Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28531

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.

(3) New houseboats that have

buoyancy flotation devices enabling the

houseboat to float will be limited to

styrofoam-type material or

commercially made flotation products

such as pontoon floats. Houseboats

utilizing containers made of metal (e.g.,

55 gallon drums for buoyancy/flotation)

will not be permitted unless the

container has never been used to store

any type of product inside and proof to

this effect is provided.

(4) Houseboats will have a chemical

or other marine-type approved holding

tank or storage container. Discharge of

sewage into waters within the Preserve

is prohibited.

(5) All trash and other waste material

accumulated on houseboats will be

properly disposed of outside the

Preserve boundaries. Burying or burning

trash is prohibited.

(6) All weapons on houseboats will be

unloaded and cased.

(7) Houseboats will be equipped with

a minimum of one approved Type B-l

fire extinguisher, one Type I personal

flotation device for each individual

occupying the houseboat, and one Type

IV buoyant cushion or ring buoy.

(8) Houseboats will have a minimum

of three reflective devices located so as

to be visible to other marine type traffic

from sunset to sunrise.

(9) Fires on Preserve land will not be

left unattended and will be completely

extinguished before leaving the area of

the moored houseboat.

(10) Damage to any trees or vegetation

on Preserve land surrounding the

moored houseboat is prohibited. This

includes such actions as, but not limited

to:

(i) Mooring houseboats to trees;

(ii) Nailing objects to trees;

(iii) Clearing of vegetation; and

(iv) Streambank modification.

(11) All persons registering a

houseboat within the boundaries of Big

Thicket National Preserve will comply

with all regulations pertaining to

moored houseboats.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 96–14105 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

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.

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
28532 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

3Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2).

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 JeldWen’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 reevaluate 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.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28533

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.

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

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.
28534 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY—ATTAINMENT STRATEGIES

Attainment measures—1994

Credit requested Emission reductions

24-Hour Annual

Number per

hour

Tons per

year

(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 (tenantoccupied) 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 μg/m3 for a 24-hour average.

A yellow advisory is issued when

PM–10 concentrations are forecast to

exceed or are exceeding 81 μg/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 μg/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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28535

5This discussion is based on information in a

memorandum from David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy

Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated March 4, 1996.

6This 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.

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

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.

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
28536 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

7State Implementation Plan for PM–10 in

Klamath Falls, October 1991, Section 12.3.2.

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

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 deicing 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 onefourth 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28537

8 This statement is based on information in a

letter from David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos,

EPA Region 10, dated February 6, 1996.

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 (μg/m3), and

the standard is attained when the

expected number of days per calendar

year with a 24-hour average

concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal

to or less than one (see 40 CFR section

50.6). The annual PM–10 NAAQS is 50

μg/m/3, and the standard is attained

when the expected annual arithmetic

mean concentration is less than or equal

to 50 μg/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 μg/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, μg/

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 μg/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
28538 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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.

10Section 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.

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

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)×100); or,

[((60¥1350 μg/m3)/(600¥7 μg/

m3)]×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 μg/m3)/(82¥15 μg/

m3)]×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 μg/m3.

An annual reduction of 1,201 tons will

result in an annual concentration of 44.9

μg/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 μg/m3) comprises secondary

particulate. On an annual basis, 1.9% of

the mass (1.5 μg/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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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
28540 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 5μg/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 costeffective 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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

40 CFR Part 52 and 81

[WI70–1–7296; FRL–5510–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes: Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources (WDNR) request to

redesignate Walworth County to

attainment for ozone. In addition, EPA

is proposing to approve the associated

maintenance plan as a revision to the

Wisconsin State Implementation Plan

(SIP).

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received by July 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Toxics and Radiation Branch (AR–18J),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State’s submittal and

EPA’s analysis (Technical Support

Document) are available for inspection

at the following location: United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that

you telephone Randy Robinson at (312)

353–6713 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Robinson at (312) 353–6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In accordance with requirements of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(ACT), Walworth County was

designated as a marginal ozone

nonattainment area on November 6,

1991, (56 FR 56850). The nonattainment

designation was based on air quality

monitored violations of the ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS).

Recent air quality data shows that

Walworth County is not in violation of

the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the area

is eligible for redesignation to

attainment based on a minimum of 3

years of ‘‘clean’’ air quality data, as

required in the Act. On December 15,

1995, the WDNR submitted a request for

redesignation to attainment and a

maintenance plan for ozone for

Walworth County. The remainder of this

notice will discuss the regulatory

requirements for redesignation to

attainment, the details of the Wisconsin

submittal, and EPA’s rulemaking action.

II. Redesignation Review Criteria

The Act provide the requirements for

redesignating a nonattainment area to

attainment. Specifically, Section

107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation

if: (i) The Administrator determines that

the area has attained the NAAQS; (ii)

The Administrator has fully approved

the applicable implementation plan for

the area under section 110(k); (iii) The

Administrator determines that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and applicable

Federal air pollutant control regulations

and other permanent and enforceable

reductions; (iv) The Administrator has

fully approved a maintenance plan for

the area as meeting the requirements of

Section 175(A); and (v) The State

containing such area has met all

requirements applicable to the area

under Section 110 and Part D.

The EPA provided guidance on

redesignation in the General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(General Preamble), 57 FR 13498 (April

16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070

(April 28, 1992). Three key memoranda

provide further guidance with respect to

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act. The first,

dated September 4, 1992, was issued by

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality

Management Division, Subject:

Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment

(Calcagni Memorandum). The second,

dated September 17, 1993, was issued

by Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

Subject: State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Area Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after

November 15, 1992, (Shapiro

Memorandum). The third, dated

October 14, 1994, was issued by Mary

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, Subject: Part D New

Source Review Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to Attainment

(Nichols Memorandum).

Analysis of State Submittal

A. The Area must have attained the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard

For ozone, an area may be considered

attaining the NAAQS if there are no

violations, as determined in accordance

with 40 CFR § 50.9, based on 3

complete, consecutive calendar years of

quality assured monitoring data. The

data that are used should be the product

of ambient monitoring that is

representative of the area believed to

have the highest concentration. A

violation of the NAAQS occurs when

the annual average number of expected

daily exceedances is equal to or greater

than 1 at any site under consideration.

A daily exceedance occurs when the

maximum hourly ozone concentration

during a given day exceeds 0.124 parts

per million (ppm). The data should be

collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, and

recorded in the Aerometric Information

Retrieval System (AIRS).

Walworth County contains one ozone

monitor, located in Lake Geneva,

Wisconsin. To demonstrate monitored

attainment with the standard, the

WDNR submitted ozone monitoring data

for the April 15 through October 15

ozone season for 1992, 1993, and 1994.

MONITORED OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

[Parts per billion]

County Year 1st High 2nd High 3rd High 4th High

Walworth ....................................................................................................................... 1992 120 101 97 96

1993 107 93 91 89