Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21547 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 10, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: January 25, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(159)(iii)(H), 

(c)(423)(i)(D), and (c)(423)(i)(E) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(159) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(H) Previously approved on July 13, 

1987 in (c)(159)(iii)(A) of this section 

and now deleted without replacement 

Rules 900, 901, 902, 903, and 904. 

* * * * * 

(423) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 107, ‘‘Certification of 

Submission and Emission Statements,’’ 

adopted on May 15, 2012. 

(E) Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 102, ‘‘Definitions’’ amended 

on June 21, 2012. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08255 Filed 4–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket #: EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0193; FRL 

9738–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Eugene-Springfield PM10

Nonattainment Area Limited 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve the Limited 

Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by 

the State of Oregon on January 13, 2012, 

for the Eugene-Springfield 

nonattainment area (Eugene-Springfield 

NAA) and the State’s request to 

redesignate the area to attainment for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 10 

micrometers (PM10). EPA is approving 

the State’s request because it meets 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for 

redesignation. EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial SIP 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 10, 2013, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by May 13, 2013. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2012–0193, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle WA, 98101 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Kristin 

Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT—107. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012– 

0193. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21548 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle 

WA, 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at telephone number: (206) 

553–6357, email address: 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. This Action 

II. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

B. Eugene-Springfield NAA and Planning 

Background 

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in 

Rulemaking Process 

IV. Requirements for Redesignation 

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of 

Nonattainment Areas 

B. The LMP Option for PM10

Nonattainment Areas 

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option 

V. Review of the Oregon Submittal 

Addressing the Requirements for 

Redesignation and LMPs 

A. Has the Eugene-Springfield NAA 

attained the applicable NAAQS? 

B. Does the Eugene-Springfield NAA have 

a fully approved SIP under section 

110(k) of the CAA? 

C. Has the State met all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA? 

D. Has the State demonstrated that the Air 

Quality Improvement is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions? 

E. Does the area have a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA? 

F. Has the State demonstrated that the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA qualifies for the 

LMP Option? 

G. Does the State have an approved 

Attainment Emissions Inventory which 

can be used to demonstrate attainment of 

the NAAQS? 

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of 

continued operation of an appropriate 

EPA-approved Air Quality Monitoring 

Network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58? 

I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

J. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

VI. Revisions to SIP Rules to Reflect 

Redesignation 

VII. Final Action 

VIII. Oregon Notice Provision 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the LMP submitted by the State 

of Oregon on January 13, 2012, for the 

Eugene-Springfield nonattainment area 

(Eugene-Springfield NAA) and 

concurrently to redesignate the area to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA 

has reviewed air quality data for the 

area and determined that the EugeneSpringfield NAA attained the PM10

NAAQS by the required attainment 

date, and that monitoring data continue 

to show attainment. Also in this action, 

EPA is approving revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to reflect the 

redesignation. 

II. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

‘‘Particulate matter,’’ also known as 

particle pollution or PM, is a complex 

mixture of extremely small particles and 

liquid droplets. The size of particles is 

directly linked to their potential for 

causing health problems. EPA is 

concerned about particles that are 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller 

because those are the particles that 

generally pass through the throat and 

nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, 

these particles can affect the heart and 

lungs and cause serious adverse health 

effects. People with heart or lung 

diseases, children and older adults are 

the most likely to be affected by particle 

pollution exposure. However, even 

healthy individuals may experience 

temporary symptoms from exposure to 

elevated levels of particle pollution. 

On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated a 

NAAQS for PM10 (52 FR 24634). EPA 

established a 24-hour standard of 150 

mg/m3 and an annual standard of 50 mg/ 

m3, expressed as an annual arithmetic 

mean. EPA also promulgated secondary 

PM10 standards that were identical to 

the primary standards. In a rulemaking 

action dated October 17, 2006, EPA 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard but 

revoked the annual PM10 standard (71 

FR 61144, effective December 18, 2006). 

B. Eugene-Springfield NAA and 

Planning Background 

On August 7, 1987, EPA designated 

the Eugene-Springfield area as a PM10

nonattainment area due to measured 

violations of the 24-hour PM10 standard 

(52 FR 29383). The notice announcing 

the designation, upon enactment of the 

1990 CAA Amendments, was published 

on March 15, 1991, 56 FR 11101. On 

November 6, 1991, the EugeneSpringfield NAA was subsequently 

classified as moderate under sections 

107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the CAA (56 

FR 56694). 

After the Eugene-Springfield NAA 

was designated nonattainment for PM10, 

the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and 

Lane Regional Air Protection Agency 

(LRAPA) worked with the communities 

of Eugene and Springfield to develop a 

plan to bring the area into attainment no 

later than December 31, 1994. The State 

submitted the plan to EPA on November 

15, 1991, as a moderate PM10 SIP under 

section 189(a) of the CAA. The primary 

control measure submitted by the State 

was a comprehensive wood burning 

curtailment program. EPA took final 

action to approve the State’s moderate 

PM10 SIP on August 24, 1994, 59 FR 

43483. 

On January 13, 2012, the State 

submitted to EPA for approval the 

Eugene-Springfield PM10 LMP and 

requested that EPA redesignate the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA to attainment 

for the PM10 NAAQS. Oregon also 

submitted revisions to rules in the 

State’s Federally-approved SIP to reflect 

the redesignation. 

III. Public and Stakeholder 

Involvement in Rulemaking Process 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP revision be adopted after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

This must occur prior to the revision 

being submitted by a State to EPA. The 

State of Oregon provided notice and an 

opportunity for public comment from 

August 26, 2011 through September 26, 

2011. A notice of public hearing was 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21549 

1Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006), this notice discusses only 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard. 

published in The Eugene Register-Guard 

on August 26, 2011 and the Oregon 

Bulletin, Volume 50, No. 9 on 

September 1, 2011. The State held a 

public hearing on September 27, 2011, 

in Springfield, Oregon. This SIP 

revision became State effective on 

December 21, 2011, and was submitted 

by the Governor’s designee to the EPA 

on January 13, 2012. EPA has evaluated 

the State’s submittal and determined 

that the State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. 

IV. Requirements for Redesignation 

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation 

of Nonattainment Area 

Nonattainment areas can be 

redesignated to attainment after the area 

has measured air quality data showing 

it has attained the NAAQS and when 

certain planning requirements are met. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the 

General Preamble to Title I provide the 

criteria for redesignation (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). These criteria are 

further clarified in a policy and 

guidance memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards dated 

September 4, 1992, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (Calcagni memo). 

The criteria for redesignation are: 

1. The Administrator has determined 

that the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; 

2. The Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable SIP for the area 

under section 110(k) of the CAA; 

3. The state containing the area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA; 

4. The Administrator has determined 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions; and 

5. The Administrator has fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as meeting the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA. 

B. The LMP Option for PM10

Nonattainment Areas 

On August 9, 2001, EPA issued 

guidance on streamlined maintenance 

plan provisions for certain moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment (Memo from 

Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality 

Standards and Strategies Division, 

entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Moderate PM10

Nonattainment Areas’’ (LMP Option 

memo)). The LMP Option memo 

contains a statistical demonstration that 

areas meeting certain air quality criteria 

will, with a high degree of probability, 

maintain the standard 10 years into the 

future. Thus, EPA has already provided 

the maintenance demonstration for 

areas meeting the criteria outlined in the 

LMP Option memo. It follows that 

future year emission inventories for 

these areas, and some of the standard 

analyses to determine transportation 

conformity with the SIP are no longer 

necessary. 

To qualify for the LMP Option, the 

area should have attained the PM10

NAAQS and, based upon the most 

recent 5 years of air quality data at all 

monitors in the area, the 24-hour design 

value should be at or below 98 mg/m3. 

If an area cannot meet this test, it may 

still be able to qualify for the LMP 

Option if the average design value 

(ADV) for the site is less than the sitespecific critical design value (CDV). In 

addition, the area should expect only 

limited growth in on-road motor vehicle 

PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) 

and should have passed a motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. The 

LMP Option memo also identifies core 

provisions that must be included the 

LMP. These provisions include an 

attainment year emissions inventory, 

assurance of continued operation of an 

EPA-approved air quality monitoring 

network, and contingency provisions. 

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option 

The transportation conformity rule 

and the general conformity rule (40 CFR 

parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 

areas and maintenance areas covered by 

an approved maintenance plan. Under 

either conformity rule, an acceptable 

method of demonstrating that a Federal 

action conforms to the applicable SIP is 

to demonstrate that expected emissions 

from the planned action are consistent 

with the emissions budget for the area. 

While EPA’s LMP Option does not 

exempt an area from the need to affirm 

conformity, it explains that the area may 

demonstrate conformity without 

submitting an emissions budget. Under 

the LMP Option, emissions budgets are 

treated as essentially not constraining 

for the length of the maintenance period 

because it is unreasonable to expect that 

the qualifying areas would experience 

so much growth in that period that a 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS would 

result. For transportation conformity 

purposes, EPA would conclude that 

emissions in these areas need not be 

capped for the maintenance period and 

therefore a regional emissions analysis 

would not be required. Similarly, 

Federal actions subject to the general 

conformity rule could be considered to 

satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40 

CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same 

reasons that the budgets are essentially 

considered to be unlimited. 

V. Review of the Oregon Submittal 

Addressing the Requirements for 

Redesignation and LMPs 

A. Has the Eugene-Springfield NAA 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS? 

States must demonstrate that an area 

has attained the PM10 NAAQS through 

analysis of ambient air quality data from 

an ambient air monitoring network 

representing peak PM10 concentrations. 

The data should be quality-assured and 

stored in the EPA Air Quality System 

database. EPA has reviewed air quality 

data for the area and has determined 

that the Eugene-Springfield NAA 

attained the PM10 NAAQS 1 by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 1994, and continues to attain the 

PM10 NAAQS. EPA’s analysis is 

described below. 

The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 mg/ 

m3. An area has attained this 24-hour 

standard when the average number of 

expected exceedances per year is less 

than or equal to one, when averaged 

over a three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). 

To make this determination, three 

consecutive years of complete ambient 

air quality data must be collected in 

accordance with Federal requirements 

(40 CFR part 58 including appendices). 

A comprehensive air quality 

monitoring plan, meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58, was 

submitted by Oregon to EPA on 

December 27, 1979 (40 CFR 52.1970), 

and approved by EPA on March 4, 1981 

(46 FR 15136). This monitoring plan has 

been subsequently updated, with the 

most recent submittal dated July 1, 

2011, and approved by EPA on January 

6, 2012 (Oregon Air Monitoring Plan 

Approval Letter, dated January 6, 2012). 

The monitoring plan describes the PM10

monitoring network throughout the 

State, which includes site #41–039– 

0058–81102–1 (commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘Highway 99 Site’’ or ‘‘Key Bank 

Site’’ (Highway 99/Key Bank Site)) in 

the Eugene-Springfield area. In the 

submittal, LRAPA states that the 

Highway 99/Key Bank Site historically 

measures the highest PM10

concentrations, and that a review of data 

from 2000 through 2008 shows that 

PM10 concentrations recorded at this 

site remain well below the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. In addition, LRAPA states that 

the Highway 99/Key Bank Site is 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21550 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

operated in compliance with EPA 

monitoring guidelines set forth in 40 

CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance. 

Data from the Highway 99/Key Bank 

Site has been quality assured by ODEQ 

and submitted to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS), accessible through EPA’s 

AirData Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airdata/. Based on EPA’s review of data 

in AQS, there have been no exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA since 1987. 

Accordingly, during the three-year 

period ending with the December 31, 

1994, attainment date, no exceedances 

occurred in the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA, and the expected exceedance rate 

for the Eugene-Springfield NAA for 

1992–1994 is 0. Therefore, EugeneSpringfield NAA attained the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS by the required 

attainment date of December 31, 1994 

(PM10 Design Value Report for Lane 

County, Oregon, dated April 30, 2012). 

EPA has also reviewed more recent 

ambient air quality data for the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS, and has determined that 

the Eugene-Springfield area continues to 

attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A 

summary of EPA’s data review and 

analysis can be found in the docket for 

this action (Eugene-Springfield PM10

NAAQS and LMP Determination Memo, 

dated July 23, 2012). 

B. Does the Eugene-Springfield NAA 

have a fully approved SIP under section 

110(k) of the CAA? 

In order to qualify for redesignation, 

the SIP for the area must be fully 

approved under section 110(k) of the 

CAA, and must satisfy all requirements 

that apply to the area. As discussed in 

Section II. B. above, Oregon submitted 

a moderate PM10 SIP for the EugeneSpringfield NAA on November 15, 1991. 

EPA took final action to fully approve 

the State’s moderate PM10 SIP on 

August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43483), as 

satisfying all requirements that apply to 

the area. Thus the area has a fully 

approved nonattainment area SIP under 

section 110(k) of CAA. 

C. Has the State met all applicable 

requirements under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA? 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 

requires that a state containing a 

nonattainment area must meet all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and Part D of the CAA for an area 

to be redesignated to attainment. EPA 

interprets this to mean that the state 

must meet all requirements that applied 

to the area prior to, and at the time of, 

the submission of a complete 

redesignation request. The following is 

a summary of how Oregon meets these 

requirements. 

1. Clean Air Act Section 110 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains 

general requirements for nonattainment 

plans. These requirements include, but 

are not limited to, submittal of a SIP that 

has been adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate apparatus, 

methods, systems and procedures 

necessary to monitor ambient air 

quality; implementation of a permit 

program; provisions for Part C— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Part D—New Source Review 

(NSR) permit programs; criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring and reporting, 

provisions for modeling; and provisions 

for public and local agency 

participation. See the General Preamble 

for further explanation of these 

requirements (57 FR 13498, April 16, 

1992). For purposes of redesignation of 

the Eugene-Springfield PM10 NAA, EPA 

has reviewed the Oregon SIP and finds 

that the State has satisfied all applicable 

requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2) for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA’s 

approval of Oregon’s SIP for attainment 

and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS 

under CAA section 110 can be found at 

40 CFR 52.1972. 

2. Part D Requirements 

Part D of the CAA contains general 

requirements applicable to all areas 

designated nonattainment. The general 

requirements are followed by a series of 

subparts specific to each pollutant. All 

PM10 nonattainment areas must meet 

the general provisions of Subpart 1 and 

the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 

4, ‘‘Additional Provisions for Particulate 

Matter Nonattainment Areas.’’ The 

following paragraphs discuss these 

requirements as they apply to the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA. 

(2)(a) Part D, section 172(c)(2)— 

Reasonable Further Progress 

Section 172(c) contains general 

requirements for nonattainment area 

plans. A thorough discussion of these 

requirements may be found in the 

General Preamble (57 FR 13538, April 

16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2) 

requires nonattainment plans to provide 

for reasonable further progress (RFP). 

Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP 

as ‘‘such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part (part D of 

title I) or may reasonably be required by 

the Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ The requirements 

for reasonable further progress, 

identification of certain emissions 

increases and other measures needed for 

attainment were satisfied with the 

approved Eugene-Springfield PM10 SIP 

(59 FR 43483). In this action, EPA has 

determined that the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

by the December 31, 1994, attainment 

date. Therefore, EPA believes no further 

showing of RFP or quantitative 

milestones is necessary. 

(2)(b) Part D, section 172(c)(3)— 

Emissions Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) of CAA requires a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the Eugene-Springfield PM10

NAA. Oregon included an emissions 

inventory for the Eugene-Springfield 

area for the year 2008 in the submittal. 

The inventory estimated annual and 

winter day emissions from point 

sources, residential wood combustion, 

road dust, and motor vehicle exhaust, 

brake and tire wear. The emissions 

inventory includes an inventory of point 

sources of PM10 greater than or equal to 

10 tons/year to estimate emissions for 

2008. Residential wood combustion 

emission estimates were developed from 

a 2009 survey of households in the 

Eugene-Springfield area, included in the 

State’s submittal. Emissions estimates 

for road dust and motor vehicle exhaust, 

brake wear, and tire wear were 

developed using EPA-approved 

methods, and vehicle miles traveled 

estimates were obtained from the local 

metropolitan planning organization, 

Lane Council of Governments. EPA 

reviewed the inventory and associated 

calculations submitted by Oregon and 

believes that the 2008 EugeneSpringfield emissions inventory is 

current, accurate and comprehensive 

and therefore meets the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

(2)(c) Part D, section 172(c)(5)—New 

Source Review (NSR) 

The CAA requires all nonattainment 

areas to meet several requirements 

regarding NSR. The State must have an 

approved major NSR program that meets 

the requirements of section 172(c)(5). 

EPA evaluated and initially approved 

the Oregon major NSR program on 

August 13, 1982 (47 FR 35191), as being 

equivalent or more stringent than EPA’s 

regulations on a program basis. EPA 

subsequently approved revisions to 

Oregon’s major NSR program on January 

22, 2003 (68 FR 2891), and most 

recently approved revisions to the major 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21551 

NSR rules on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 

80747). In the Eugene-Springfield NAA, 

the requirements of the Part D NSR 

program will be replaced by the State’s 

Maintenance Area NSR requirements 

upon the effective date of redesignation. 

(2)(d) Part D, section 172(c)(7)— 

Compliance With CAA section 

110(a)(2): Air Quality Monitoring 

Requirements 

Once an area is redesignated, the state 

must continue to operate an appropriate 

air monitoring network in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 to verify attainment 

status of the area. Oregon submitted a 

comprehensive air quality monitoring 

plan, meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58 to EPA on December 27, 

1979 (40 CFR 52.1970), and EPA 

approved the plan on March 4, 1981 (46 

FR 15136). This monitoring plan has 

been subsequently updated, with the 

most recent submittal dated July 1, 

2011, and approved by EPA on January 

6, 2012 (Oregon Air Monitoring Plan 

Approval Letter, dated January 6, 2012). 

As stated in the submittal, ODEQ and 

LRAPA operate a PM10 monitoring 

network which includes site # 41–039– 

0058–81102–1 (Highway 99/Key Bank 

Site) in the Eugene-Springfield area. The 

Highway 99/Key Bank Site is operated 

in compliance with EPA monitoring 

guidelines set forth in 40 CFR part 58, 

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. In 

addition, the submittal provides a 

commitment to continued operation of 

the PM10 monitoring network and the 

Highway 99/Key Bank Site in the 

Eugene-Springfield area. 

(2)(e) Part D, section 172(c)(9)— 

Contingency Measures 

The CAA requires that contingency 

measures take effect if an area fails to 

meet RFP requirements or fails to attain 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. Since, as part of this 

action, EPA has determined the EugeneSpringfield NAA attained the PM10

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 1994, contingency 

measures are no longer required under 

section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, 

contingency provisions are required for 

maintenance plans under Section 175A. 

Please see section V. I. for a description 

of Oregon’s maintenance plan 

contingency provisions. 

(2)(f) Part D, section 189(a), (c) and (e)— 

Additional Provisions for Particulate 

Matter Nonattainment Areas 

Section 189(a), (c) and (e) 

requirements apply to moderate PM10

nonattainment areas. Any of these 

requirements which were applicable 

and due prior to the submission of the 

redesignation request must be fully 

approved into the SIP before 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

With respect to the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA, these requirements include: 

(a) Provisions to assure that 

reasonably available control measures 

were implemented by December 10, 

1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C)); 

(b) either a demonstration that the 

plan provided for attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, but not 

later than December 31, 1994, or a 

demonstration that attainment by that 

date was impracticable (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); 

(c) quantitative milestones which 

were achieved every 3 years and which 

demonstrate RFP toward attainment by 

December 31, 1994 (section 189(c)(1)); 

and 

(d) provisions to assure that the 

control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors except where the 

Administrator determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area (section 189(e)). 

Provisions for reasonably available 

control measures, attainment 

demonstration, and RFP milestones 

were fully approved into the SIP upon 

EPA approval of the moderate PM10 SIP 

for the Eugene-Springfield NAA on 

August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43483). EPA 

most recently approved revisions to 

Oregon’s major NSR rules on December 

27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). Oregon’s major 

NSR rules include control requirements 

that apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 and PM10 precursors in 

nonattainment areas, maintenance areas, 

and attainment/unclassifiable areas. For 

the Eugene-Springfield area, EPA 

determined that major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS. 

Therefore, in EPA’s action to approve 

the moderate PM10 SIP for EugeneSpringfield, EPA granted the exclusion 

from control requirements authorized 

under section 189(e) for major stationary 

sources of PM10 precursors (59 FR 

43483). 

D. Has the State demonstrated that the 

Air Quality Improvement is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions? 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA 

provides that a nonattainment area may 

not be redesignated unless EPA 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP. Therefore, a state must be able to 

reasonably attribute the improvement in 

air quality to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions by demonstrating 

that air quality improvements are the 

result of actual enforceable emission 

reductions. This showing should 

consider emission rates, production 

capacities, and other related 

information. The analysis should 

assume that sources are operating at 

permitted levels (or historic peak levels) 

unless evidence is presented that such 

an assumption is unrealistic. 

Permanent and enforceable control 

measures in the Eugene-Springfield 

moderate PM10 SIP include a mandatory 

home wood heating curtailment 

program, and existing controls on local 

industrial sources. These controls were 

approved by EPA into the EugeneSpringfield PM10 SIP, and they are both 

permanent and Federally enforceable 

(59 FR 43483). As described in the 

submittal, the primary control measure 

relied on is the mandatory home wood 

heating curtailment program which was 

fully implemented on November 1, 

1991. The program consists of a daily 

multi-stage advisory issued each winter 

from November through the end of 

February. The daily advisory, which is 

based upon forecast meteorology and air 

quality, provides a color-coded stage 

based on air quality conditions. During 

good air quality conditions, a Green 

advisory allowing residential wood 

combustion is issued. If air quality 

conditions are deteriorating, a Yellow 

advisory requesting voluntary 

curtailment of residential wood burning 

is issued. If PM10 levels are forecast to 

be near or exceeding the standard, a Red 

advisory prohibiting residential wood 

burning is issued (with an exemption 

for economic need). Each of the three 

jurisdictions in the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA—Lane County, the City of Eugene, 

and the City of Springfield—enacted 

ordinances that prohibit the use of 

solid-fuel space heating devices based 

on the advisories. The enforcement of 

these ordinances has been delegated to 

LRAPA. 

EPA believes that areas that qualify 

for the LMP Option will meet the 

NAAQS, even under worst case 

meteorological conditions. Therefore, 

under the LMP Option, the maintenance 

demonstration is presumed to be 

satisfied if an area meets the qualifying 

criteria. A description of the LMP 

qualifying criteria and how the EugeneSpringfield area meets these criteria is 

provided below. By qualifying for the 

LMP Option, Oregon presumptively 

demonstrates that the air quality 

improvements in the Eugene-Springfield 

area are the result of permanent 

emission reductions and not a result of 

either economic trends or meteorology. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21552 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Does the area have a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA? 

In this action, we are approving the 

LMP in accordance with the principles 

outlined in the LMP Option memo. 

Upon the effective date of this action, 

the area will have a fully approved 

maintenance plan. 

F. Has the state demonstrated that the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA Qualifies for 

the LMP Option? 

The LMP Option memo outlines the 

requirements for an area to qualify for 

the LMP Option. First, the area should 

be attaining the NAAQS. In this action, 

EPA has determined that the EugeneSpringfield NAA attained the PM10

NAAQS by the required attainment 

date, and continues to be in attainment 

with the PM10 NAAQS. Please see 

section V. A. for a detailed discussion. 

Second, the average design value 

(ADV) for the past 5 years of monitoring 

data must be at or below the critical 

design value (CDV). The CDV is a 

margin of safety value and is the value 

at which an area has been determined 

to have a 1 in 10 probability of 

exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option 

memo provides two methods for review 

of monitoring data for the purpose of 

qualifying for the LMP Option. The first 

method is a comparison of a site’s ADV 

with the CDV of 98 mg/m3 for the 24 

hour PM10 NAAQS and 40 mg/m3 for the 

annual PM10 NAAQS. A second method 

that applies to the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS is the calculation of a sitespecific CDV and a comparison of the 

site-specific CDV with the ADV for the 

past 5 years of monitoring data. The 

State’s submittal provides a comparison 

of 5-year ADVs compared to the 24-hour 

and annual CDVs, as described in the 

first method for review of monitoring 

data to qualify for the LMP Option. 

Oregon’s analysis demonstrates that the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA meets the LMP 

design value criteria for the period 

2004–2008. Using EPA-recommended 

methodology, Oregon calculated the 24- 

hour ADV for the area to be 66 mg/m3, 

which is well below the CDV of 98 mg/ 

m3. Oregon calculated the annual ADV 

to be 17 mg/m 3, which is well below the 

CDV of 40 mg/m3. EPA has reviewed the 

Oregon calculations and concurs with 

the State’s findings. EPA also calculated 

average design values using more recent 

data and found that the EugeneSpringfield area meets the LMP design 

value criteria for the period 2007–2011. 

EPA’s design value calculations and 

analysis can be found in the docket for 

this action (Eugene-Springfield PM10

NAAQS and LMP Determination Memo, 

dated July 23, 2012). Therefore, EPA 

finds that Eugene-Springfield meets the 

design value criteria outlined in the 

LMP Option memo. 

Third, the area must meet the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test 

in attachment B of the LMP Option 

memo. Using the methodology outlined 

in attachment B, Oregon submitted an 

analysis of whether increased emissions 

from on-road mobile sources would 

increase PM10 concentrations in the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA to levels that 

would threaten the assumption of 

maintenance that underlies the LMP 

policy. Based on monitoring data for the 

period 2004–2008, Oregon has 

determined that the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA passes the motor vehicle regional 

emissions analysis test. EPA has 

reviewed the calculations in the State’s 

submittal and concurs with this 

conclusion. 

As described above, the EugeneSpringfield NAA meets the qualification 

criteria set forth in the LMP Option 

memo and therefore qualifies for the 

LMP Option. The LMP Option memo 

also indicates that once a state selects 

the LMP Option and it is in effect, the 

state will be expected to determine, on 

an annual basis, that the LMP criteria 

are still being met. If the state 

determines that the LMP criteria are not 

being met, it should take action to 

reduce PM10 concentrations enough to 

requalify for the LMP Option. One 

possible approach the state could take is 

to implement contingency provisions. 

Please see Section V. I. for a description 

of contingency provisions submitted as 

part of the State’s submittal. 

As a result of the above analysis, EPA 

is approving the LMP for the EugeneSpringfield area and the State’s request 

to redesignate the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA to attainment for PM10. 

G. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory which 

can be used to demonstrate attainment 

of the NAAQS? 

Pursuant to the LMP Option memo, 

the state’s approved attainment plan 

should include an emissions inventory 

which can be used to demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS. The 

inventory should represent emissions 

during the same five-year period 

associated with air quality data used to 

determine whether the area meets the 

applicability requirements of the LMP 

Option. The state should review its 

inventory every three years to ensure 

emissions growth is incorporated in the 

inventory if necessary. 

Oregon’s submittal includes an 

emissions inventory for the year 2008. 

After reviewing the 2008 emissions 

inventory and determining that it is 

current, accurate and complete, as well 

as reviewing monitoring data for the 

years 2004–2008, EPA has determined 

that the 2008 emissions inventory is 

representative of the attainment year 

inventory since the NAAQS was not 

violated during 2008. In addition, the 

year 2008 is representative of the level 

of emissions during the time period 

used to calculate the average design 

value since 2008 is one of the years 

during the five year period used to 

calculate the design value (2004–2008). 

The submittal meets EPA guidance, as 

described above, for purposes of an 

attainment emissions inventory. 

H. Does the LMP include an assurance 

of continued operation of an 

appropriate EPA-approved air quality 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58? 

PM10 monitoring was established in 

the Eugene-Springfield area in 1984. 

LRAPA currently maintains a PM10

monitoring network which includes the 

Highway 99/Key Bank Site within the 

Eugene-Springfield area. Oregon and 

LRAPA’s monitoring network was 

developed and has been maintained in 

accordance with Federal siting and 

design criteria in 40 CFR part 58 and in 

consultation with EPA Region 10. EPA 

most recently approved Oregon’s air 

monitoring plan, on January 6, 2012 

(Oregon Air Monitoring Plan Approval 

Letter, dated January 6, 2012). In the 

submittal, LRAPA states that it will 

continue to monitor for PM10 in the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA. 

I. Does the plan meet the clean air act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

CAA section 175A states that a 

maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS which may occur after 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

As explained in the LMP Option memo 

and Calcagni memo, these contingency 

provisions are considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP. The plan 

should clearly identify the provisions to 

be adopted, a schedule and procedures 

for adoption and implementation, and a 

specific time limit for action by the 

state. The maintenance plan should 

identify the events that would ‘‘trigger’’ 

the adoption and implementation of a 

contingency provision, the contingency 

provision that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

provision. The LMP Option memo and 

Calcagni memo state that EPA will 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21553 

review what constitutes a contingency 

plan on a case-by-case basis. At a 

minimum, it must require that the State 

will implement all measures contained 

in the Part D nonattainment plan for the 

area prior to redesignation. 

In the submittal, ODEQ and LRAPA 

have included maintenance plan 

contingency provisions to ensure the 

area continues to meet the PM10

NAAQS. Specifically, ODEQ and 

LRAPA submitted revised local home 

wood heating curtailment program 

requirements for the three jurisdictions 

in the area, specifically, Eugene, 

Springfield and Lane County. The local 

ordinances implementing the program 

have been strengthened to include a 

requirement prohibiting solid fuel space 

heating devices from burning plastics, 

petroleum by-products, petroleum 

treated materials, rubber products, 

animal remains, animal or vegetable 

matter resulting from the handling, 

preparation, cooking or service of food, 

or of any other material which normally 

emits dense smoke or noxious odors. In 

addition, during a Green or Yellow 

advisory, the discharge of emissions 

from a solid fuel space heating device is 

now limited to a maximum opacity of 

40%, with a 10 minute exemption 

during every 4-hour period for the 

building of a new fire. These revised 

ordinances have been adopted by the 

local jurisdictions and are currently 

being implemented in the EugeneSpringfield area. The ordinances each 

specify ‘‘triggers’’ for implementing 

provisions, based on forecasted PM10

levels. In addition to the local home 

wood heating curtailment program, the 

LMP references the Oregon ‘‘Heat 

Smart’’ law. This law has been adopted 

state-wide and requires the removal and 

decommissioning of any uncertified 

woodstove or fireplace insert from a 

home when it is sold. 

The contingency provisions submitted 

by ODEQ and LRAPA have been 

adopted by the local jurisdictions, are 

currently being implemented in the 

Eugene-Springfield area, and contain 

triggers based on forecasted PM10 levels 

for implementing specific provisions to 

reduce particulate matter emissions 

from home wood heating. Therefore, 

EPA believes the contingency 

provisions are adequate to meet CAA 

Section 175A requirements. 

J. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

1. Transportation Conformity 

Under the LMP Option, emissions 

budgets are treated as essentially not 

constraining for the maintenance period 

because it is unreasonable to expect that 

qualifying areas would experience so 

much growth in that period that a 

NAAQS violation would result. While 

areas with maintenance plans approved 

under the LMP Option are not subject to 

the budget test, the areas remain subject 

to other transportation conformity 

requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart 

A. Thus, the metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) in the area or the 

state must document and ensure that: 

a. Transportation plans and projects 

provide for timely implementation of 

SIP transportation control measures 

(TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.113; 

b. Transportation plans and projects 

comply with the fiscal constraint 

element per 40 CFR 93.108; 

c. The MPO’s interagency 

consultation procedures meet applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 93.105; 

d. Conformity of transportation plans 

is determined no less frequently than 

every three years, and conformity of 

plan amendments and transportation 

projects is demonstrated in accordance 

with the timing requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 93.104; 

e. The latest planning assumptions 

and emissions model are used as set 

forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 

93.111; 

f. Projects do not cause or contribute 

to any new localized carbon monoxide 

or particulate matter violations, in 

accordance with procedures specified in 

40 CFR 93.123; and 

g. Project sponsors and/or operators 

provide written commitments as 

specified in 40 CFR 93.125. 

In a letter to LRAPA dated October 3, 

1994, EPA determined that the EugeneSpringfield area met the criteria to be 

exempted from regional emissions 

analysis for PM10 (Conformity Letter, 

dated October 3, 1994). However, 

project level conformity requirements 

would continue to apply to the area. 

With EPA’s approval of the LMP, the 

area continues to be exempt from 

performing a regional emissions 

analysis, but must meet project-level 

conformity analyses as well as the 

transportation conformity criteria 

mentioned above. 

2. General Conformity 

For Federal actions which are 

required to address the specific 

requirements of the general conformity 

rule, one set of requirements applies 

particularly to ensuring that emissions 

from the action will not cause or 

contribute to new violations of the 

NAAQS, exacerbate current violations, 

or delay timely attainment. One way 

that this requirement can be met is to 

demonstrate that ‘‘the total of direct and 

indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and 

documented by the State agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable 

SIP to result in a level of emissions 

which, together with all other emissions 

in the nonattainment area, would not 

exceed the emissions budgets specified 

in the applicable SIP’’ (40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)). 

The decision about whether to 

include specific allocations of allowable 

emissions increases to sources is one 

made by the state and local air quality 

agencies. These emissions budgets are 

different than those used in 

transportation conformity. Emissions 

budgets in transportation conformity are 

required to limit and restrain emissions. 

Emissions budgets in general conformity 

allow increases in emissions up to 

specified levels. Oregon has not chosen 

to include specific emissions allocations 

for Federal projects that would be 

subject to the provisions of general 

conformity. 

VI. Revisions to SIP Rules To Reflect 

Redesignation 

In the submittal, Oregon included 

revisions to Oregon Administrative 

Rules (OAR) and LRAPA rules in the 

SIP to reflect the redesignation of the 

Eugene-Springfield area. In this action, 

EPA is approving changes to OAR 

Chapter 340, Division 204 Designation 

of Air Quality Areas, Rule 0030 

Designation of Nonattainment Areas and 

Rule 0040 Designation of Maintenance 

Areas to remove Eugene-Springfield 

from the list of PM10 nonattainment 

areas and add the area to the list of PM10

maintenance areas. In addition, EPA is 

approving minor editorial changes to 

OAR Chapter 340, Division 204 

Designation of Air Quality Areas, Rule 

0010 Definitions to consistently refer to 

the Eugene-Springfield ‘‘Urban Growth 

Boundary’’ rather than the EugeneSpringfield ‘‘Urban Growth Area.’’ EPA 

is taking no action on OAR Chapter 340, 

Division 200 General Air Pollution 

Procedures and Definitions, Rule 0040 

State of Oregon Clean Air Act 

Implementation Plan because this rule 

describes the State’s procedures for 

adopting its SIP and incorporates by 

reference all of the revisions adopted by 

the Environmental Quality Council for 

approval into the Oregon SIP (as a 

matter of state law). This is not what is 

actually approved by EPA as the 

Federally-enforceable SIP for Oregon, so 

we are therefore taking no action on it. 

EPA is also approving changes to 

LRAPA Title 29 Designation of Air 

Quality Areas, Section 29–0030 

Designation of Nonattainment Areas and 

Section 29–0040 Designation of 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21554 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Maintenance Areas to remove EugeneSpringfield from the list of PM10

nonattainment areas and add the area to 

the list of PM10 maintenance areas. In 

addition, EPA is approving minor 

editorial changes to LRAPA Title 29, 

Designation of Air Quality Areas, 

Section 29–0010 Definitions to refer to 

the Eugene-Springfield ‘‘Urban Growth 

Boundary’’ rather than the EugeneSpringfield ‘‘Urban Growth Area.’’ 

Finally, EPA is approving changes to 

LRAPA Title 32 Emission Standards, 

Section 32–060 Air Conveying Systems 

and Section 32–065 Sulfur Content of 

Fuels to ensure the requirements of 

these rules continue to apply to the 

Eugene-Springfield area after 

redesignation. 

VII. Final Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the LMP submitted by the State 

of Oregon for the Eugene-Springfield 

NAA and concurrently redesignate the 

area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

EPA has reviewed air quality data for 

the area and determined that the 

Eugene-Springfield NAA attained the 

PM10 NAAQS by the required 

attainment date, and that air monitoring 

data continue to show attainment. Also 

in this action, EPA is approving 

revisions to rules in the State’s 

Federally-approved SIP to reflect the 

redesignation. EPA is approving this 

revision to the SIP because it meets the 

CAA requirements for redesignation. 

EPA is publishing this action without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comments be filed. This 

rule will be effective June 10, 2013 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comments by 

May 13, 2013. 

If EPA receives such comments, then 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this rule. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on June 10, 2013 and no further action 

will be taken on the proposed rule. 

VIII. Oregon Notice Provision 

Oregon Revised Statute 468.126 

prohibits ODEQ from imposing a 

penalty for violation of an air, water or 

solid waste permit unless the source has 

been provided five days’ advanced 

written notice of the violation and has 

not come into compliance or submitted 

a compliance schedule within that five 

day period. By its terms, the statute does 

not apply to Oregon’s Title V program 

or to any program if application of the 

notice provision would disqualify the 

program from Federal delegation. 

Oregon has previously confirmed that, 

because application of the notice 

provision would preclude EPA approval 

of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is 

required for violation of SIP 

requirements. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 10, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21555 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: September 24, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

Note: This document was received by the 

Office of the Federal Register on April 5, 

2013. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart MM—Oregon 

■ 2. Section 52.1970 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(155) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(155) On January 13, 2012, the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted the Eugene-Springfield PM10

Limited Maintenance Plan and 

requested redesignation of the EugeneSpringfield nonattainment area to 

attainment for the PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

State also submitted revisions to rules in 

the Federally-approved SIP to reflect the 

requested redesignation. The State’s 

Limited Maintenance Plan, 

redesignation request, and rule revisions 

meet the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) The following revised sections of 

the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 

Chapter 340, effective December 21, 

2011: Division 204, Designation of Air 

Quality Areas: Rule 0010 Definitions; 

Rule 0030 Designation of Nonattainment 

Areas; and Rule 0040 Designation of 

Maintenance Areas. 

(B) Letter from Merlyn Hough, dated 

January 8, 2013, certifying that Lane 

Regional Air Protection Agency 

(LRAPA) adopted LRAPA provisions 

from Titles 29 and 32 on September 26, 

2011 as described in the LRAPA Board 

meeting minutes. 

(C) Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) Board meeting 

minutes, dated September 26, 2011. 

(D) The following revised sections of 

the Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) Rules, Title 29 

Designation of Air Quality Areas, 

adopted September 26, 2011: Section 

29–0010 Definitions (except paragraphs 

1 through 5, and 7 through 14); Section 

29–0030 Designation of Nonattainment 

Areas; and Section 29–0040 Designation 

of Maintenance Areas. 

(E) The following revised sections of 

the Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) Rules Title 32 

Emission Standards, adopted September 

26, 2011: Section 32–060 Air Conveying 

Systems; and Section 32–065 Sulfur 

Content of Fuels (except paragraphs 1 

and 2). 

■ 3. Section 52.1973 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1973 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(6) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Oregon State Implementation Plan, the 

Eugene-Springfield PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan adopted by the 

Oregon Environmental Quality 

Commission on December 15, 2011 and 

submitted to EPA on January 13, 2012. 

* * * * * 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 5. In § 81.338, the table entitled 

‘‘Oregon-PM–10’’ is amended by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Eugene/ 

Springfield (the Urban Growth 

Boundary area)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.338 Oregon. 

* * * * * 

OREGON—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

*******

Eugene/Springfield (the Urban Growth Boundary 

area).

6/10/13 Attainment ........................ ........................

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–08394 Filed 4–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 20, 22, 24, 27, and 

90 

[WT Docket No. 10–4; FCC 13–21] 

Signal Booster Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) amends its rules 

concerning signal boosters for consumer 

and industrial use in effort to enhance 

wireless coverage for consumers, 

particularly in rural, underserved, and 

difficult-to-serve areas by broadening 

the availability of signal boosters while 

ensuring that boosters do not adversely 

affect wireless networks. 

DATES: Effective May 13, 2013, except 

for amendments to §§ 1.1307(b)(1), 20.3, 

20.21(a)(2), 20.21(a)(5), 20.21(e)(2), 

20.21(e)(8)(i)(G), 20.21(e)(9)(i)(H), 

20.21(f), 20.21(h), 22.9, 24.9, 27.9, 

90.203(q), 90.219(b)(1)(i), 90.219(d)(5), 

and 90.219(e)(5), which contain 

information collection requirements that 

are not effective until approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’). The FCC will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date for those 

sections. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Jones, Mobility Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

1327, TTY (202) 418–7233. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES