Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10501

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If the EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by April 7,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Montel Livingston,

Environmental Protection Specialist,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101

Copies of the documents relevant to

this proposed rule are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, and Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality,

811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 97204. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David C. Bray, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), EPA, Region 10, Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206) 553–4253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: February 19, 1997.

Jane S. Moore,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5641 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA63–7138; WA58–7133; OR57–7272;

FRL–5700–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and

Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; States of

Washington and Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) invites public comment

on its proposed approval of revisions to

the Washington and Oregon State

Implementation Plans (SIPs), and EPA’s

proposed redesignation to attainment of

the Portland/Vancouver (Pdx/Van)

interstate ozone (O3) nonattainment

area. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as

amended in 1990, designations can be

revised if sufficient data are available to

warrant such revisions. EPA is

proposing to approve the Washington

and Oregon maintenance plans and

other redesignation submittals because

they meet the maintenance plan and

redesignation requirements and will

ensure that the area remains in

attainment. The approved maintenance

plans will become a federally

enforceable part of the Oregon and

Washington SIPs. In this action, EPA is

also proposing to approve the

Washington and Oregon 1990 baseline

emission inventories for this area,

revisions to the approved Inspection

and Maintenance (I/M) SIPs of both

States, and a number of revisions to

both SIPs.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked

on or before April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, EPA, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of the States’ requests and

other information supporting this

proposed action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: EPA,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, and at the States’ offices:

Washington State Department of

Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA

98504–7600, and Oregon State

Department of Environmental Quality,

811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR

97204–1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue

Ennes, Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107),

EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553–

6249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

EPA’s discussion of the proposed

approval is in the following order:

I. Background

II. Evaluation Criteria

III. Review of State Submittal

A. Attainment of the O3 National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D of the CAA

1. New Source Review (NSR)

2. Conformity

3. Emissions Inventory

4. Reasonably Available Control

Technologies (RACT) Requirements

5. Emission Statement

6. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) Program

C. Section 107 (d)(3)(E)(iii), Permanent and

Enforceable Emission Reductions

D. Section 107 (d)(3)(E)(iv), Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan

1. Attainment Emission Inventory

2. Maintenance Demonstration

3. Verification of Continued Attainment

4. Contingency Plan

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

IV. Supporting Rules

A. NSR Changes For Maintenance Plan

1. SWAPCA 400 ‘‘General Regulations for

Air Pollution Sources’’

2. OAR Chapter 340 Division 28

‘‘Stationary Source Air Pollution Control

and Permitting Procedures’’

B. SWAPCA 490 ‘‘Emission Standards and

Controls for Sources Emitting Volatile

Organic Compounds’’

C. SWAPCA 491 ‘‘Emission Standards and

Controls for Sources Emitting Gasoline

Vapors

D. SWAPCA 493 ‘‘VOC Area Source Rules’’

E. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

1. Oregon I/M Submittal

12. Washington I/M Submittal

F. Oregon Miscellaneous O3 Supporting

Rules

1. Background

2. Discussion

V. Proposed Action

VI. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP)

Impact

VII. Administrative Review

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Unfunded Mandates

I. Background

The Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the

Washington Department of Ecology

(WDOE) submitted maintenance plans

and requested redesignation of the Pdx/

Van interstate nonattainment area from

nonattainment to attainment for O3. The

SIP revision requests were submitted by

the WDOE on June 13, 1996, and by

ODEQ on August 30, 1996. No tribal

lands are within the maintenance plan

area nor have any tribal lands been

identified as being affected by the

maintenance plans.

The Pdx/Van air quality maintenance

area (AQMA) was designated an

interstate O3 nonattainment area in

1978 under the 1977 CAA. On

November 15, 1990, the CAA

Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

(Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q).

Under section 181(a)(1) of the 1990

CAA, the area was further classified as

a ‘‘marginal’’ O3 nonattainment area,

and an attainment deadline of

November 15, 1993, was established.

This interstate nonattainment area

consists of the southern portion of Clark

County, Washington, and portions of

Multnomah, Clackamas, and

Washington Counties in Oregon.

The AQMA has ambient monitoring

data that show no violations of the O3
10502 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) during the period of 1991 to

the present. Public hearings on the

redesignation requests were held in

Portland, OR, and Tigard, OR, on May

22, and 23, 1996, respectively.

On October 18, 1996, EPA Region 10

determined that the information

received from the WDOE and ODEQ

constituted a complete redesignation

request under the federal completeness

criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,

sections 2.1 and 2.2.

II. Evaluation Criteria

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

amended in 1990, specifies that the

Administrator may not redesignate an

area from nonattainment to attainment

unless certain conditions have been

met. These conditions are as follows:

A. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)—the

Administrator determines that the

NAAQS has been attained in that area

for the pollutant.

B. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)and (v)—the

Administrator has fully approved the

applicable implementation plan for the

area under section 110(k) and the State

has met all relevant requirements under

section 110 and Part D.

C. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)—the

Administrator determines that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable emission

reductions.

D. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)—the

Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area.

III. Review of State Submittal

EPA proposes to find that the

Washington and Oregon redesignation

requests for the Pdx/Van interstate area

meets the requirements of section

107(d)(3)(E), noted above. Following is

a brief description of how each of the

107(d)(3)(E) requirements is met. A

Technical Support Document (TSD), on

file at the EPA Region 10 office (dockets

OR57–7272 and WA58–7133), contains

additional analysis of this redesignation

proposal.

A. Attainment of the O3 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

An area may be considered as

attaining the NAAQS for O3 if the

quality assured ambient air quality

monitored data show that the average

annual number of ‘‘expected’’ O3

exceedances is less than or equal to 1.0.

There were no violations of the standard

based on the three year period 1991–

1993. The ODEQ and WDOE submitted

data from all four of their monitoring

locations in the Pdx/Van area which

indicate that no violations of the O3

standard have been measured since

1990. Because the nonattainment area

has complete quality-assured data

showing no violations of the O3 NAAQS

over the most recent consecutive three

calendar year period, the area has met

the condition of attainment of the O3

NAAQS.

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D of the CAA

Section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that, for

an area to be redesignated, an area must

have met all applicable requirements

under section 110 and Part D and that

EPA may not approve redesignation of

a nonattainment area to attainment

unless EPA has fully approved all of the

SIP requirements that were due under

the 1990 CAA. Although section 110

was amended in 1990, the Washington

and Oregon SIPs approved by EPA for

the O3 marginal nonattainment area

meet the requirements of amended

section 110(a)(2). A number of the

requirements did not change in

substance and, therefore, EPA believes

that the pre-amendment SIPs met these

requirements.

The 1990 CAA required that

nonattainment areas achieve specific

new requirements depending on the

severity of the nonattainment

classification. As noted earlier, Pdx/Van

was classified as a marginal O3

nonattainment area. For the purposes of

evaluating the request for redesignation

to attainment, EPA has approved all but

the following elements of the Pdx/Van

SIP: the NSR programs; the 1990 base

year emission inventories; minor local

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rule changes

(Washington only); and outstanding

source-specific RACT determinations

ODEQ identified after submittal of the

redesignation request (OR only), (see

discussion under 1, 3 and 4 below for

details).

1. New Source Review (NSR)

The CAA required all classified

nonattainment areas to meet several

requirements regarding NSR, including

provisions to ensure that increased

emissions of VOCs will not result from

any new or major source modifications,

and a general offset rule. Current

guidance does not require State NSR

programs to be approved by EPA before

approving redesignation requests (see

policy announced in the memorandum,

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D

NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment,’’ dated October 14, 1994,

from Mary D. Nichols to Air Division

Directors I-X,) . However, because the

Pdx/Van maintenance plan is relying on

credit from a new hybrid NSR/

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) program, the State NSR programs

need EPA approval prior to

redesignation.

The NSR program for WDOE was

approved on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726).

Further revisions to the Oregon NSR

program and the Southwest Air

Pollution Control Agency (SWAPCA)

NSR regulations are being approved

separately in a direct final action.

SWAPCA is the local air pollution

control authority that developed and

will be implementing the maintenance

plan in Vancouver, WA. In this notice,

EPA is proposing to approve the new

hybrid PSD/NSR programs for both

States.

Upon redesignation of the Pdx/Van

area to attainment, the PSD provisions

contained in Part C of Title I of the CAA

are applicable. EPA’s PSD regulations in

40 CFR 52.21 will apply to the

Vancouver area and Oregon’s PSD rules

will apply in the Portland area.

2. Conformity

The WDOE submitted its

transportation conformity SIP revision

to EPA on December 1, 1995. A

determination that the submittal is

administratively and technically

complete has not yet been made. The

WDOE has not submitted its general

conformity SIP revision.

The ODEQ submitted its

transportation conformity SIP revision

to EPA on April 14, 1995. EPA approved

the transportation conformity rules as a

SIP revision on May 16, 1996. In

addition, general conformity

requirements were submitted to EPA on

September 27, 1995. A completeness

determination letter dated March 18,

1996, was sent to ODEQ.

Although these four conformity SIP

revisions have not all been approved,

EPA may approve this redesignation

request. EPA has modified its national

policy regarding the interpretation of

the provisions of section 107(d)(3)(E)

concerning the applicable requirements

for purposes of reviewing a carbon

monoxide (CO) redesignation request

and the same modification applies to

O3. (See 61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)

The federal transportation and general

conformity rules are applicable until the

EPA approves the State established

conformity regulations. Because areas

are subject to the conformity

requirements regardless of whether they

are redesignated to attainment, and

must implement conformity under

Federal rules if State rules are not yet

adopted, EPA believes it is reasonable to

view these requirements as not being
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10503

applicable requirements for purposes of

evaluating a redesignation request. It is

noted that approval of the Pdx/Van

redesignation request does not obviate

the need for the WDOE to submit the

required general conformity SIP revision

to EPA.

3. Emissions Inventory

The CAA required an inventory of all

actual emissions from all sources, as

described in section 172(c)(3), by

November 15, 1992. Both States

submitted their original base year 1990

emission inventories (EIs) on November

16, 1992. As part of the redesignation

request, ODEQ and WDOE submitted

corrections to the base year 1990

emission inventory for the Pdx/Van

area. EPA guidance document from John

Calcagni and William Laxon entitled,

‘‘Public Hearing Requirements for 1990

Base Year Emission Inventories for

Ozone and CO Nonattainment areas,’’ 9/

10/92, states that for a moderate O3

nonattainment area the 1990 EI is not

subject to public review requirements

until a Redesignation Request/

Maintenance Plan is submitted. Both

State EIs went through public review

with the redesignation request and

maintenance plans and met this

requirement. The EIs of both States have

addressed all EPA comments and meet

all requirements identified by EPA. In

this notice, EPA is proposing to approve

both emission inventories.

4. Reasonably Available Control

Technologies (RACT) Requirements

Areas designated nonattainment

before the 1990 CAA amendments and

which retained that designation and

were classified as marginal or above as

of enactment are required by section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA to meet the

RACT fix-up requirements. The Pdx/

Van area was first designated

nonattainment in 1978 by the 1977

CAA, and, therefore, this area is subject

to the RACT fix-up requirement

(requirements in place before the 1990

CAA amendments).

SWAPCA adopted regulations on

October 15, 1996, to meet the RACT fixup requirement (SWAPCA 400 and 490).

These regulations are titled ‘‘General

Regulations for Air Pollution Sources’’

and ‘‘Emission Standards and Controls

for Sources Emitting Volatile Organic

Compounds.’’ EPA is proposing to

approve these regulations in this notice.

Oregon submitted to EPA its RACT

fix-up rules on May 14, 1991, and the

rules were approved by EPA on

September 29, 1993.

EPA proposes to approve the

redesignation request as meeting the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E),

based in part upon Oregon’s approved

general RACT rule and other sourcespecific RACT rules for which no

categorical RACT requirements exist

(non-Control Technology Guidelines

(CTG) sources). The ODEQ already has

implemented most of the RACT

program, and is in the process of

establishing RACT requirements for a

few remaining sources that require

source-specific RACT determinations.

The ODEQ general RACT rule, which

has been approved by EPA, provides

that ODEQ ‘‘shall have RACT

requirements developed on a case-bycase basis.’’ Oregon Administrative Rule

(OAR) 340–22-104(5). The rules

establish a requirement that all non-CTG

sources apply RACT requirements, and

they must apply for a RACT

determination within three months

following notification by ODEQ. The

RACT established by ODEQ must be

approved by EPA, and will be included

in the source’s operating air permit.

EPA acknowledges that Oregon has

not completed the process of making

RACT determinations for a few nonCTG sources in the nonattainment area.

While EPA guidance generally requires

full adoption, submission, and approval

of these RACT determinations prior to

approval of a redesignation request, EPA

has established an exception to this

general policy which it intends to

invoke here. This exception and its

rationale were articulated in the Federal

Register Notice approving the

redesignation request of Grand Rapids,

Michigan, 61 FR 31831, 31833–34.

A requirement under section

107(d)(3)(E)(v) is that the State comply

with section l82(b)(2)(A) by submitting

a SIP revision requiring the

implementation of RACT for certain

sources. While EPA’s redesignation

policy generally requires that these rules

be adopted prior to redesignation, upon

redesignation they can become part of

the contingency plan portion of the

maintenance plan. In its recent approval

of the redesignation request for Grand

Rapids, EPA determined that the

requirement for RACT could be met in

the form of the submission and approval

of a commitment to adopt and

implement these rules as contingency

measures in the maintenance plan.

Thus, EPA created an exception to its

general policy, which it justified in

terms of several factors: first, the RACT

rules at issue were not needed to bring

about attainment of the O3 standard;

second, the State demonstrated

maintenance of the standard without the

implementation of the measures at

issue; and third, in the case of Grand

Rapids, the State committed to include

the RACT rules as contingency

measures in the maintenance plan,

while including other effective

contingency measures in the

maintenance plan.

EPA believes that the rationale and

justification for the exception created in

Grand Rapids apply with equal or

greater force to Portland-Vancouver. The

Portland/Vancouver submission

satisfies the first two factors articulated

as the basis for the Grand Rapids

exception: the RACT rules at issue are

not necessary for attainment and

maintenance of the standard. As for the

third factor, in lieu of contingency

measures, Oregon has committed to

submit the adopted RACT

determinations for approval into the

SIP. (See Docket File for letter dated

February 7, 1997.)

At this time, ODEQ has notified all

non-CTG sources that a RACT

determination is required. In a letter to

EPA, ODEQ has committed to initiate

the public hearing process within three

months of getting a response from a

source and, within six weeks, after the

permit revisions are finalized, to submit

such source specific determinations to

EPA. ODEQ has established RACT rules

for three non-CTG sources; EPA has

approved one and is processing the

other two as direct final rules in a

separate action. ODEQ is in the process

of proposing RACT determinations for

three other sources. In a separate

parallel action EPA is proposing to

approve one of these three ODEQ RACT

determinations. ODEQ also sent

initiating letters to seven recently

identified non-CTG sources, notifying

them of the requirement to submit a

complete analysis of RACT

requirements within three months, in

accordance with the ODEQ rules.

In addition, the non-CTG sources for

which ODEQ has not yet established

RACT requirements are relatively minor

sources and the implementation of

RACT requirements is not necessary for

maintenance of the NAAQS in the

maintenance plan area, i.e., the

maintenance plan did not take credit for

reductions and is not depending on

these reductions for maintenance.

However, before EPA takes final action

to approve the redesignation, EPA will

approve the specific RACT rules for two

sources whose emission reductions are

identified and credited in the

maintenance plan. EPA notes that the

area proposed for redesignation is a

marginal O3 nonattainment area which

has not violated the NAAQS since 1991.

Therefore, the only difference

between the Pdx/Van request and the

exception proposed for Grand Rapids is

the commitment to complete the

adoption of RACT rules for sources that
10504 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

it has identified, rather than a

commitment to adopt such rules merely

as contingency measures. Since Oregon

has already initiated and committed to

the adoption of RACT rules which will

become part of the SIP, and not merely

contingency measures, the justification

for applying this exception here is

equally as compelling as, if not more

compelling than, the case of Grand

Rapids. EPA believes that there is no

significant environmental consequence

to this application of the exception here,

and that it is legally permissible under

the statutory provisions governing

redesignation. The VOC RACT rules

remain applicable requirements under

section 107 and EPA believes that

ODEQ’s initiation of the process for all

sources, which it and the sources are

bound to complete under Oregon rules,

meets the redesignation requirements.

5. Emission Statement

Under section 182(a)(3)(B) of the

CAA, a State must require each owner

of a stationary source of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides

(NOx) located in a marginal

nonattainment area to submit an annual

statement of actual emissions from that

source. EPA approved Washington’s

emission statement program on

November 14, 1994, and approved

Oregon’s program on March 24, 1994.

6. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) Program

Section 182(a)(2)(b) of the CAA

requires that any O3 nonattainment area

which has been classified as ‘‘marginal’’

or worse have an I/M program. The

original federal I/M regulations were

codified at 40 CFR part 51, Subpart S,

and required States to submit an I/M SIP

revision which included all necessary

legal authority and the items specified

in 40 CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by

November 15, 1993.

EPA has previously determined that

the two States’’ I/M programs (currently

in operation) met the applicable

regulations established in 40 CFR part

51, Subpart S. A basic I/M program has

been in operation in Portland since 1975

and became operational in the

Vancouver portion of the nonattainment

area on June 1, 1993. Portland submitted

I/M ‘‘fix ups’’ on November 15, 1993,

and June 13, 1994, to meet EPA basic I/

M requirements. These were approved

by EPA on January 29, 1994, and

September 9, 1994. Information on the

existing Washington I/M program can be

found in the Federal Register notice (61

FR 38086; July 23, 1996) finalizing

EPA’s approval of the program. These

elements will not be enumerated here.

In EPA’s view, the new revisions EPA

proposes to approve in this action also

meet the applicable federal

requirements (see discussion below in

IV.E).

C. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), Permanent

and Enforceable Emission Reductions

There are several control measures

that were responsible for the Pdx/Van

nonattainment area achieving

attainment of the O3 NAAQS. The major

measures are:

—The Federal Motor Vehicle Control

Program which reduces VOC and NOx

emissions as newer, cleaner vehicles

replace older, high emitting vehicles;

—Summertime Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) of 7.8 psi required for gasoline

for the Oregon portion of the AQMA.

(Gasoline for Vancouver area service

stations is supplied by Portland bulk

terminals and therefore the area

receives gasoline with 7.8 psi RVP);

—The major source NSR program which

requires Lowest Achievable Emission

Rate and offsets;

—The Portland basic vehicle emission

Inspection and Maintenance program;

—Stage I vapor recovery for Portland

and Vancouver;

—RACT applied to major industrial

sources of VOC.

Emission reductions achieved through

the implementation of these control

measures are permanent and

enforceable when approved by EPA as

part of the SIP. In addition, there are a

number of State and local measures that

are part of the maintenance plan which,

upon EPA approval, will be federally

enforceable, including stage I & II

gasoline vapor recovery requirements,

improvements in public transit,

transportation demand management

measures, and traffic flow

improvements.

The ODEQ and WDOE have

demonstrated that actual enforceable

emission reductions are responsible for

the air quality improvement and that O3

emissions are not artificially low due to

a local economic downturn or unusual

or extreme occurrences in the weather

patterns. Data in the maintenance plan

show the area has grown rapidly since

the early 1980’s. The Pdx/Van area

initially attained the NAAQS in 1991,

with monitored attainment through

1996 despite this growth. Also,

meteorological conditions during the

attainment time period were conducive

to O3 formation. EPA finds that the

combination of existing EPA-approved

SIP and federal measures contribute to

the permanence and enforceability of

reduction in ambient O3 levels that

have allowed the area to attain the

NAAQS.

D. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv), Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth

the elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The plan

must demonstrate continued attainment

of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten

years after the Administrator approves a

redesignation to attainment. Eight years

after the redesignation, the States must

submit a revised maintenance plan

which demonstrates attainment for the

ten years following the initial ten-year

period. To provide for the possibility of

future NAAQS violations, the

maintenance plan must contain

contingency measures, with a schedule

for implementation, adequate to assure

prompt correction of any air quality

problems.

In this notice, EPA is proposing

approval of the Oregon and Washington

maintenance plans for the Pdx/Van

marginal nonattainment area because

EPA finds that the submittal meets the

requirements of section 175A.

1. Attainment Emission Inventory

The maintenance plan should include

an emission inventory representative of

the time period when monitoring data

indicated attainment. The attainment

inventory uses 1992 as its base year and

was developed consistent with EPA

guidance. Since air monitoring recorded

attainment in 1992, 1992 is an

acceptable year for the attainment

inventory. A summary of the base year

and projected maintenance year

inventories are shown in the tables

below by pollutant for point, area,

biogenic, and mobile sources. Detailed

inventory data are contained in the

docket maintained by EPA.

2. Maintenance Demonstration

The ODEQ and WDOE included in

their submittals projected emission

inventories showing that future

emissions will not exceed the levels

determined to ensure maintenance

throughout the 10 year maintenance

time period. The States also performed

modeling, although not required, for

this marginal nonattainment area. (Refer

to EPA’s TSD prepared for this notice

for more details regarding the projected

inventories and modeling for the Pdx/

Van area.)

a. Projected Year Inventory. The

States projected emission inventories for

the end of the maintenance period using

appropriate growth factors, consistent

with EPA guidance. In addition, the

States made projections for the interim

years of 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2003 to

supplement the 2006 projections. As
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10505

shown in the tables below, the 2006 VOC and NOx emission levels are below

the 1992 attainment emissions.

1990 1992 1996 1999 2001 2003 2006

Vancouver, WA, VOC Emission Projections (tons/day)

Point Sources ........................................................................ 5 4 4 4 4 5 5

Area Sources ........................................................................ 15 14 14 14 15 15 16

On-road ................................................................................. 22 16 13 11 9 9 9

Non-road ............................................................................... 8 8 9 9 10 9 9

Biogenic ................................................................................. 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Total ............................................................................ 67 59 57 55 55 55 56

Portland, OR, VOC Emissions Projections (tons/day)

Point Sources ........................................................................ 40 36 37 41 42 45 48

Area Sources ........................................................................ 58 57 56 56 57 59 61

On-road ................................................................................. 114 92 70 52 47 44 41

Non-road ............................................................................... 38 39 41 38 41 39 36

Biogenic ................................................................................. 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

Total ............................................................................ 296 270 250 233 233 233 232

Vancouver, WA, NOX Emission Projections (tons/day)

Point Sources ........................................................................ 6 5 5 6 6 6 7

Area Sources ........................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

On-road ................................................................................. 14 15 14 12 12 12 11

Non-road ............................................................................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 6

Total ............................................................................ 28 28 27 26 26 26 25

Portland, OR, NOX Emission Projections (tons/day)

Point Sources ........................................................................ 13 15 16 18 20 21 21

Area Sources ........................................................................ 12 12 13 13 13 13 14

On-road ................................................................................. 76 75 68 56 54 52 51

Non-road ............................................................................... 33 35 37 36 36 35 35

Total ............................................................................ 134 137 134 123 123 121 121

b. Modeled Attainment. EPA does not

require modeling for marginal

nonattainment areas. However, the

States performed modeling using the

Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach

(EKMA). EKMA calculates the VOC

control requirement to attain the O3

standard considering expected changes

in emissions and transport of O3

precursors. (The EPA model, OZIPM–4,

was used to conduct the EKMA

analysis.)

The historical trend of the measured

ambient O3 data was characterized

using a regression analysis. The airshed

capacity for the AQMA was divided

between the two States based on each

area achieving approximately an equal

percent reduction from forecast

emissions in 2006, the last year of the

maintenance plan.

c. Control Measures. The States have

adopted a number of new control

measures which include credit for some

federal rules. Additional information

may be found on the following control

measures in part IV, or the TSD. The

control measures are:

(1) Hybrid low enhanced vehicle

inspection including On Board

Diagnostics (OBD).

(2) Expanded vehicle inspection

boundary.

(3) RVP, fleet turnover, and National

Low Emission Vehicles (NLEV) (see

below for additional details on NLEV).

(4) Employee commute options.

(5) Voluntary parking ratio program.

(6) Transportation control measures.

(7) New EPA nonroad engine rules.

(8) VOC Area Source Rules.

(9) Industrial permit limit (PSEL)

donation program.

(10) Major NSR/PSD program.

(11) Source specific RACT

requirements and a gasoline pipeline

(see part III. B. 4 for additional

information on RACT).

(12) Public education and incentive

program.

NLEV additional information: ODEQ

and WDOE have included emission

reduction credits for the proposed NLEV

(previously known as FedLEV) program

in on-road emission forecasts beginning

in 2001. The NLEV program was

proposed by automobile manufacturers

as an alternative to the California LEV

program recommended by States

comprising the Ozone Transport

Commission (OTC). While it appears

likely that NLEV will be available in

Oregon by 2001, implementation of the

NLEV program depends on negotiations

among the automobile manufacturers

and the OTC States, and is not under the

direct control of EPA.

Because the OTC States and

automobile manufacturers have not yet

committed to the NLEV program and the

program is not yet in place, EPA has not

authorized SIP credit for the program.

This policy will change in the near

future if the NLEV program agreement is

finalized. EPA, however, is proposing

approval of the Pdx/Van O3

maintenance plan because:

—The maintenance year emission

inventories are below the attainment
10506 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

year (1992) emission inventories

without taking any credit for potential

NLEV reductions.

—The maintenance plans have been

designed to address the most adverse

meteorological conditions that might

be expected during the maintenance

period.

—ODEQ and SWAPCA have committed

to adopt a backup measure by 1999 if

NLEV will be delayed beyond 2001.

(The back-up measure alone is not

sufficient justification for approval.)

3. Verification of Continued Attainment

Continued attainment of the O3

NAAQS in the marginal nonattainment

area depends, in part, on the efforts of

the States of Washington and Oregon in

tracking indicators of continued

attainment during the maintenance

period. The ODEQ and WDOE will

analyze annually the O3 air quality

monitoring data to verify continued

attainment of the O3 standard in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 50 and

EPA’s redesignation guidance.

Permanent O3 monitoring stations are

operated in compliance with EPA

monitoring guidelines set forth in 40

CFR Part 58 and, in addition to periodic

monitoring saturation studies, SWAPCA

and ODEQ are working on a ‘‘future

study’’ which could result in

recommendations to add permanent

additional monitors.

The ODEQ and WDOE have also

committed to perform periodic emission

inventory reviews of the O3

maintenance plan. In preparing the

updates, ODEQ and SWAPCA will

review the emission factors, growth

factors, rule effectiveness, and

penetration factors, and other significant

assumptions used to prepare the

emission forecast. Factors will be

confirmed or adjusted where more

accurate information is available. Any

new emission sources will be included

in the update. Updates will be prepared

for 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2006

and will be submitted to EPA for

review.

4. Contingency Plan

Section 175A requires a State to

provide a contingency measure that it

will put into effect within some

specified period of time after a

triggering event (e.g., exceedance or

violation of a standard). In addition,

section 175A(d) of the CAA requires

that all control measures contained in

the SIP prior to redesignation be

retained as contingency measures in the

O3 maintenance plan. In both Oregon

and Washington, the following

measures will be implemented in the

Pdx/Van area if an actual violation of

the O3 NAAQS is recorded and

validated:

—The NSR requirements for proposed

major sources and major

modifications in the AQMA (and the

area of significant air quality impact)

will change: specifically, the

requirement to install Best Available

Control Technology (BACT) in the

AQMA will be replaced with a

requirement for Lowest Achievable

Emission Rate (LAER) controls and

the growth allowance will be

eliminated and replaced with offsets.

In addition, in the Portland area, rules

will be adopted to implement

requirements for reformulated

gasoline, congestion pricing, or

equivalent emission reduction

measures. These requirements will

take effect upon validation of a

NAAQS violation.

—With an additional violation, area

rules in Vancouver will be adopted to

implement a remote sensing I/M

program, and further enhancements to

the I/M program, or an equivalent

measure.

The Oregon and Washington

contingency plans meet EPA’s

requirements for redesignation.

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan

Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of

the CAA, Oregon and Washington have

agreed to develop the next ten-year

maintenance plan (2007–2016) and

submit it to EPA by December 31, 2004.

Such a revised SIP will provide for

maintenance for an additional ten years.

IV. Supporting Rules

A. NSR Changes for Maintenance Plan

1. SWAPCA 400 ‘‘General Regulations

for Air Pollution Sources’’

On December 11, 1996, WDOE

submitted a revision of the SIP for the

State of Washington which consisted of

various amended regulations for a local

air agency authority, SWAPCA.

SWAPCA has amended its Permit to

Construct rules in SWAPCA 400 to

establish a new program for

‘‘maintenance areas’’ (nonattainment

areas which have been redesignated by

EPA to attainment). This new program,

which EPA is proposing to approve as

a SIP revision, is basically a

combination of nonattainment area (Part

D NSR) requirements and attainment

area PSD requirements for new major

sources and major modifications to

existing major sources in attainment

areas. Specifically, a new section—

SWAPCA 400–111 ‘‘Requirements for

Sources in a Maintenance Area’’—was

added which requires new major

sources and major modifications to

existing sources in maintenance areas

to: comply with all applicable new

source performance standards (NSPS),

national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), and

State and local emission standards; not

cause any ambient air quality standard

to be exceeded, not violate the

requirements for reasonable further

progress, not delay the attainment date

for a nonattainment area, and not

exceed emission levels or other

requirements in the maintenance plan;

apply best available control technology

(BACT) for each maintenance pollutant

(or precursor); demonstrate that all

major sources owned or operated by the

source in the State are in compliance

with applicable requirements; provide

emission offsets (which may be met in

whole or in part by an allocation from

the growth allowance in the SIP

maintenance plan); demonstrate that

offsets will produce a net air quality

benefit; conduct an alternatives

analysis; and comply with the PSD

requirements, visibility requirements,

and SWAPCA air toxics requirements if

applicable. The new section also

includes provisions which specify how

the growth allowance will be managed

and allocated and specific requirements

for acceptable emission offsets. Finally,

this new section includes a contingency

plan element that changes the BACT

requirement to a LAER requirement, and

prohibits the use of any growth

allowance if the contingency plan is

implemented due to a violation of an

ambient air quality standard. SWAPCA

also made conforming changes to

SWAPCA 400–030 ‘‘Definitions,’’

SWAPCA 400–040 ‘‘General Standards

for Maximum Emissions,’’ SWAPCA

400–050 ‘‘Emission Standards for

Combustion and Incineration Units,’’

SWAPCA 400–060 ‘‘Emission Standards

for General Process Units,’’ SWAPCA

400–070 ‘‘Emission Standards for

Certain Source Categories,’’ SWAPCA

400–101 ‘‘Sources Exempt from

Registration Requirements,’’ SWAPCA

400–105 ‘‘Records, Monitoring and

Reporting,’’ SWAPCA 400–109 ‘‘Notice

of Construction Application,’’ SWAPCA

400–110 ‘‘New Source Review,’’

SWAPCA 400–112 ‘‘Requirements for

new Sources in Nonattainment Areas,’’

SWAPCA 400–113 ‘‘Requirements for

New Sources in Attainment or

Nonclassifiable Areas,’’ SWAPCA 400–

114 ‘‘Requirements for Replacement or

Substantial Alteration of Emission

Control Technology at an Existing

Stationary Source,’’ SWAPCA 400–171

‘‘Public Involvement,’’ SWAPCA 400–
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10507

190 ‘‘Requirements for Nonattainment

Areas,’’ SWAPCA 400–230 ‘‘Regulatory

Actions and Civil Penalties,’’ and

SWAPCA 400–270 ‘‘Confidentiality of

Records and Information,’’ and added

new sections SWAPCA 400–116

‘‘Maintenance of Equipment,’’ and

SWAPCA 400–290 ‘‘Severability.’’ A

complete description of the changes and

EPA’s review is found in the TSD.

2. OAR Chapter 340 Division 28

‘‘Stationary Source Air Pollution

Control And Permitting Procedures’’

Oregon has amended its NSR Rules in

OAR 340 Division 28 to establish a new

program for ‘‘maintenance areas’’

(nonattainment areas which have been

redesignated by EPA to attainment),

which EPA proposes to approve as part

of the Oregon SIP. This new program is

basically a combination of

nonattainment area (Part D NSR)

requirements and attainment area PSD

requirements for new major sources and

for major modifications to existing

major sources in attainment areas.

Specifically, a new section, OAR 340–

028–1935 ‘‘Requirements for Sources in

Maintenance Areas,’’ was added which

requires new major sources and major

modifications to existing sources in

maintenance areas to apply BACT for

each maintenance pollutant (or

precursor); demonstrate that all major

sources owned or operated by the

source in the State are in compliance;

provide emission offsets (which may be

met in whole or in part by an allocation

from the growth allowance in the SIP

maintenance plan); demonstrate that

offsets will produce a net air quality

benefit; conduct an alternatives

analysis; and comply with the PSD

requirements if applicable. This new

section also includes a contingency plan

element that changes the BACT

requirement to a LAER requirement, and

prohibits the use of any growth

allowance if the contingency plan is

implemented due to a violation of an

ambient air quality standard. This

section also includes requirements for

allocation of a growth allowance and

clarifies that the nonattainment area

NSR provisions and not the

maintenance plan NSR provisions

continue to apply until such time as

EPA approves a request to redesignate

an area from nonattainment to

attainment. Conforming changes were

made to OAR 340–028–0110

‘‘Definitions,’’ OAR 340–028–1900

‘‘Applicability,’’ OAR 340–028–1910

‘‘Procedural Requirements,’’ OAR 340–

028–1920 ‘‘Review of New Sources and

Modifications for Compliance with

Regulations,’’ OAR 340–028–1930

‘‘Requirements for Sources in

Nonattainment Areas,’’ OAR 340–028–

1940 ‘‘Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Requirements for Sources

in Attainment or Unclassified Areas,’’

OAR 340–028–1960 ‘‘Baseline for

Determining Credit for Offsets,’’ OAR

340–028–1970 ‘‘Requirements for Net

Air Quality Benefit,’’ OAR 340–028–

2000 ‘‘Visibility Impact,’’ and OAR 340–

030–0111 ‘‘Emissions Offsets.’’ A

complete description of the changes and

EPA’s review is found in the TSD.

B. SWAPCA 490 ‘‘Emission Standards

and Controls For Sources Emitting

Volatile Organic Compounds’’

EPA proposes approval of changes to

the SWAPCA 490 VOC Area Source

RACT Fix-up regulations to support the

O3 maintenance plan. The proposed

changes include updated citations and

technical clarification to the whole of

SWAPCA 490. The key modifications

are: addition of language to incorporate

revised federal requirements of 40 CFR

63.420 for leak testing gasoline tankers;

revision of the certification sticker

issuance to provide for a full year of

applicability; and clarification of the

applicability of the rule to address the

maintenance plan area in addition to the

nonattainment area.

The changes were locally effective

November 1, 1996, and were submitted

to EPA on December 11, 1996. The

submittal satisfies the requirements of

40 CFR 63.420. The SWAPCA rules are

at least as stringent as the WDOE rules

and thereby meet the requirements of

the CAA.

C. SWAPCA 491 ‘‘Emission Standards

and Controls for Sources Emitting

Gasoline Vapors’’

On December 11, 1996, WDOE

submitted a revision of the Washington

SIP which consisted of various amended

SWAPCA regulations. EPA is proposing

to approve SWAPCA 491 ‘‘Emission

Standards and Controls for Sources

Emitting Gasoline Vapors,’’ as part of

the Washington SIP because it is

consistent with EPA policy and

strengthens the Washington SIP. The

changes include: clarification to existing

language and definitions; removal of

obsolete compliance dates; changes

consistent with WDOE’s federally

approved regulations for Stage I

requirements; and provision of

references to testing and reporting

requirements. The sections are as

follows:

491–010 ‘‘Policy and Purpose’’

(explains the emission categories

that apply to this regulation).

491–015 ‘‘Applicability’’ (explains the

type of gasoline movements to

which the regulation applies).

491–020 ‘‘Definitions’’ (clarifications/

explanations specific to the

regulation).

491–030 ‘‘Registration’’ (provides for

annual registration and fees of

owner or operator of gasoline

loading terminal, bulk gasoline

tank, or gasoline dispensing

facilities).

491–040 ‘‘Gasoline Vapor Control

Requirements’’ (specifies: capacity

or throughput criteria for

application of rule; and, permissible

uses for fixed-roof gasoline storage

tanks, gasoline loading terminals,

bulk gasoline plants and transport

tanks, gasoline dispensing facilities

(Stage I), and gasoline dispensing

facilities (Stage II).

491–050 ‘‘Failures, Certification,

Testing and Recordkeeping’’

(specifies: conditions where

facilities are discontinued;

certifications needed for operation;

performance criteria of vapor

collection systems; and, test

procedure and test recordkeeping

requirements).

491–060 ‘‘Severability’’ (provides for

separation of the rule into parts

should any provision be held

invalid).

In this action today, EPA is proposing

to approve all the sections in SWAPCA

491 ‘‘Emission Standards and Controls

for Sources Emitting Gasoline Vapors,’’

which became State-effective on

November 1, 1996.

D. SWAPCA 493 ‘‘VOC Area Source

Rules’’

EPA proposes approval of SWAPCA

493. SWAPCA’s rules are as stringent as

Oregon’s rules which are discussed and

proposed for approval in this Federal

Register action (OAR 340–022–0700

through –340–022–1130 ‘‘Area Source

VOC Regulations’’). SWAPCA rules are

also proposed for approval because they

are at least as stringent as Oregon’s

rules. These rules cover spray paints,

architectural coatings, motor vehicle

refinishing, and area source common

provisions. EPA is allowing Vancouver,

WA, to take credit for the consumer

products federal rule in the same way as

allowed in the Grand Rapids

maintenance plan April 2, 1996,

proposed rulemaking, page 14529.

E. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

As part of this action, EPA is also

proposing to approve certain

modifications to Oregon’s and

Washington’s I/M programs. The

changes affect the Pdx/Van maintenance

plan in that the emission reduction

credit claimed for each State’s I/M

program effectiveness will, if approved,
10508 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

change from what EPA has allowed for

these States in the past.

In Oregon the I/M modifications are

directly solely at the Portland I/M area.

In Washington the revisions are directed

to the statewide I/M program, which

includes Vancouver, Spokane, and the

Puget Sound Area.

1. Oregon I/M Submittal

EPA proposes to approve the SIP

revision submitted by the State of

Oregon. This revision continues to

require the implementation of a basic

motor vehicle I/M program in the

Portland Metropolitan Service district

and the Medford-Ashland AQMA. The

intended effect of this action is revision

of the I/M test type for certain vehicles

in the Portland area. Under this plan,

certain vehicles would be subject to

‘‘enhanced’’ testing even though EPA

regulations for the area itself only

require compliance with a basic

standard. In addition, EPA proposes to

approve the State’s request to expand

the Portland I/M area boundary. This

action is being taken under Section 110

of the Clean Air Act.

a. Oregon I/M and Clean Air Act

Requirements Background. The CAA

requires States to make changes to

improve existing I/M programs or

implement new ones. Section

182(a)(2)(B) requires any O3

nonattainment area which has been

classified as ‘‘marginal’’ (pursuant to

section 181(a) of the Act) or worse to

have an I/M program. All CO

nonattainment areas were also subject to

this requirement.

In addition, Congress directed the

EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to publish

updated guidance for State I/M

programs, taking into consideration

findings of the Administrator’s audits

and investigations of these programs.

The States were to incorporate this

guidance into the SIPs for all areas

required by the Act to have an I/M

program.

On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950),

the EPA published a final regulation

establishing the I/M requirements,

pursuant to section 182 and 187 of the

Act. The I/M regulation was codified at

40 CFR part 51, Subpart S, and requires

States to submit I/M SIP revisions

which include all necessary legal

authority and the items specified in 40

CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by

November 15, 1993. Oregon has met

these requirements; see Federal Register

(FR) notice 59 FR 46557, published on

September 9, 1994.

On December 12, 1996, Oregon

submitted additional revisions to

portions of the SIP concerned with I/M

program modification, implementation,

and operation. These SIP revisions were

reviewed by EPA to determine

completeness shortly after submittal, in

accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V. The submittals were found

to be complete, and letters dated

February 10, 1997, were forwarded to

the Director of ODEQ indicating the

completeness of the submittal.

EPA has previously designated two

areas as CO nonattainment in Oregon,

one of which is also an O3

nonattainment area. The Portland CO

nonattainment area, classified as

‘‘moderate,’’ with a design value less

than or equal to 12.7 ppm, contains

portions of the following three counties:

Clackamas, Multnomah, and

Washington. The Portland O3

nonattainment area, classified as

‘‘marginal,’’ consists of the AQMA. The

Medford CO nonattainment area,

classified as ‘‘moderate,’’ also with a

design value less than or equal to 12.7

ppm, contains a portion of Jackson

County. The nonattainment

designations for CO and O3 were

published in the Federal Register on

November 6, 1991, and November 30,

1992, and have been codified in the

CFR. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30,

1992), codified at 40 CFR, sections

81.300–81.437. Based on these

nonattainment designations, basic I/M

programs have been required in both the

Portland area and the Medford area.

By this action, EPA is proposing to

approve Oregon’s submittal, revising the

I/M program in the Portland area. EPA

has reviewed the State submittal against

the statutory requirements and for

consistency with the Agency’s

regulations. EPA summarizes below the

requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations, as found in 40 CFR Part

51.350–51.373, and its analysis of the

State submittal. Parties desiring

additional details on the Federal I/M

regulations are referred to the November

5, 1992, Federal Register notice (57 FR

52950) or 40 CFR Part 51.350–51.373.

The State’s December 12, 1996,

submittal provides for replacement of

the existing I/M test type, for certain

vehicles and model years, in the

Portland area beginning on September 1,

1997. Though Oregon will continue to

conduct a biennial, test-only I/M

program in Portland, following approval

of the State’s maintenance plan and

redesignation request, the program will

be more effective than the current

program, and will meet the emission

reduction requirements of the proposed

O3 maintenance plan. Since the

Portland area has not yet been

designated as in attainment of the CO

NAAQS, the I/M program in that area

will also be required to continue

meeting EPA’s basic performance

standard and other basic program

requirements contained in the Federal I/

M rule. No changes to the Medford basic

program are proposed. (Refer to the

February 12, 1997, TSD in the docket for

a complete description of the SIP

provisions which are not being

changed.)

Testing will continue to be performed

by ODEQ (with the exception of those

fleets which are self-tested). Other

aspects of the Oregon I/M program that

will only change as noted below

include: testing of 1975 and newer

vehicles in Portland; test fees to ensure

the State has adequate resources to

implement the program; enforcement by

registration denial; a repair effectiveness

program; commitment to testing

convenience, quality assurance, data

collection, zero waiver rate, reporting,

and test equipment and procedure

specification for the basic test;

commitment to developing ‘‘enhanced’’

test procedure specifications;

commitment to ongoing public

information and consumer protection

programs; inspector training and

certification; and penalties against

inspector incompetence. An analysis of

how the revisions to the Oregon I/M

program will meet the Federal SIP

requirements by section of the Federal

I/M rule is provided below.

(1) Applicability. The SIP needs to

describe the applicable areas in detail

and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372,

needs to include the legal authority or

rules necessary to establish program

boundaries.

Portland’s I/M program, specified in

Oregon’s Revised Statutes (ORS)

815.300 and OAR 340–024–0301, has

been implemented in portions of

Clackamas, Multnomah, and

Washington Counties. In this action the

area proposed for expansion includes

portions of the three aforementioned

counties, plus the area within the

counties of Columbia and Yamhill. The

legal authority for Oregon’s

Environmental Quality Commission

(EQC) to establish geographic

boundaries is found in ORS 468A.390

and 815.300.

(2) Basic I/M Performance Standard.

The Medford and Portland I/M

programs provided for in the existing

CO SIP are required to meet a

performance standard for basic I/M for

the pollutants that caused the affected

area to come under I/M requirements.

The performance standard sets an

emission reduction target that must be

met by a program in order for the SIP

to be approvable. The SIP must also
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10509

provide that the program will meet the

performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for

appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met.

As part of the 1994 SIP package, the

State submitted a modeling

demonstration using the EPA computer

model MOBILE5a, and showing that the

basic performance standard is met in

both Portland and Medford. The State

has recently submitted a demonstration

supporting the claimed effectiveness of

the proposed revision to the Portland

program. The proposed modifications to

the Portland program are, in EPA’s

view, sufficient to meet both the

declared needs of the proposed

Portland/Vancouver O3 maintenance

plan and the federal requirements for a

basic I/M program.

(3) Adequate Tools and Resources.

The SIP needs to include a description

of the resources that will be used for

program operation, which includes:

—A detailed budget plan which

describes the source of funds for

personnel, program administration,

program enforcement, purchase of

necessary equipment, and any other

requirements discussed throughout,

for the period prior to the next

biennial self-evaluation required in

the Federal I/M rule, and;

—A description of personnel resources,

the number of personnel dedicated to

overt and covert auditing, data

analysis, program administration,

enforcement, and other necessary

functions, and the training attendant

to each function.

Oregon’s I/M program, as set forth in

ORS 468A.400, is funded solely by

collection of fees from vehicle owners at

the time of passing the I/M test. The fee

has been $10 per certificate issued for

ODEQ-inspected vehicles, and $5 each

from certificates issued by fleets. Under

the revision, these fees may be increased

to: a maximum amount of $10 for

vehicles in Medford, a maximum of $21

for Portland vehicles, and a range of

from $5 to $10 per vehicle for fleets. No

other changes have been proposed in

this action. EPA proposes to find that

the Oregon I/M program provides for

adequate tools and resources to

implement the program.

(4) Test Frequency and Convenience.

The SIP needs to include the test

schedule in detail, including the test

year selection scheme if testing is other

than annual. Also, the SIP needs to

include the legal authority necessary to

implement and enforce the test

frequency requirement and explain how

the test frequency will be integrated

with the enforcement process.

The Oregon I/M program requires

biennial inspections for all subject

motor vehicles (see ORS 468A.365). For

new, Oregon licensed vehicles the first

test is required for reregistration two

years after initial registration. In

addition, all gasoline powered heavy

duty trucks and most motor vehicles

registered as government-owned

vehicles are required to be certified

annually. Short waiting times and short

driving distances relating to network

design are satisfactorily addressed in the

existing SIP.

EPA proposes to approve the

following changes in this action:

continuation of the basic test for

Portland area vehicles from three to five

years old (i.e., model years from three to

five years old), and model years

between and including 1975 and 1980;

modification to the Portland program so

that vehicles from six years old to model

year 1981 will be required to undergo

‘‘enhanced’’ testing (including a purge

test); and, pressure tests on Portlandarea gas caps as part of the overall I/M

testing.

(5) Vehicle Coverage. The SIP needs

to include a detailed description of the

number and types of vehicles to be

covered by the program, and a plan for

how those vehicles are to be identified,

including vehicles that are routinely

operated in the area but may not be

registered in the area. EPA proposes to

approve the following changes to

Portland area vehicle coverage,

anticipated to be effective by September

1, 1997: basic tests for light duty

vehicles (LDVs) less than or equal to

five years old and between (and

including) the model years of 1975 and

1980; enhanced tests for light duty

vehicles greater than or equal to six

years old, but less than model year

1981; annual certification of

government-owned vehicles which are

part of fleets numbering more than 50

vehicles; bi-annual certification of

government-owned vehicles which are

part of fleets numbering less than 50

vehicles; and, annual certification of

U.S. Government vehicles—except for

tactical military vehicles—operated in

either the Portland or Medford areas.

(6) Test Procedures and Standards.

The SIP needs to include a description

of each test procedure used. The SIP

also needs to include the rule,

ordinance, or law describing and

establishing the test procedures.

In the Portland I/M area all 1975

model and newer vehicles have been

subject to a two speed idle test. This

action proposes to approve modification

of the Portland test type to include the

existing idle test and a new transient

loaded test called ‘‘BAR31.’’ The new

test would be used on the model years

of LDVs discussed above. The BAR31

test involves a maximum of four tests

(second order equation, symmetrical

peak, acceleration/deceleration modes)

of approximately 31 seconds of duration

each. In OAR 340–024–0312(4)(a),

Oregon also proposed an additional test

that would allow vehicles that failed all

four cycles to have their emissions

extrapolated out to six cycles; if the

extrapolated ‘‘sixth hill’’ emissions

passed the cutpoints, the vehicle would

pass. EPA proposes to disapprove this

additional test. As explained in the

TSD, following negotiations between the

State and EPA concerning the type of

BAR31 test to be administered, and the

level of credit appropriate for the

implemented test, the State decided to

eliminate the sixth hill test. The agreedupon level of credit allotted to Oregon’s

BAR31 program does not, therefore,

include this option. Although State

regulations still include this language

regarding the sixth hill extrapolation,

ODEQ indicates it has no plans to allow

its use.

The Oregon BAR31 test has been

reviewed by EPA, and approved. Its

application in Oregon’s program has

been accorded an initial level of

effectiveness (credit) commensurate

with the State’s supporting

documentation (available for review in

the docket). The credit found to be

appropriate is approximately 90% of

that accorded to IM240, the Agency’s

recommended enhanced test-type.

Specifically, it has 90%, 95%, and 95%

of the effectiveness of IM240 for

reducing, respectively, hydrocarbons,

carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.

It is appropriate, therefore, that the State

refers to the BAR31 test as an

‘‘enhanced’’ test. Following

implementation of the program, the

State has committed to auditing 0.1% of

its fleet for four years with an IM240 test

to better quantify the actual

effectiveness of the BAR31 test. Detailed

procedures for the BAR31 test will be

developed pursuant to receipt of the

equipment.

The only change proposed to

Portland’s (or Medford’s) basic program

test procedures EPA proposes to

approve is the introduction of a gas cap

pressure test in Portland. OBD system

checks for 1996 and newer vehicles will

start in the year 1998 for both basic and

BAR31 tests.

(7) Test Equipment. The SIP needs to

include written technical specifications

for all test equipment used in the

program and shall address each of the

requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the

Federal I/M rule. On June 21, 1996, the

State received authorization from the
10510 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

State Emergency Board to purchase the

new enhanced testing equipment.

However, no revisions to the technical

specifications of the equipment to be

used for I/M purposes have been

proposed in this action. It is anticipated

that the State will document

specifications for the new enhanced

equipment following purchase.

(8) Quality Control. The SIP needs to

include a description of quality control

and record keeping procedures. The SIP

needs to include the procedures

manual, rule, and ordinance or law

describing and establishing the

procedures of quality control and

requirements.

The existing Oregon I/M SIP narrative

contains descriptions and requirements

establishing the quality control

procedures in accordance with the

Federal I/M rule. These requirements

help ensure that equipment calibrations

are properly performed and recorded, as

well as maintaining compliance

document security. No revisions to the

SIP have been proposed in this action

for the basic I/M program. Details about

the proposed Portland area’s BAR31

enhanced testing methods are contained

in (new) OAR 340–024–0312.

(9) Inspector Training and Licensing

or Certification.

The SIP needs to include a

description of the training program, the

written and hands-on tests, and the

licensing or certification process.

The Oregon I/M SIP provides for the

implementation of training,

certification, and refresher programs for

emission inspectors. Training will

include all elements required by

51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule. All

inspectors are required to be certified to

inspect vehicles in the Oregon I/M

program. The only change EPA proposes

to approve as part of this action to

accept training credit is the calculation

of overall I/M emission reduction

effectiveness.

(10) Improving Repair Effectiveness.

The SIP needs to include a description

of the technical assistance program to be

implemented, and a description of the

repair technician training resources

available in the community. Only one

general update to the SIP has been

proposed in this action for ‘‘improving

repair effectiveness.’’ The update EPA

proposes to approve is actually an

addition to a previous program that met

federal requirements. The addition

notes that since November 1995 an

advisory committee has been working to

develop a ODEQ Auto Technician

Emissions Training. The training

program envisioned will be voluntary

and will issue certifications for two

levels of repair proficiency.

2. Washington I/M Submittal

EPA proposes to approve the SIP

revision submitted by the State of

Washington for the purpose of

approving changes to the I/M program

for Washington State. EPA proposes to

approve changes to the Washington I/M

program that apply to Vancouver,

Spokane, and the Puget Sound areas. On

December 20, 1996, Washington

submitted SIP revision requests to the

EPA to satisfy the requirements of

sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

7511a(b)(4) and 7511a(c)(3) (1990), and

the Federal I/M rule (40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart S). These SIP revisions will

change certain provisions of the existing

approved SIP that require vehicle

owners to comply with the Washington

I/M program in portions of the

Washington counties of Clark, King,

Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane. The

three I/M areas currently operating

programs are associated with: (1) the

Vancouver O3 nonattainment area,

proposed for re-designation, but

currently classified as ‘‘marginal,’’ (2)

the Spokane CO nonattainment area,

classified as ‘‘moderate,’’ and (3) the

Puget Sound O3 attainment area. In

addition, both the Puget Sound area and

Vancouver are now in attainment for

CO, and have continued I/M in their

areas under an approved maintenance

plan. The revisions relate primarily to

an additional allowable I/M test type,

allowable gas cap leak tests, and new

federal OBD requirements.

a. Washington I/M and Clean Air Act

Requirements Background Section

182(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act

requires any O3 nonattainment area

which has been classified as ‘‘marginal’’

or worse (pursuant to section 181(a) of

the Act) to establish an I/M program.

These areas must implement basic or

enhanced I/M programs depending

upon their specific classifications. In

particular, O3 nonattainment areas

classified as ‘‘serious’’ or worse, with

populations of 200,000 or more, and CO

‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment

areas, with design values above 12.7

ppm and populations of 200,000 or

more, are required to meet EPA

guidance for enhanced I/M programs.

Additionally, areas which have been

re-designated from non-attainment to

attainment may continue to use I/M to

reduce emissions. I/M requirements

within those areas’’ maintenance plans

seeking to advance the air quality of the

respective areas to attainment may,

therefore, be very similar to those

requirements contained in previous

SIPs.

Prior to November 25, 1996, EPA had

designated two areas as O3

nonattainment in the State of

Washington. The Puget Sound O3

nonattainment area was classified as

marginal, and contained portions of

King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.

The Vancouver non-attainment area was

also classified as marginal, and

contained a portion of Clark County. In

an action taken on November 25, 1996,

however, the Puget Sound area was redesignated to attainment, leaving only

one area in nonattainment.

Likewise, prior to October 21, 1996,

three areas in Washington State were

designated as CO nonattainment areas.

Both the Spokane CO nonattainment

area (Spokane County) and the Puget

Sound CO nonattainment area (portions

of King, Pierce, and Snohomish

Counties) had design values greater than

12.7 ppm and were designated as

‘‘moderate plus.’’ In addition, the

Vancouver area was a ‘‘moderate’’ CO

nonattainment area, with a design value

below 12.7 ppm. The central Puget

Sound area had, and continues to have,

an urbanized area population of over

one million, and Spokane had, and

continues to have, an urbanized area

population in excess of 200,000.

Based on these nonattainment

designations and populations, basic I/M

programs were required in the

Vancouver and Puget Sound O3

nonattainment areas, while enhanced

I/M programs were required in the Puget

Sound and Spokane CO nonattainment

areas. On November 25, 1996, however,

the Puget Sound area was redesignated

to attainment for CO and O3, and on

October 21, 1996, the Vancouver area

was redesignated to attainment for CO.

As a result of the redesignations of the

Puget Sound area for O3 attainment,

only one Washington area—

Vancouver—continues to be (until EPA

approves the Pdx/Van maintenance plan

and redesignation request) classified as

marginal O3 nonattainment. Vancouver

is part of the larger Pdx/Van

nonattainment area. In addition,

subsequent to the re-designations noted

above, only one area in Washington—

Spokane—remains designated as a CO

(‘‘moderate plus’’) nonattainment area.

Based on these nonattainment

designations and populations, an

enhanced I/M program continues to be

required in Spokane, a basic program

continues to be required in Vancouver,

and a program is still required by the

Puget Sound maintenance plan.

The I/M action being proposed herein

(received by EPA on December 20, 1996)

includes proposed changes to the I/M

program in the State of Washington. If

the Vancouver area is redesignated to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10511

attainment and the I/M proposals are

approved, Washington will no longer

have any O3 nonattainment areas and

I/M, for the purposes of reducing

ambient O3 levels, will only be required

in Vancouver and Puget Sound to meet

reduction targets in the respective

maintenance plans. Only Spokane will

remain a CO nonattainment area, and

require an enhanced I/M program. The

Puget Sound and Vancouver areas,

which continue to be in CO attainment,

will need I/M programs only to meet the

reduction targets of their maintenance

plans.

EPA has reviewed the December 20,

1996, State submittal for compliance

with statutory requirements and for

consistency with the Agency’s

regulations. A summary of the EPA’s

analysis of why it is proposing to

approve the SIP revision is provided

below. In addition, a history and a

summary to support approval of the

Washington and Oregon State

submittals are contained in a TSD, dated

February 12, 1997, which is available

from the EPA Region 10 Office (address

provided above).

I/M programs have been running in

the Puget Sound area since 1982, in

Spokane since 1985, and in Vancouver

since 1993. Washington State’s current

centralized, test only, biennial program

meets the requirements of EPA’s low

enhanced performance standard, and of

other requirements contained in the

Federal I/M rule in the applicable

nonattainment areas. On December 20,

1996, Washington submitted an I/M SIP

revision that would provide for the

continued implementation of I/M

programs in the Puget Sound, Spokane,

and Vancouver areas, but revises State

regulations to allow for implementation

of a different I/M test in those areas.

Emission testing is, and will continue to

be, overseen by the WDOE and

performed by its I/M contractor. Public

hearings for the State’s submittal were

held in Vancouver, Bellevue, and

Spokane on July 16, 17, and 18, 1996,

respectively. A description of the

existing Washington I/M program can be

found in the Federal Register notice (61

FR 38086; July 23, 1996) finalizing

EPA’s approval of the program. These

elements will not be enumerated here.

In EPA’s view, the December 20 I/M

SIP revisions continue to ensure that

Washington’s centralized, test only,

biennial program meets the

requirements of EPA’s low enhanced

performance standard, other

requirements contained in 40 CFR

Subpart S in the applicable

nonattainment counties, the needs of

the Spokane nonattainment area, and

the needs of the Puget Sound and

(existing and newly proposed) CO and

O3 Vancouver maintenance plans.

The revisions to the State I/M

program in the Puget Sound area which

EPA proposes to approve include:

• A loaded idle test (i.e., continued

operation of the current testing regime),

and the possibility of adopting an

accelerated simulation mode (ASM) and

gas cap check test;

• A program to continue evaluating

on-road testing which is designed to

meet the EPA 0.5% requirement for the

State’s enhanced program areas, or for

areas seeking maintenance plan credit

for such testing; and,

• A check of the OBD system for all

vehicles 1996 and newer (starting in

1998).

The proposed I/M program revisions

in Spokane that EPA proposes to

approve include:

• A loaded idle test (i.e., continued

use of the current test) and an ASM test;

and,

• A check of the OBD system for all

vehicles 1996 and newer (starting in

1998).

The I/M program revisions in

Vancouver that EPA proposes to

approve include:

• Continued operation of the current

testing regime until replaced by an ASM

test;

• An ASM and gas cap check test by

1998;

• A check of the OBD system for all

vehicles 1996 and newer (starting in

1998);

• Expansion of the Clark County

testing area; and,

• Exemption of vehicles three years

old or newer in the expanded Clark

County area.

Although in Spokane and Vancouver

the State plans by 1998 to implement

the ASM tests, and in all three areas

implement OBD checks, the regulations

supporting this intention simply

provide for the ‘‘allowance’’ of such

tests. Gas cap checking is also a test

which new State regulations now

‘‘allow,’’ rather than commit to. The

emissions benefits to be gained by such

enhancements are proposed in the Pdx/

Van maintenance plan. Implementation

in Vancouver is scheduled for no later

than 1998.

An analysis of how the Washington I/

M program continues to meet EPA’s I/

M regulations is provided below. For

the most part, the Washington program

has not been modified significantly;

specific information about portions of

the program that have not been

modified are presented in the TSD.

(1) Applicability. The SIP needs to

describe the applicable areas in detail

and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372,

needs to include the legal authority or

rules necessary to establish program

boundaries.

The Washington I/M regulations

specify that I/M programs will be

implemented in the areas described

above. Although Vancouver has been

required to implement only a basic I/M

program for its O3 and, previously, for

its CO nonattainment areas (and in the

existing SIP the performance of

Vancouver’s program was compared to

EPA’s basic performance standard), the

State chose to implement a ‘‘low

enhanced’’ program in all areas that

required I/M programs. The action

proposed in this notice, if approved,

would allow the use of an ASM2525

low enhanced I/M test in all three State

areas (as well as other, more minor I/M

modifications noted above). The

proposed O3 maintenance plan for the

Pdx/Van area, in fact, relies to a degree

on the adoption of ASM2525 in

Vancouver by 1998.

(2) Enhanced and Basic I/M

Performance Standard. The federal I/M

performance standard sets an emission

reduction target that must be met by a

program in order for the SIP to be

approvable. The SIP must also provide

that the program will meet the

performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for

appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met. The I/M programs in

Vancouver and Spokane have been

required to meet a performance

standard—basic and low enhanced,

respectively—for the pollutants that

caused the affected areas to come under

40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, I/M

Requirements. If the redesignation of

Vancouver is approved, the area will no

longer need to meet the basic

performance standard, except as

specified in the maintenance plan.

The State has submitted a modeling

demonstration using the EPA computer

model MOBILE5a showing that the low

enhanced performance standard will

continue to be met for Spokane if

ASM2525 is implemented. The State

has also submitted modeling for the

areas of Vancouver and Puget Sound

that demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction

that implementation of the new

ASM2525 program will either meet or

exceed the previously calculated

emission reductions expected from the

current I/M test types.

(3) Vehicle coverage. The SIP needs to

include a detailed description of the

number and types of vehicles to be

covered by the program, and a plan for

how those vehicles are to be identified,

including vehicles that are routinely

operated in the area but may not be

registered in the area. Also, the SIP
10512 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

needs to include a description of any

special exemptions which will be

granted by the program, and an estimate

of the percentage and number of subject

vehicles which will be affected. Such

exemptions need to be accounted for in

the emission reduction analysis. In

addition, the SIP needs to include the

legal authority or rule necessary to

implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage requirement.

The State has not proposed any SIP

revisions for these I/M elements, other

than to exempt all vehicles from testing

in the expanded Vancouver area (i.e.,

the new additional area included by the

expansion) if they are newer than four

years old. The Washington program

continues to include coverage of all

1968 and newer model year gasoline

powered LDVs and light-duty and

heavy-duty trucks registered or required

to be registered within the

nonattainment areas, and fleets

primarily operated within an I/M

program area. The starting model year of

a vehicle testing program may be

changed each year to include the most

recent 24 model years. I/M testing

exemptions are granted for alternative

fuel vehicles, electric vehicles, and

motorcycles.

All subject fleets must complete the

emission inspection process, without a

waiver option being available. Fleets

may be inspected in facilities other than

the State’s inspection stations, provided

that WDOE approves the alternative

tests. Vehicles operated on federal

installations are required to be tested

regardless of whether the vehicles are

registered in the State or local I/M area.

Legal authority for the vehicle coverage

is contained in the Washington statutes

and I/M rule.

(4) Test procedures and standards.

The SIP needs to include a description

of each test procedure used. The SIP

also needs to include the rule,

ordinance, or law describing and

establishing the test procedures.

The existing Washington I/M SIP

establishes test vehicle procedures and

standards that at a minimum are

consistent with EPA regulations. Test

procedures and standards are specified

in WAC 173–422–070. In Washington,

all 1968 and newer gasoline or dieselfueled vehicles are tested. Under the

revised SIP, the State will test vehicles

on a steady-state dynamometer, or by a

two-speed idle and 2500 RPM unloaded

test, or by ASM2525. Diesel vehicles

will continue to be tested for exhaust

opacity only. Specified vehicles are

tested using a transient emissions test.

In addition, starting in 1998, the State

plans to perform OBD checks of vehicles

of model year 1996 or later.

(5) Test equipment. The SIP needs to

include written technical specifications

for all test equipment used in the

program and shall address each of the

requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the

Federal I/M rule. The specifications

need to describe the emission analysis

process, the necessary test equipment,

the required features, and written

acceptance testing criteria and

procedures.

The existing Washington I/M SIP

describes the performance features of

computerized test systems, and exhaust

gas analyzer specifications. For transient

emissions tests, EPA’s ‘‘High Tech I/M

Test Procedures, Emission Standards,

Quality Control Requirements and

Equipment Specifications’’ Final

Technical Guidance is followed.

Regulations covering ASM2525

specifications are included in WAC

173–422–070. EPA understands that

more detailed ASM2525, gas cap check,

and OBD operational and QA/QC

equipment specifications and protocols

will be developed after the State has

procured the test equipment.

(6) Quality control.

The SIP needs to include a

description of quality control (QC) and

recordkeeping procedures. The SIP

needs to include the procedures

manual, rule, and ordinance or law

describing and establishing the

procedures of QC.

The Washington I/M SIP continues to

include a QC Plan that specifies QC and

periodic maintenance procedures. No

changes have been proposed, other than

those new ASM2525 QC regulations

contained in WAC 173–422–070. QC

procedures for the existing program

tests are specified in WAC 173–422–

120. The WDOE Emission Check staff

perform inspections to ensure that

operation of the emission testing

facilities, calibration and maintenance

of exhaust analyzers, test procedures,

and training of management and

inspection personnel meet the standards

outlined in WAC 173–422.

F. Oregon Miscellaneous O3 Supporting

Rules

EPA is proposing approval of the

additions to OAR Chapter 340,

Divisions 22–0400 through –1130, 24–

301, 30–0700 through –1190, and 31–

0500 through—0530.

The additions to Divisions 22, 24, 30

and 31 submitted to the EPA on August

30, 1996, satisfy the requirements of

section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR Part

51.

The EPA is also proposing approval of

Oregon’s request for modification of

Test Method 24 for Morton Traffic

Markings’ use of methacrylate

multicomponent coatings, as submitted

on September 23, 1996. This request for

modification was to assist in

determining compliance with Oregon

OAR 340–22–1020.

1. Background

The ODEQ submitted to EPA

additions to OAR, Divisions 22, 24, 30,

and 31 on August 30, 1996. The

additions were State-effective on:

August 12, 1996, for Division 24; August

14, 1996, for Divisions 22 and 30; and

August 19, 1996, for Division 31.

The additions contained supporting

regulations to ODEQ’s O3 maintenance

plan and redesignation request for the

Portland AQMA. The submittals

included Oregon’s Stage II regulations

(OAR 340–022–0400 through –0403),

Area Source VOC regulations (OAR

340–022–0700–1130), Motor Vehicle

Inspection Boundary (OAR–340–024

0301), Industrial Emissions

Management program (OAR–340–030–

0700 through –0740), Employee

Commute Options Program (OAR 340–

030–0800 through –1040), Voluntary

Maximum Parking Ratios Program

(OAR–340–030–1100 through –1190),

and Boundary Descriptions and

Nonattainment and Maintenance Area

Designations (OAR 340–031–0500,

–520, and –0530).

2. Discussion

Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations

(OAR 340–22–0400 through –0403) and

Area Source VOC Regulations for

General Gaseous Emissions (OAR 340–

22–0700 through –1130) were submitted

for Federal approval for the first time.

These new rules included statements of

purpose, definitions, general provisions,

applicability, compliance schedules,

standards and exemptions,

requirements, inspection and testing

procedures, recordkeeping and

reporting, and other exemptions for

gasoline vapors from gasoline transfer

and dispensing operations, motor

vehicle refinishing, consumer products,

spray paints, and architectural coatings.

The cited VOC emissions limits within

these regulations are at least as stringent

as the Federal rules which have been

promulgated and approved. The EPA

does not have emissions limits

promulgated for spray paints and only

has proposed rules for architectural

coatings and consumer products.

Oregon also submitted a request for

modification of Test Method 24 for

Morton Traffic Markings’ determination

of VOC content for methacrylate

multicomponent coatings. Upon review

of that modification, EPA is proposing

approval of the modification, with the

condition added that a limit be set at ten
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10513

percent for how much sample can be

lost while breaking up the compounds.

Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340–

024–0301) was submitted for Federal

approval for the first time. This new

rule described the boundary

designations for motor vehicle emission

control inspection, test criteria, methods

and standards. These boundary

designations have been reviewed and

are proposed for approval.

Industrial Emissions Management

Program Regulations (OAR 340–030–

0700 through –0740); Employee

Commute Options Program Regulations

(OAR 340–030–0800 through –1040);

and Voluntary Maximum Parking Ratios

Program Regulations (OAR 340–030–

1100 through –1190) were submitted for

Federal approval for the first time. OAR

340–030–0700 through –0740

contained: statement of application,

definition of terms, unused Plant Site

Emission Limit (PSEL) donation

program, industrial growth allowances,

and industrial growth allowance

allocation. These have been reviewed

and are proposed for approval. The TSD

contains additional discussion.

Definitions of Boundaries (OAR 340–

031–0500), Nonattainment Area (OAR

340–031–0520), and Maintenance Areas

(OAR 340–031–0530) were submitted

for Federal approval for the first time.

An identical copy of these rules was

also submitted as part of the CO

redesignation request for the Portland

Metro area. The definitions of

boundaries, nonattainment areas, and

maintenance areas listed in these rules

have been reviewed and are proposed

for approval.

V. Proposed Action

EPA proposes to approve the

Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver,

Washington, interstate O3 maintenance

plan and request for redesignation to

attainment because ODEQ and WDOE

have demonstrated compliance with the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for

redesignation. EPA also proposes to

approve the 1990 O3 Emission

Inventories, changes to the NSR

programs, regulations implementing the

hybrid low enhanced I/M programs, an

expanded vehicle inspection boundary,

minor RACT rule changes (Vancouver

only), Employee Commute Options rule

(Portland only), voluntary parking ratio

rule (Portland only), PSEL management

rules (Portland only), and local area

source supporting rules.

The regulations EPA proposes to

approve for the Vancouver, Washington,

portion are found in the following:

SWAPCA 400 ‘‘General Regulations for

Air Pollution Sources’’; SWAPCA 490

‘‘Emission Standards and Controls for

Sources Emitting Volatile Organic

Compounds’’; SWAPCA 491 ‘‘Emission

Standards and Controls for Sources

Emitting Gasoline Vapors’’; and

SWAPCA 493, ‘‘VOC Area Source

Rules.’’ The amendments to SWAPCA

400, 490, and 491 became effective on

November 21, 1996. The amendments to

SWAPCA 493 became effective on May

25, 1996. The Washington I/M SIP

revision (WAC 173–422, sections –030,

–050, –060, –070, –170, and –190) was

adopted by the State on November 9,

1996.

The regulations EPA proposes to

approve for the Portland, Oregon,

portion are found in the following: Stage

II Vapor Recovery Regulations (OAR

340–022–0400 through –340–022–0404);

Area Source VOC Regulations (OAR

340–022–0700 through –340–022 1130);

Industrial Emissions Management

Program Regulations (OAR 340–030–

0700 through –340–030–0740);

Employee Commute Options Program

Regulations (OAR 340–030–0800

through –340–030–1040); Voluntary

Maximum Parking Ratios Program

Regulations (OAR 340–030–1100

through –340–030–1190). The above

five amendments to the OAR became

effective on August 14, 1996. The

following three amendments became

effective on August 19, 1996:

Definitions of Boundaries (OAR 340–

031–0500); Nonattainment Areas (OAR

340–031–0520); Maintenance Areas

(OAR 340–031–0530). The amendment

to Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340–

024–0301) became effective August 12,

1996. The Oregon I/M revisions (Section

3.1, OAR 340–24–300 through –340–24–

355; and section 5.4) were adopted by

the State on November 14, 1996. Oregon

NSR revisions were submitted by ODEQ

on or before January 22, 1997.

EPA is soliciting public comment on

its proposed approval of revisions to the

Washington and Oregon SIPs and their

request to redesignate to attainment the

Pdx/Van O3 area. Comments will be

considered before taking final action.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on all aspects of this proposed

approval. Comments should be

submitted to the address listed in the

front of this Notice. Public comments

postmarked by April 7, 1997 will be

considered in the final rulemaking

action taken by EPA.

VI. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP)

Impact

On December 13, 1996, EPA

published proposed revisions to the O3

and particulate matter (PM) NAAQS.

Also on December 13, 1996, EPA

published its proposed policy regarding

the interim implementation

requirements for O3 or PM during the

time period following any promulgation

of a revised O3 or PM NAAQS (61 FR

65751). This IIP includes proposed

policy regarding O3 redesignation

actions submitted to and approved by

EPA prior to promulgation of a new O3

standard, as well as those submitted

prior to and approved by EPA after the

promulgation date of a new or revised

O3 standard.

Complete redesignation requests,

submitted by States and processed by

EPA prior to the promulgation date of

the new or revised O3 standard, will be

approved based on the maintenance

plan’s ability to demonstrate attainment

of the current 1-hour standard and

compliance with existing redesignation

criteria. Any redesignation requests

submitted prior to promulgation, which

are not acted upon by EPA prior to that

promulgation date, must then also

include a maintenance plan which

demonstrates attainment of both the

current one-hour standard and the new

or revised O3 standard to be considered

for redesignation.

As discussed previously, the Pdx/Van

redesignation request demonstrates

attainment under the current one-hour

O3 standard. Since the EPA plans to

approve this request prior to the

promulgation date of the new or revised

O3 standard, the Pdx/Van redesignation

request meets the proposed IIP.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Review

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the EPA

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or
10514 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D, of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most 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 approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: February 26, 1997.

Charles Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region

10.

[FR Doc. 97–5642 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–93, Notice 3]

RIN 2127–AF76

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Withdrawal of Proposed

Rule, Announcement of Technical

Workshop on Accelerator Control

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of

proposed rulemaking, and

announcement of a technical workshop.

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA

withdraws a proposal to amend the

safety standard on accelerator control

systems that would have deleted a

provision that specifies return-to-idle

times for a normally operating

accelerator control system. The proposal

was part of NHTSA’s efforts to

implement the President’s Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative.

NHTSA has decided to withdraw its

proposal in order to focus on the

broader issue of making the accelerator

control system standard more relevant

for electronic accelerator systems.

NHTSA announces a technical

workshop, tentatively scheduled for

March 24, 1997, to discuss electronic

accelerator control technology and

potential methods of assuring fail-safe

performance.

DATES: Technical workshop: The

technical workshop is tentatively

scheduled for March 24, 1997. Those

persons wishing to participate in the

workshop should contact Mr. Patrick

Boyd (at the address given below) not

later than March 24, 1997.

Written comments. Written comments

on the subject matter of the workshop

are due April 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The technical workshop

will be held at the U.S. Department of

Transportation building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC. A notice

announcing the room number, and

confirming the workshop date, will be

published shortly after the deadline for

the public to advise the agency of their

intent to participate.

Written comments. Written comments

concerning the subject matter of the

technical workshop should refer to the

docket number and notice number cited

at the beginning of this notice, and be

submitted to: Docket Section, Room

5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours

are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) It is

requested, but not required, that 10

copies of the comment be provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Mr. Patrick Boyd,

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,

NPS–21, telephone (202) 366–6346.

For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama,

Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–20, (202)

366–2992.

Both may be reached at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC,

20590. Comments should not be sent to

these persons, but should be mailed to

the Docket Section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative

Pursuant to the President’s March 4,

1995 directive, ‘‘Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative,’’ to the heads of departments

and agencies, NHTSA undertook a

review of all its regulations and

directives. During the course of this

review, the agency identified rules that

it could propose to eliminate as

unnecessary or to amend to improve

their comprehensibility, application or

appropriateness. As described below,

NHTSA identified Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124

Accelerator control systems (49 CFR

571.124) as one rule that might benefit

from being amended.

Background of Standard No. 124

Standard No. 124’s purpose is to

reduce deaths and injuries resulting

from loss of control of the engine speed

of a moving vehicle due to malfunctions

in the vehicle’s accelerator control

system. Since 1972, Standard No. 124