainment areas
which have been redesignated by EPA to attainment), which EPA proposes
to approve as part of the Oregon SIP. This new program is basically a
combination of nonattainment area (Part D NSR) requirements and
attainment area PSD requirements for new major sources and for major
modifications to existing major sources in attainment areas.
Specifically, a new section, OAR 340-028-1935 ``Requirements for
Sources in Maintenance Areas,'' was added which requires new major
sources and major modifications to existing sources in maintenance
areas to apply BACT for each maintenance pollutant (or precursor);
demonstrate that all major sources owned or operated by the source in
the State are in compliance; provide emission offsets (which may be met
in whole or in part by an allocation from the growth allowance in the
SIP maintenance plan); demonstrate that offsets will produce a net air
quality benefit; conduct an alternatives analysis; and comply with the
PSD requirements if applicable. This new section also includes a
contingency plan element that changes the BACT requirement to a LAER
requirement, and prohibits the use of any growth allowance if the
contingency plan is implemented due to a violation of an ambient air
quality standard. This section also includes requirements for
allocation of a growth allowance and clarifies that the nonattainment
area NSR provisions and not the maintenance plan NSR provisions
continue to apply until such time as EPA approves a request to
redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment. Conforming
changes were made to OAR 340-028-0110 ``Definitions,'' OAR 340-028-1900
``Applicability,'' OAR 340-028-1910 ``Procedural Requirements,'' OAR
340-028-1920 ``Review of New Sources and Modifications for Compliance
with Regulations,'' OAR 340-028-1930 ``Requirements for Sources in
Nonattainment Areas,'' OAR 340-028-1940 ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements for Sources in Attainment or Unclassified
Areas,'' OAR 340-028-1960 ``Baseline for Determining Credit for
Offsets,'' OAR 340-028-1970 ``Requirements for Net Air Quality
Benefit,'' OAR 340-028-2000 ``Visibility Impact,'' and OAR 340-030-0111
``Emissions Offsets.'' A complete description of the changes and EPA's
review is found in the TSD.
B. SWAPCA 490 ``Emission Standards and Controls For Sources Emitting
Volatile Organic Compounds''
EPA proposes approval of changes to the SWAPCA 490 VOC Area Source
RACT Fix-up regulations to support the O3 maintenance plan. The
proposed changes include updated citations and technical clarification
to the whole of SWAPCA 490. The key modifications are: addition of
language to incorporate revised federal requirements of 40 CFR 63.420
for leak testing gasoline tankers; revision of the certification
sticker issuance to provide for a full year of applicability; and
clarification of the applicability of the rule to address the
maintenance plan area in addition to the nonattainment area.
The changes were locally effective November 1, 1996, and were
submitted to EPA on December 11, 1996. The submittal satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.420. The SWAPCA rules are at least as
stringent as the WDOE rules and thereby meet the requirements of the
CAA.
C. SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting
Gasoline Vapors''
On December 11, 1996, WDOE submitted a revision of the Washington
SIP which consisted of various amended SWAPCA regulations. EPA is
proposing to approve SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for
Sources Emitting Gasoline Vapors,'' as part of the Washington SIP
because it is consistent with EPA policy and strengthens the Washington
SIP. The changes include: clarification to existing language and
definitions; removal of obsolete compliance dates; changes consistent
with WDOE's federally approved regulations for Stage I requirements;
and provision of references to testing and reporting requirements. The
sections are as follows:
491-010 ``Policy and Purpose'' (explains the emission categories that
apply to this regulation).
491-015 ``Applicability'' (explains the type of gasoline movements to
which the regulation applies).
491-020 ``Definitions'' (clarifications/explanations specific to the
regulation).
491-030 ``Registration'' (provides for annual registration and fees of
owner or operator of gasoline loading terminal, bulk gasoline tank, or
gasoline dispensing facilities).
491-040 ``Gasoline Vapor Control Requirements'' (specifies: capacity
or throughput criteria for application of rule; and, permissible uses
for fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks, gasoline loading terminals, bulk
gasoline plants and transport tanks, gasoline dispensing facilities
(Stage I), and gasoline dispensing facilities (Stage II).
491-050 ``Failures, Certification, Testing and Recordkeeping''
(specifies: conditions where facilities are discontinued;
certifications needed for operation; performance criteria of vapor
collection systems; and, test procedure and test recordkeeping
requirements).
491-060 ``Severability'' (provides for separation of the rule into
parts should any provision be held invalid).
In this action today, EPA is proposing to approve all the sections
in SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting
Gasoline Vapors,'' which became State-effective on November 1, 1996.
D. SWAPCA 493 ``VOC Area Source Rules''
EPA proposes approval of SWAPCA 493. SWAPCA's rules are as
stringent as Oregon's rules which are discussed and proposed for
approval in this Federal Register action (OAR 340-022-0700 through -
340-022-1130 ``Area Source VOC Regulations''). SWAPCA rules are also
proposed for approval because they are at least as stringent as
Oregon's rules. These rules cover spray paints, architectural coatings,
motor vehicle refinishing, and area source common provisions. EPA is
allowing Vancouver, WA, to take credit for the consumer products
federal rule in the same way as allowed in the Grand Rapids maintenance
plan April 2, 1996, proposed rulemaking, page 14529.
E. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
As part of this action, EPA is also proposing to approve certain
modifications to Oregon's and Washington's I/M programs. The changes
affect the Pdx/Van maintenance plan in that the emission reduction
credit claimed for each State's I/M program effectiveness will, if
approved,
[[Page 10508]]
change from what EPA has allowed for these States in the past.
In Oregon the I/M modifications are directly solely at the Portland
I/M area. In Washington the revisions are directed to the statewide I/M
program, which includes Vancouver, Spokane, and the Puget Sound Area.
1. Oregon I/M Submittal
EPA proposes to approve the SIP revision submitted by the State of
Oregon. This revision continues to require the implementation of a
basic motor vehicle I/M program in the Portland Metropolitan Service
district and the Medford-Ashland AQMA. The intended effect of this
action is revision of the I/M test type for certain vehicles in the
Portland area. Under this plan, certain vehicles would be subject to
``enhanced'' testing even though EPA regulations for the area itself
only require compliance with a basic standard. In addition, EPA
proposes to approve the State's request to expand the Portland I/M area
boundary. This action is being taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
a. Oregon I/M and Clean Air Act Requirements Background. The CAA
requires States to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or
implement new ones. Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires any O3 nonattainment
area which has been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant to section
181(a) of the Act) or worse to have an I/M program. All CO
nonattainment areas were also subject to this requirement.
In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to
publish updated guidance for State I/M programs, taking into
consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations
of these programs. The States were to incorporate this guidance into
the SIPs for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program.
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final
regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to section 182
and 187 of the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51,
Subpart S, and requires States to submit I/M SIP revisions which
include all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40 CFR
51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. Oregon has met these
requirements; see Federal Register (FR) notice 59 FR 46557, published
on September 9, 1994.
On December 12, 1996, Oregon submitted additional revisions to
portions of the SIP concerned with I/M program modification,
implementation, and operation. These SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA
to determine completeness shortly after submittal, in accordance with
the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The
submittals were found to be complete, and letters dated February 10,
1997, were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ indicating the
completeness of the submittal.
EPA has previously designated two areas as CO nonattainment in
Oregon, one of which is also an O3 nonattainment area. The Portland CO
nonattainment area, classified as ``moderate,'' with a design value
less than or equal to 12.7 ppm, contains portions of the following
three counties: Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington. The Portland O3
nonattainment area, classified as ``marginal,'' consists of the AQMA.
The Medford CO nonattainment area, classified as ``moderate,'' also
with a design value less than or equal to 12.7 ppm, contains a portion
of Jackson County. The nonattainment designations for CO and O3 were
published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1991, and November 30,
1992, and have been codified in the CFR. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR, sections
81.300-81.437. Based on these nonattainment designations, basic I/M
programs have been required in both the Portland area and the Medford
area.
By this action, EPA is proposing to approve Oregon's submittal,
revising the I/M program in the Portland area. EPA has reviewed the
State submittal against the statutory requirements and for consistency
with the Agency's regulations. EPA summarizes below the requirements of
the Federal I/M regulations, as found in 40 CFR Part 51.350-51.373, and
its analysis of the State submittal. Parties desiring additional
details on the Federal I/M regulations are referred to the November 5,
1992, Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR Part 51.350-
51.373.
The State's December 12, 1996, submittal provides for replacement
of the existing I/M test type, for certain vehicles and model years, in
the Portland area beginning on September 1, 1997. Though Oregon will
continue to conduct a biennial, test-only I/M program in Portland,
following approval of the State's maintenance plan and redesignation
request, the program will be more effective than the current program,
and will meet the emission reduction requirements of the proposed O3
maintenance plan. Since the Portland area has not yet been designated
as in attainment of the CO NAAQS, the I/M program in that area will
also be required to continue meeting EPA's basic performance standard
and other basic program requirements contained in the Federal I/M rule.
No changes to the Medford basic program are proposed. (Refer to the
February 12, 1997, TSD in the docket for a complete description of the
SIP provisions which are not being changed.)
Testing will continue to be performed by ODEQ (with the exception
of those fleets which are self-tested). Other aspects of the Oregon I/M
program that will only change as noted below include: testing of 1975
and newer vehicles in Portland; test fees to ensure the State has
adequate resources to implement the program; enforcement by
registration denial; a repair effectiveness program; commitment to
testing convenience, quality assurance, data collection, zero waiver
rate, reporting, and test equipment and procedure specification for the
basic test; commitment to developing ``enhanced'' test procedure
specifications; commitment to ongoing public information and consumer
protection programs; inspector training and certification; and
penalties against inspector incompetence. An analysis of how the
revisions to the Oregon I/M program will meet the Federal SIP
requirements by section of the Federal I/M rule is provided below.
(1) Applicability. The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas
in detail and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the
legal authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries.
Portland's I/M program, specified in Oregon's Revised Statutes
(ORS) 815.300 and OAR 340-024-0301, has been implemented in portions of
Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. In this action the area
proposed for expansion includes portions of the three aforementioned
counties, plus the area within the counties of Columbia and Yamhill.
The legal authority for Oregon's Environmental Quality Commission (EQC)
to establish geographic boundaries is found in ORS 468A.390 and
815.300.
(2) Basic I/M Performance Standard. The Medford and Portland I/M
programs provided for in the existing CO SIP are required to meet a
performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the
affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard
sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in
order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also
[[Page 10509]]
provide that the program will meet the performance standard in actual
operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard
is not met.
As part of the 1994 SIP package, the State submitted a modeling
demonstration using the EPA computer model MOBILE5a, and showing that
the basic performance standard is met in both Portland and Medford. The
State has recently submitted a demonstration supporting the claimed
effectiveness of the proposed revision to the Portland program. The
proposed modifications to the Portland program are, in EPA's view,
sufficient to meet both the declared needs of the proposed Portland/
Vancouver O3 maintenance plan and the federal requirements for a basic
I/M program.
(3) Adequate Tools and Resources. The SIP needs to include a
description of the resources that will be used for program operation,
which includes:
--A detailed budget plan which describes the source of funds for
personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase of
necessary equipment, and any other requirements discussed throughout,
for the period prior to the next biennial self-evaluation required in
the Federal I/M rule, and;
--A description of personnel resources, the number of personnel
dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program
administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions, and the
training attendant to each function.
Oregon's I/M program, as set forth in ORS 468A.400, is funded
solely by collection of fees from vehicle owners at the time of passing
the I/M test. The fee has been $10 per certificate issued for ODEQ-
inspected vehicles, and $5 each from certificates issued by fleets.
Under the revision, these fees may be increased to: a maximum amount of
$10 for vehicles in Medford, a maximum of $21 for Portland vehicles,
and a range of from $5 to $10 per vehicle for fleets. No other changes
have been proposed in this action. EPA proposes to find that the Oregon
I/M program provides for adequate tools and resources to implement the
program.
(4) Test Frequency and Convenience. The SIP needs to include the
test schedule in detail, including the test year selection scheme if
testing is other than annual. Also, the SIP needs to include the legal
authority necessary to implement and enforce the test frequency
requirement and explain how the test frequency will be integrated with
the enforcement process.
The Oregon I/M program requires biennial inspections for all
subject motor vehicles (see ORS 468A.365). For new, Oregon licensed
vehicles the first test is required for reregistration two years after
initial registration. In addition, all gasoline powered heavy duty
trucks and most motor vehicles registered as government-owned vehicles
are required to be certified annually. Short waiting times and short
driving distances relating to network design are satisfactorily
addressed in the existing SIP.
EPA proposes to approve the following changes in this action:
continuation of the basic test for Portland area vehicles from three to
five years old (i.e., model years from three to five years old), and
model years between and including 1975 and 1980; modification to the
Portland program so that vehicles from six years old to model year 1981
will be required to undergo ``enhanced'' testing (including a purge
test); and, pressure tests on Portland-area gas caps as part of the
overall I/M testing.
(5) Vehicle Coverage. The SIP needs to include a detailed
description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the
program, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified,
including vehicles that are routinely operated in the area but may not
be registered in the area. EPA proposes to approve the following
changes to Portland area vehicle coverage, anticipated to be effective
by September 1, 1997: basic tests for light duty vehicles (LDVs) less
than or equal to five years old and between (and including) the model
years of 1975 and 1980; enhanced tests for light duty vehicles greater
than or equal to six years old, but less than model year 1981; annual
certification of government-owned vehicles which are part of fleets
numbering more than 50 vehicles; bi-annual certification of government-
owned vehicles which are part of fleets numbering less than 50
vehicles; and, annual certification of U.S. Government vehicles--except
for tactical military vehicles--operated in either the Portland or
Medford areas.
(6) Test Procedures and Standards. The SIP needs to include a
description of each test procedure used. The SIP also needs to include
the rule, ordinance, or law describing and establishing the test
procedures.
In the Portland I/M area all 1975 model and newer vehicles have
been subject to a two speed idle test. This action proposes to approve
modification of the Portland test type to include the existing idle
test and a new transient loaded test called ``BAR31.'' The new test
would be used on the model years of LDVs discussed above. The BAR31
test involves a maximum of four tests (second order equation,
symmetrical peak, acceleration/deceleration modes) of approximately 31
seconds of duration each. In OAR 340-024-0312(4)(a), Oregon also
proposed an additional test that would allow vehicles that failed all
four cycles to have their emissions extrapolated out to six cycles; if
the extrapolated ``sixth hill'' emissions passed the cutpoints, the
vehicle would pass. EPA proposes to disapprove this additional test. As
explained in the TSD, following negotiations between the State and EPA
concerning the type of BAR31 test to be administered, and the level of
credit appropriate for the implemented test, the State decided to
eliminate the sixth hill test. The agreed-upon level of credit allotted
to Oregon's BAR31 program does not, therefore, include this option.
Although State regulations still include this language regarding the
sixth hill extrapolation, ODEQ indicates it has no plans to allow its
use.
The Oregon BAR31 test has been reviewed by EPA, and approved. Its
application in Oregon's program has been accorded an initial level of
effectiveness (credit) commensurate with the State's supporting
documentation (available for review in the docket). The credit found to
be appropriate is approximately 90% of that accorded to IM240, the
Agency's recommended enhanced test-type. Specifically, it has 90%, 95%,
and 95% of the effectiveness of IM240 for reducing, respectively,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. It is appropriate,
therefore, that the State refers to the BAR31 test as an ``enhanced''
test. Following implementation of the program, the State has committed
to auditing 0.1% of its fleet for four years with an IM240 test to
better quantify the actual effectiveness of the BAR31 test. Detailed
procedures for the BAR31 test will be developed pursuant to receipt of
the equipment.
The only change proposed to Portland's (or Medford's) basic program
test procedures EPA proposes to approve is the introduction of a gas
cap pressure test in Portland. OBD system checks for 1996 and newer
vehicles will start in the year 1998 for both basic and BAR31 tests.
(7) Test Equipment. The SIP needs to include written technical
specifications for all test equipment used in the program and shall
address each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M
rule. On June 21, 1996, the State received authorization from the
[[Page 10510]]
State Emergency Board to purchase the new enhanced testing equipment.
However, no revisions to the technical specifications of the equipment
to be used for I/M purposes have been proposed in this action. It is
anticipated that the State will document specifications for the new
enhanced equipment following purchase.
(8) Quality Control. The SIP needs to include a description of
quality control and record keeping procedures. The SIP needs to include
the procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and
establishing the procedures of quality control and requirements.
The existing Oregon I/M SIP narrative contains descriptions and
requirements establishing the quality control procedures in accordance
with the Federal I/M rule. These requirements help ensure that
equipment calibrations are properly performed and recorded, as well as
maintaining compliance document security. No revisions to the SIP have
been proposed in this action for the basic I/M program. Details about
the proposed Portland area's BAR31 enhanced testing methods are
contained in (new) OAR 340-024-0312.
(9) Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification.
The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the
written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.
The Oregon I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training,
certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training
will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule.
All inspectors are required to be certified to inspect vehicles in the
Oregon I/M program. The only change EPA proposes to approve as part of
this action to accept training credit is the calculation of overall I/M
emission reduction effectiveness.
(10) Improving Repair Effectiveness. The SIP needs to include a
description of the technical assistance program to be implemented, and
a description of the repair technician training resources available in
the community. Only one general update to the SIP has been proposed in
this action for ``improving repair effectiveness.'' The update EPA
proposes to approve is actually an addition to a previous program that
met federal requirements. The addition notes that since November 1995
an advisory committee has been working to develop a ODEQ Auto
Technician Emissions Training. The training program envisioned will be
voluntary and will issue certifications for two levels of repair
proficiency.
2. Washington I/M Submittal
EPA proposes to approve the SIP revision submitted by the State of
Washington for the purpose of approving changes to the I/M program for
Washington State. EPA proposes to approve changes to the Washington I/M
program that apply to Vancouver, Spokane, and the Puget Sound areas. On
December 20, 1996, Washington submitted SIP revision requests to the
EPA to satisfy the requirements of sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(4) and 7511a(c)(3)
(1990), and the Federal I/M rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S). These SIP
revisions will change certain provisions of the existing approved SIP
that require vehicle owners to comply with the Washington I/M program
in portions of the Washington counties of Clark, King, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Spokane. The three I/M areas currently operating
programs are associated with: (1) the Vancouver O3 nonattainment area,
proposed for re-designation, but currently classified as ``marginal,''
(2) the Spokane CO nonattainment area, classified as ``moderate,'' and
(3) the Puget Sound O3 attainment area. In addition, both the Puget
Sound area and Vancouver are now in attainment for CO, and have
continued I/M in their areas under an approved maintenance plan. The
revisions relate primarily to an additional allowable I/M test type,
allowable gas cap leak tests, and new federal OBD requirements.
a. Washington I/M and Clean Air Act Requirements Background Section
182(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires any O3 nonattainment area
which has been classified as ``marginal'' or worse (pursuant to section
181(a) of the Act) to establish an I/M program. These areas must
implement basic or enhanced I/M programs depending upon their specific
classifications. In particular, O3 nonattainment areas classified as
``serious'' or worse, with populations of 200,000 or more, and CO
``moderate'' or ``serious'' nonattainment areas, with design values
above 12.7 ppm and populations of 200,000 or more, are required to meet
EPA guidance for enhanced I/M programs.
Additionally, areas which have been re-designated from non-
attainment to attainment may continue to use I/M to reduce emissions.
I/M requirements within those areas'' maintenance plans seeking to
advance the air quality of the respective areas to attainment may,
therefore, be very similar to those requirements contained in previous
SIPs.
Prior to November 25, 1996, EPA had designated two areas as O3
nonattainment in the State of Washington. The Puget Sound O3
nonattainment area was classified as marginal, and contained portions
of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. The Vancouver non-attainment
area was also classified as marginal, and contained a portion of Clark
County. In an action taken on November 25, 1996, however, the Puget
Sound area was re-designated to attainment, leaving only one area in
nonattainment.
Likewise, prior to October 21, 1996, three areas in Washington
State were designated as CO nonattainment areas. Both the Spokane CO
nonattainment area (Spokane County) and the Puget Sound CO
nonattainment area (portions of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties)
had design values greater than 12.7 ppm and were designated as
``moderate plus.'' In addition, the Vancouver area was a ``moderate''
CO nonattainment area, with a design value below 12.7 ppm. The central
Puget Sound area had, and continues to have, an urbanized area
population of over one million, and Spokane had, and continues to have,
an urbanized area population in excess of 200,000.
Based on these nonattainment designations and populations, basic I/
M programs were required in the Vancouver and Puget Sound O3
nonattainment areas, while enhanced I/M programs were required in the
Puget Sound and Spokane CO nonattainment areas. On November 25, 1996,
however, the Puget Sound area was redesignated to attainment for CO and
O3, and on October 21, 1996, the Vancouver area was redesignated to
attainment for CO.
As a result of the redesignations of the Puget Sound area for O3
attainment, only one Washington area--Vancouver--continues to be (until
EPA approves the Pdx/Van maintenance plan and redesignation request)
classified as marginal O3 nonattainment. Vancouver is part of the
larger Pdx/Van nonattainment area. In addition, subsequent to the re-
designations noted above, only one area in Washington--Spokane--remains
designated as a CO (``moderate plus'') nonattainment area. Based on
these nonattainment designations and populations, an enhanced I/M
program continues to be required in Spokane, a basic program continues
to be required in Vancouver, and a program is still required by the
Puget Sound maintenance plan.
The I/M action being proposed herein (received by EPA on December
20, 1996) includes proposed changes to the I/M program in the State of
Washington. If the Vancouver area is redesignated to
[[Page 10511]]
attainment and the I/M proposals are approved, Washington will no
longer have any O3 nonattainment areas and I/M, for the purposes of
reducing ambient O3 levels, will only be required in Vancouver and
Puget Sound to meet reduction targets in the respective maintenance
plans. Only Spokane will remain a CO nonattainment area, and require an
enhanced I/M program. The Puget Sound and Vancouver areas, which
continue to be in CO attainment, will need I/M programs only to meet
the reduction targets of their maintenance plans.
EPA has reviewed the December 20, 1996, State submittal for
compliance with statutory requirements and for consistency with the
Agency's regulations. A summary of the EPA's analysis of why it is
proposing to approve the SIP revision is provided below. In addition, a
history and a summary to support approval of the Washington and Oregon
State submittals are contained in a TSD, dated February 12, 1997, which
is available from the EPA Region 10 Office (address provided above).
I/M programs have been running in the Puget Sound area since 1982,
in Spokane since 1985, and in Vancouver since 1993. Washington State's
current centralized, test only, biennial program meets the requirements
of EPA's low enhanced performance standard, and of other requirements
contained in the Federal I/M rule in the applicable nonattainment
areas. On December 20, 1996, Washington submitted an I/M SIP revision
that would provide for the continued implementation of I/M programs in
the Puget Sound, Spokane, and Vancouver areas, but revises State
regulations to allow for implementation of a different I/M test in
those areas. Emission testing is, and will continue to be, overseen by
the WDOE and performed by its I/M contractor. Public hearings for the
State's submittal were held in Vancouver, Bellevue, and Spokane on July
16, 17, and 18, 1996, respectively. A description of the existing
Washington I/M program can be found in the Federal Register notice (61
FR 38086; July 23, 1996) finalizing EPA's approval of the program.
These elements will not be enumerated here.
In EPA's view, the December 20 I/M SIP revisions continue to ensure
that Washington's centralized, test only, biennial program meets the
requirements of EPA's low enhanced performance standard, other
requirements contained in 40 CFR Subpart S in the applicable
nonattainment counties, the needs of the Spokane nonattainment area,
and the needs of the Puget Sound and (existing and newly proposed) CO
and O3 Vancouver maintenance plans.
The revisions to the State I/M program in the Puget Sound area
which EPA proposes to approve include:
A loaded idle test (i.e., continued operation of the
current testing regime), and the possibility of adopting an accelerated
simulation mode (ASM) and gas cap check test;
A program to continue evaluating on-road testing which is
designed to meet the EPA 0.5% requirement for the State's enhanced
program areas, or for areas seeking maintenance plan credit for such
testing; and,
A check of the OBD system for all vehicles 1996 and newer
(starting in 1998).
The proposed I/M program revisions in Spokane that EPA proposes to
approve include:
A loaded idle test (i.e., continued use of the current
test) and an ASM test; and,
A check of the OBD system for all vehicles 1996 and newer
(starting in 1998).
The I/M program revisions in Vancouver that EPA proposes to approve
include:
Continued operation of the current testing regime until
replaced by an ASM test;
An ASM and gas cap check test by 1998;
A check of the OBD system for all vehicles 1996 and newer
(starting in 1998);
Expansion of the Clark County testing area; and,
Exemption of vehicles three years old or newer in the
expanded Clark County area.
Although in Spokane and Vancouver the State plans by 1998 to
implement the ASM tests, and in all three areas implement OBD checks,
the regulations supporting this intention simply provide for the
``allowance'' of such tests. Gas cap checking is also a test which new
State regulations now ``allow,'' rather than commit to. The emissions
benefits to be gained by such enhancements are proposed in the Pdx/Van
maintenance plan. Implementation in Vancouver is scheduled for no later
than 1998.
An analysis of how the Washington I/M program continues to meet
EPA's I/M regulations is provided below. For the most part, the
Washington program has not been modified significantly; specific
information about portions of the program that have not been modified
are presented in the TSD.
(1) Applicability. The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas
in detail and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the
legal authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries.
The Washington I/M regulations specify that I/M programs will be
implemented in the areas described above. Although Vancouver has been
required to implement only a basic I/M program for its O3 and,
previously, for its CO nonattainment areas (and in the existing SIP the
performance of Vancouver's program was compared to EPA's basic
performance standard), the State chose to implement a ``low enhanced''
program in all areas that required I/M programs. The action proposed in
this notice, if approved, would allow the use of an ASM2525 low
enhanced I/M test in all three State areas (as well as other, more
minor I/M modifications noted above). The proposed O3 maintenance plan
for the Pdx/Van area, in fact, relies to a degree on the adoption of
ASM2525 in Vancouver by 1998.
(2) Enhanced and Basic I/M Performance Standard. The federal I/M
performance standard sets an emission reduction target that must be met
by a program in order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also
provide that the program will meet the performance standard in actual
operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard
is not met. The I/M programs in Vancouver and Spokane have been
required to meet a performance standard--basic and low enhanced,
respectively--for the pollutants that caused the affected areas to come
under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, I/M Requirements. If the redesignation
of Vancouver is approved, the area will no longer need to meet the
basic performance standard, except as specified in the maintenance
plan.
The State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA
computer model MOBILE5a showing that the low enhanced performance
standard will continue to be met for Spokane if ASM2525 is implemented.
The State has also submitted modeling for the areas of Vancouver and
Puget Sound that demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that implementation
of the new ASM2525 program will either meet or exceed the previously
calculated emission reductions expected from the current I/M test
types.
(3) Vehicle coverage. The SIP needs to include a detailed
description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the
program, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified,
including vehicles that are routinely operated in the area but may not
be registered in the area. Also, the SIP
[[Page 10512]]
needs to include a description of any special exemptions which will be
granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage and number of
subject vehicles which will be affected. Such exemptions need to be
accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In addition, the SIP
needs to include the legal authority or rule necessary to implement and
enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
The State has not proposed any SIP revisions for these I/M
elements, other than to exempt all vehicles from testing in the
expanded Vancouver area (i.e., the new additional area included by the
expansion) if they are newer than four years old. The Washington
program continues to include coverage of all 1968 and newer model year
gasoline powered LDVs and light-duty and heavy-duty trucks registered
or required to be registered within the nonattainment areas, and fleets
primarily operated within an I/M program area. The starting model year
of a vehicle testing program may be changed each year to include the
most recent 24 model years. I/M testing exemptions are granted for
alternative fuel vehicles, electric vehicles, and motorcycles.
All subject fleets must complete the emission inspection process,
without a waiver option being available. Fleets may be inspected in
facilities other than the State's inspection stations, provided that
WDOE approves the alternative tests. Vehicles operated on federal
installations are required to be tested regardless of whether the
vehicles are registered in the State or local I/M area. Legal authority
for the vehicle coverage is contained in the Washington statutes and I/
M rule.
(4) Test procedures and standards. The SIP needs to include a
description of each test procedure used. The SIP also needs to include
the rule, ordinance, or law describing and establishing the test
procedures.
The existing Washington I/M SIP establishes test vehicle procedures
and standards that at a minimum are consistent with EPA regulations.
Test procedures and standards are specified in WAC 173-422-070. In
Washington, all 1968 and newer gasoline or diesel-fueled vehicles are
tested. Under the revised SIP, the State will test vehicles on a
steady-state dynamometer, or by a two-speed idle and 2500 RPM unloaded
test, or by ASM2525. Diesel vehicles will continue to be tested for
exhaust opacity only. Specified vehicles are tested using a transient
emissions test. In addition, starting in 1998, the State plans to
perform OBD checks of vehicles of model year 1996 or later.
(5) Test equipment. The SIP needs to include written technical
specifications for all test equipment used in the program and shall
address each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M
rule. The specifications need to describe the emission analysis
process, the necessary test equipment, the required features, and
written acceptance testing criteria and procedures.
The existing Washington I/M SIP describes the performance features
of computerized test systems, and exhaust gas analyzer specifications.
For transient emissions tests, EPA's ``High Tech I/M Test Procedures,
Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements and Equipment
Specifications'' Final Technical Guidance is followed. Regulations
covering ASM2525 specifications are included in WAC 173-422-070. EPA
understands that more detailed ASM2525, gas cap check, and OBD
operational and QA/QC equipment specifications and protocols will be
developed after the State has procured the test equipment.
(6) Quality control.
The SIP needs to include a description of quality control (QC) and
recordkeeping procedures. The SIP needs to include the procedures
manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the
procedures of QC.
The Washington I/M SIP continues to include a QC Plan that
specifies QC and periodic maintenance procedures. No changes have been
proposed, other than those new ASM2525 QC regulations contained in WAC
173-422-070. QC procedures for the existing program tests are specified
in WAC 173-422-120. The WDOE Emission Check staff perform inspections
to ensure that operation of the emission testing facilities,
calibration and maintenance of exhaust analyzers, test procedures, and
training of management and inspection personnel meet the standards
outlined in WAC 173-422.
F. Oregon Miscellaneous O3 Supporting Rules
EPA is proposing approval of the additions to OAR Chapter 340,
Divisions 22-0400 through -1130, 24-301, 30-0700 through -1190, and 31-
0500 through--0530.
The additions to Divisions 22, 24, 30 and 31 submitted to the EPA
on August 30, 1996, satisfy the requirements of section 110 of the CAA
and 40 CFR Part 51.
The EPA is also proposing approval of Oregon's request for
modification of Test Method 24 for Morton Traffic Markings' use of
methacrylate multicomponent coatings, as submitted on September 23,
1996. This request for modification was to assist in determining
compliance with Oregon OAR 340-22-1020.
1. Background
The ODEQ submitted to EPA additions to OAR, Divisions 22, 24, 30,
and 31 on August 30, 1996. The additions were State-effective on:
August 12, 1996, for Division 24; August 14, 1996, for Divisions 22 and
30; and August 19, 1996, for Division 31.
The additions contained supporting regulations to ODEQ's O3
maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Portland AQMA. The
submittals included Oregon's Stage II regulations (OAR 340-022-0400
through -0403), Area Source VOC regulations (OAR 340-022-0700-1130),
Motor Vehicle Inspection Boundary (OAR-340-024 0301), Industrial
Emissions Management program (OAR-340-030-0700 through -0740), Employee
Commute Options Program (OAR 340-030-0800 through -1040), Voluntary
Maximum Parking Ratios Program (OAR-340-030-1100 through -1190), and
Boundary Descriptions and Nonattainment and Maintenance Area
Designations (OAR 340-031-0500, -520, and -0530).
2. Discussion
Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations (OAR 340-22-0400 through -0403)
and Area Source VOC Regulations for General Gaseous Emissions (OAR 340-
22-0700 through -1130) were submitted for Federal approval for the
first time. These new rules included statements of purpose,
definitions, general provisions, applicability, compliance schedules,
standards and exemptions, requirements, inspection and testing
procedures, recordkeeping and reporting, and other exemptions for
gasoline vapors from gasoline transfer and dispensing operations, motor
vehicle refinishing, consumer products, spray paints, and architectural
coatings. The cited VOC emissions limits within these regulations are
at least as stringent as the Federal rules which have been promulgated
and approved. The EPA does not have emissions limits promulgated for
spray paints and only has proposed rules for architectural coatings and
consumer products.
Oregon also submitted a request for modification of Test Method 24
for Morton Traffic Markings' determination of VOC content for
methacrylate multicomponent coatings. Upon review of that modification,
EPA is proposing approval of the modification, with the condition added
that a limit be set at ten
[[Page 10513]]
percent for how much sample can be lost while breaking up the
compounds.
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340-
024-0301) was submitted for Federal approval for the first time. This
new rule described the boundary designations for motor vehicle emission
control inspection, test criteria, methods and standards. These
boundary designations have been reviewed and are proposed for approval.
Industrial Emissions Management Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-
0700 through -0740); Employee Commute Options Program Regulations (OAR
340-030-0800 through -1040); and Voluntary Maximum Parking Ratios
Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-1100 through -1190) were submitted for
Federal approval for the first time. OAR 340-030-0700 through -0740
contained: statement of application, definition of terms, unused Plant
Site Emission Limit (PSEL) donation program, industrial growth
allowances, and industrial growth allowance allocation. These have been
reviewed and are proposed for approval. The TSD contains additional
discussion.
Definitions of Boundaries (OAR 340-031-0500), Nonattainment Area
(OAR 340-031-0520), and Maintenance Areas (OAR 340-031-0530) were
submitted for Federal approval for the first time. An identical copy of
these rules was also submitted as part of the CO redesignation request
for the Portland Metro area. The definitions of boundaries,
nonattainment areas, and maintenance areas listed in these rules have
been reviewed and are proposed for approval.
V. Proposed Action
EPA proposes to approve the Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver,
Washington, interstate O3 maintenance plan and request for
redesignation to attainment because ODEQ and WDOE have demonstrated
compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for
redesignation. EPA also proposes to approve the 1990 O3 Emission
Inventories, changes to the NSR programs, regulations implementing the
hybrid low enhanced I/M programs, an expanded vehicle inspection
boundary, minor RACT rule changes (Vancouver only), Employee Commute
Options rule (Portland only), voluntary parking ratio rule (Portland
only), PSEL management rules (Portland only), and local area source
supporting rules.
The regulations EPA proposes to approve for the Vancouver,
Washington, portion are found in the following: SWAPCA 400 ``General
Regulations for Air Pollution Sources''; SWAPCA 490 ``Emission
Standards and Controls for Sources Emitting Volatile Organic
Compounds''; SWAPCA 491 ``Emission Standards and Controls for Sources
Emitting Gasoline Vapors''; and SWAPCA 493, ``VOC Area Source Rules.''
The amendments to SWAPCA 400, 490, and 491 became effective on November
21, 1996. The amendments to SWAPCA 493 became effective on May 25,
1996. The Washington I/M SIP revision (WAC 173-422, sections -030, -
050, -060, -070, -170, and -190) was adopted by the State on November
9, 1996.
The regulations EPA proposes to approve for the Portland, Oregon,
portion are found in the following: Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations
(OAR 340-022-0400 through -340-022-0404); Area Source VOC Regulations
(OAR 340-022-0700 through -340-022 1130); Industrial Emissions
Management Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-0700 through -340-030-
0740); Employee Commute Options Program Regulations (OAR 340-030-0800
through -340-030-1040); Voluntary Maximum Parking Ratios Program
Regulations (OAR 340-030-1100 through -340-030-1190). The above five
amendments to the OAR became effective on August 14, 1996. The
following three amendments became effective on August 19, 1996:
Definitions of Boundaries (OAR 340-031-0500); Nonattainment Areas (OAR
340-031-0520); Maintenance Areas (OAR 340-031-0530). The amendment to
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340-024-
0301) became effective August 12, 1996. The Oregon I/M revisions
(Section 3.1, OAR 340-24-300 through -340-24-355; and section 5.4) were
adopted by the State on November 14, 1996. Oregon NSR revisions were
submitted by ODEQ on or before January 22, 1997.
EPA is soliciting public comment on its proposed approval of
revisions to the Washington and Oregon SIPs and their request to
redesignate to attainment the Pdx/Van O3 area. Comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties are invited to comment on all aspects of this
proposed approval. Comments should be submitted to the address listed
in the front of this Notice. Public comments postmarked by April 7,
1997 will be considered in the final rulemaking action taken by EPA.
VI. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) Impact
On December 13, 1996, EPA published proposed revisions to the O3
and particulate matter (PM) NAAQS. Also on December 13, 1996, EPA
published its proposed policy regarding the interim implementation
requirements for O3 or PM during the time period following any
promulgation of a revised O3 or PM NAAQS (61 FR 65751). This IIP
includes proposed policy regarding O3 redesignation actions submitted
to and approved by EPA prior to promulgation of a new O3 standard, as
well as those submitted prior to and approved by EPA after the
promulgation date of a new or revised O3 standard.
Complete redesignation requests, submitted by States and processed
by EPA prior to the promulgation date of the new or revised O3
standard, will be approved based on the maintenance plan's ability to
demonstrate attainment of the current 1-hour standard and compliance
with existing redesignation criteria. Any redesignation requests
submitted prior to promulgation, which are not acted upon by EPA prior
to that promulgation date, must then also include a maintenance plan
which demonstrates attainment of both the current one-hour standard and
the new or revised O3 standard to be considered for redesignation.
As discussed previously, the Pdx/Van redesignation request
demonstrates attainment under the current one-hour O3 standard. Since
the EPA plans to approve this request prior to the promulgation date of
the new or revised O3 standard, the Pdx/Van redesignation request meets
the proposed IIP.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
VII. Administrative Review
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the EPA Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866
review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or
[[Page 10514]]
final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA
may certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities
with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D, of the
CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted on by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: February 26, 1997.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 97-5642 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P