Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2006-0316-0014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Medford-Ashland PM10 Attainment Plan, Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
Posted Date: 2006-06-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register: June 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 35163-35174]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jn06-14]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R10-OAR-2006-0316; FRL-8175-7]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Medford-Ashland PM10 Attainment Plan, Maintenance Plan and 
Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a PM10 attainment 
and maintenance plan for the Medford-Ashland, Oregon nonattainment area 
(Medford-Ashland NAA) and to redesignate the area from nonattainment to 
attainment for PM10. PM10 air pollution is particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers. 
Also in this action, EPA is approving revisions to Oregon's statewide 
industrial source rules for new and modified major industrial sources 
of PM10 and revisions to the area-specific industrial source rules that 
apply in the Medford-Ashland NAA. EPA is approving the SIP revisions 
and redesignation request because the State adequately demonstrates 
that the control measures being implemented in the Medford-Ashland NAA 
result in attainment and maintenance of the PM10 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards and all other requirements of the Clean Air Act for 
redesignation to attainment are met.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 18, 2006, 
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 
19, 2006. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2006-0316, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 
AWT-107, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mail Room, 9th Floor, 1200 
Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Gina Bonifacino, 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2006-0316. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information

[[Page 35164]]

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
http://www.regulations.gov The http://www.regulations.gov. Web site is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington. EPA requests 
that, if possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino at telephone number: 
(206) 553-2970, e-mail address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov, fax number: 
(206) 553-0110, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action are we taking?
II. Review of the May 14, 2004 submittal
III. Review of the March 10, 2005 submittal: Medford-Ashland 
attainment and maintenance plan, redesignation request and 
industrial source rule revisions
    A. Background of the Medford-Ashland nonattainment area
    1. Description of the Medford-Ashland nonattainment area
    2. PM10 emissions in the Medford-Ashland nonattainment area
    3. Attainment history of the Medford-Ashland nonattainment area
    B. Attainment and maintenance plan requirements
    C. Review of the March 10, 2005 Oregon State submittal 
addressing the attainment and maintenance plan requirements
    1. Permit program for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources of PM10
    2. RACM and RACT
    3. Attainment demonstration
    4. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three 
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994
    5. PM10 precursors
    6. Attainment and maintenance emissions inventory
    7. Air quality monitoring requirements
    8. Demonstration of maintenance
    9. Contingency measures and contingency provisions
    10. Conclusion
    D. Clean Air Act requirements for redesignation of nonattainment 
areas
    E. Review of the Oregon State submittal addressing the 
requirements for redesignation of nonattainment areas
    1. Attainment of the applicable NAAQS
    2. Fully approved attainment plan
    3. Section 110 and Part D requirements
    4. Permanent and enforceable improvements in air quality
    5. Fully approved maintenance plan
    6. Transportation and general conformity
    7. Rule revisions submitted on March 10, 2005
IV. Conclusion and Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action are we taking?

    We are taking direct final action to approve SIP revisions 
contained in two separate packages submitted by the State of Oregon. On 
May 14, 2004, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ or State) 
submitted a SIP revision of the State's industrial source rules for new 
and modified major sources, and on March 10, 2005, the State submitted 
an attainment and maintenance plan and redesignation request for the 
Medford-Ashland, Oregon PM10 nonattainment area (Medford-Ashland NAA). 
Also contained in the March 10, 2005 submittal were additional 
revisions to Oregon's statewide industrial source rules for new and 
modified major sources and revisions to the area-specific industrial 
source rules applying in the Medford-Ashland NAA. We are approving the 
State's SIP revisions submitted in both packages and the request for 
redesignation submitted with the March 10, 2005 package because the 
State adequately demonstrates that the control measures being 
implemented in the Medford-Ashland area result in maintenance of the 
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and all other 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) for redesignation to 
attainment are met.

II. Review of the May 14, 2004 submittal

    On May 14, 2004 Oregon submitted revisions to Oregon Administrative 
Rules, Chapter 340, Division 224 (Major New Source Review), and 
Division 225 (Air Quality Analysis Requirements) to clarify the 
requirements for creating and using emission offsets and to make other 
minor revisions. The primary rule revision allows offsets that provide 
a net air quality benefit to come from outside a designated maintenance 
area instead of only from inside the maintenance area. This change is 
approvable because there are no Federal requirements for offsets for 
new or modified sources in maintenance areas. The rules were also 
revised to add cross-references between Division 224 and Division 225 
to improve the clarity of the rules. We have reviewed the May 14, 2004 
submittal and found the revisions to be approvable. The Technical 
Support Document (TSD) for this action contains a description of the 
revisions and EPA's analysis of the revisions.

III. Review of the March 10, 2005 Submittal: Medford-Ashland Attainment 
and Maintenance Plan, Redesignation Request and Industrial Source Rule 
Revisions

A. Background of the Medford-Ashland Nonattainment Area

1. Description of the Medford-Ashland Nonattainment Area

    The Medford-Ashland NAA is an irregularly shaped polygon covering 
roughly 228 miles in the Rogue Valley of Southwest Oregon and includes 
the communities of Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, 
Jacksonville, White City, Eagle Point, and the intervening lands of 
Jackson County. The Rogue Valley is a mountain valley formed by the 
Rogue River and one of its tributaries, Bear Creek. The major portion 
of the valley ranges in elevation from 1,300 to 1,400 feet above sea 
level. Mountains surround the

[[Page 35165]]

valley on all sides; to the east, the Cascades ranging up to 9500 feet, 
to the south, the Siskiyous ranging up to 7,600 feet, and to the west 
and north, the Coast Range and Umpqua Divide, ranging up to 5,500 feet 
above sea level. For a legal description of the boundaries of the 
Medford-Ashland NAA, see 40 CFR 81.338.
    The Medford-Ashland NAA has a moderate climate with marked seasonal 
characteristics. Late fall, winter and early spring months are damp, 
cloudy and cool under the influence of marine air. Late spring, summer 
and early fall are warm, dry and sunny due to the dry continental 
nature of the prevailing winds aloft that cross this area. The area is 
in a rain shadow afforded by the Siskiyous and Coast Range and 
therefore receives light annual rainfall most of which is concentrated 
over the winter season. Temperatures lack extremes generally rising to 
just below 90 in the hottest months of summer, and Valley winds are 
usually very light and prevail from the north or northwest much of the 
year. Winter stagnation events may occur when temperature inversion 
events trap particulate pollution near the ground.
    The Rogue Valley's economy, once heavily dependent on the wood 
products industry, has shifted from natural resource-based economy to 
an economy based in the service, retail, health care, communications 
and technology sectors. Between 1990 and 2000, employment in the lumber 
and wood products industry declined by 29%. However, employment in the 
rest of the manufacturing sector increased by 34%. In addition, in-
migration has contributed to an increasing population in the Rogue 
Valley. Population growth is expected to continue through 2015.
2. PM10 Emissions in the Medford-Ashland Nonattainment Area
    In the 1980s, PM10 emissions from primarily woodstoves, mobile 
sources, road dust, residential open burning and forestry burning, and 
industrial point sources contributed to exceedences of the 24 hour and 
annual PM10 NAAQS \1\ in the Medford-Ashland NAA. Historic high PM10 
levels in the Medford-Ashland NAA include 309 [mu]g/m3 over 
24 hours in December 1985 and 68 [mu]g/m3 for the annual 
period July 1985-June 1986. Since the 1980s, Oregon has implemented 
control strategies to decrease PM10 emissions. These strategies have 
reduced industrial point source emissions, area source emissions 
including residential heating sources, and emissions from road dust, 
residential open burning and prescribed forestry burning. The 
attainment and maintenance plan contains emission inventory summaries 
for the Medford-Ashland for the years 1985, 1998 and 2015. In 1985, 
point source emissions and emissions from home heating devices (e.g. 
residential woodstoves) comprised the largest portions of the PM10 
emissions inventory at 27% (1275 tons per year) and 38% (1777 tons per 
year) respectively. In 1998, point source PM10 emissions were cut 
nearly in half to 535 tons per year, and there was a 75% decrease in 
home heating emissions to 412 tons per year. See the Technical Support 
Document accompanying this notice for further discussion of the PM10 
emissions in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 24-hour primary PM10 standard is 150 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m3), with no more than one expected 
exceedance per year over a three year period. The annual primary 
PM10 standard is 50 [mu]g/m3 expected annual arithmetic 
mean over a three year period. The secondary PM10 standards are 
identical to the primary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Attainment History of Medford-Ashland Nonattainment Area
    On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), EPA identified the Medford-
Ashland, Oregon area as a PM10 ``Group I'' area of concern, i.e., an 
area with a 95% or greater likelihood of violating the PM10 NAAQS and 
requiring substantial SIP revisions. The area was subsequently 
designated as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area upon enactment of the 
Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) 
of the Clean Air Act. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
    The 1990 revisions to the CAA required, among other things, that 
the State of Oregon submit to EPA by November 15, 1991, an attainment 
plan which contained provisions to assure that Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACM) including Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) for stationary sources, are implemented by December 
10, 1993 and the state demonstrate either that the PM10 NAAQS will be 
attained by December 31, 1994 or that attainment by such date is not 
practicable. See sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA.
    Oregon, in response to the requirements of the CAA of 1990, 
submitted an attainment plan for the Medford-Ashland NAA on November 
15, 1991, but later withdrew the attainment plan on January 6, 1997 
because the emissions budget in the 1997 update to the Rogue Valley 
Transportation Plan did not conform to the emissions budget in the 
attainment plan submitted to EPA. As a result of the State's withdrawal 
of the attainment plan, EPA issued a finding of failure to submit a SIP 
by the applicable attainment dates and commenced an 18 month sanction 
clock for Oregon to submit an attainment plan. See 62 FR 32207 (June 
13, 1997).
    In 1997, EPA adopted new NAAQS for particulate matter (PM10 and 
PM2.5) resulting in a change in the planning requirements for PM10 
nonattainment areas. See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). However, on May 
4, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated 
the revised 1997 PM10 NAAQS. American Trucking Association et al., and 
consolidated cases. The 1987 PM10 NAAQS and all of the associated 
requirements remained in place and the Medford-Ashland retained its 
designation as a moderate nonattainment area for PM10. See 69 FR 45592 
(July 30, 2004).
    On March 10, 2005 Oregon submitted an attainment plan, maintenance 
plan, and redesignation request for the Medford-Ashland NAA. Also 
included in this submittal were additional revisions to Oregon's 
industrial source rules. The remaining sections of this action describe 
the March 10, 2005 submittal and our basis for approving these 
submittals and redesignating the Medford-Ashland NAA to attainment.

B. Attainment and Maintenance Plan Requirements

    Subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the Act contain air quality 
planning requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 of Part D 
contains general requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. 
Subpart 4 of Part D contains specific planning and scheduling 
requirements for particulate matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 of 
Part D, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to any moderate 
PM10 nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to 
attainment. These requirements include:
    (1) An approved permit program for construction of new or modified 
major stationary sources of PM10.
    (2) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measures (RACM) are 
implemented;
    (3) A demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by the 
applicable attainment date or that attainment by such date is 
impracticable;
    (4) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3 years and 
which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment 
by the applicable attainment date; and
    (5) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable 
to major stationary sources of PM10 also

[[Page 35166]]

apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the 
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area.
    In addition to these specific requirements for moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas, moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must also meet 
the general planning requirements in Subpart 1 section 172(c). A 
thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the General 
Preamble to the Act and in 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). The following 
paragraphs describe additional nonattainment plan provisions as they 
apply to the Medford-Ashland NAA.
    (6) Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions inventory. Section 172(c)(3) of 
the Act contains requirements for attainment plans to include a 
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all 
sources in the PM10 nonattainment area.
    (7) Section 172(c)(7) compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2). 
Section 172(c)(7) requires that states shall meet applicable provisions 
of section 110(a)(2) including the operation of an appropriate air 
monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR part 58 to verify attainment 
status of the area.
    (8) Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures--
    Section 172(c)(9) contains requirements for plans to include 
contingency measures which were to be implemented by November 15, 1993, 
and to become effective without further action by the state or EPA, 
upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or 
to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (see 
Section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544).
    Section 175A of the Act provides the requirements for maintenance 
plans. These requirements are further clarified in a policy and 
guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
dated September 4, 1992, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (the Calcagni memo). The required 
provisions for maintenance plans are:
    (9) An attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of 
emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS;
    (10) A demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years after 
redesignation;
    (11) Verification of continued attainment through operation of an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network; and
    (12) Contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area.

C. Review of the March 10, 2005 Oregon State Submittal Addressing the 
Attainment Plan Requirements and Maintenance Plan Requirements

1. Permit Program for the Construction and Operation of New and 
Modified Major Stationary Sources of PM10
    Section 189(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that, for the purpose of 
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(5), SIPs contain a permit 
program providing that permits meeting the requirements of section 173 
are required for the construction and operation of new and modified 
major stationary sources of PM10.
    Oregon has a fully-approved nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) 
program, most recently approved on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 29530). 
Oregon also has a fully approved Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program, also approved on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 
29530). See Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Divisions 200, 
202, 209, 212, 216, 222, 224, 225 and 268.
    Upon the effective date of redesignation of an area from 
nonattainment to attainment, the requirements of the Part D NSR program 
will be replaced by the PSD program and the maintenance area NSR 
program.
2. RACM and RACT
    Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act requires that moderate area SIPs 
contain ``reasonably available control measures'' (RACM) for the 
control of PM10 emissions. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act, in turn, 
provides that RACM for nonattainment areas shall include ``such 
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be 
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available 
control technology''. Read together, these provisions require that 
moderate PM10 SIPs include RACM and ``reasonably available control 
technology'' (RACT) for existing sources of PM10 emissions.
    The General Preamble provides further guidance on interpretation of 
the requirements for RACM and RACT. Congress, in enacting the amended 
Act, did not use the word ``all'' in conjunction with RACM and RACT. 
Thus, it is possible that a State could demonstrate that an existing 
source in an area should not be subject to a control technology 
especially where such a control is unreasonable in light of the 
specific area's individual attainment needs or is infeasible. EPA 
recommends that available control technology be applied to those 
existing sources in the nonattainment area that are reasonable to 
control in light of the feasibility of such controls and the individual 
attainment needs of the specific area.
    In section 4.14.7 of the attainment and maintenance plan, Oregon 
describes that attainment and maintenance of the PM10 standard in 
Medford-Ashland NAA is based primarily on the following control 
strategies: industrial controls, residential woodsmoke controls, 
residential open burning controls, road dust controls, prescribed 
forestry burning controls and strategies to control PM10 from 
agricultural trackout. We note that in separate actions EPA has 
approved PM10 control strategies for the Medford-Ashland area as well 
as other areas in the state into the SIP on July 30, 1991, June 9, 1992 
and February 23, 1993. See 57 FR 36006, 57 FR 24373 and 55 FR 10972. 
However, EPA made no determination of RACM or RACT when it approved 
these control strategies into the SIP because these rules did not 
contain the complete suite of PM10 control measures relied upon to 
demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in Medford-Ashland and Oregon 
did not provide EPA with a demonstration of attainment based on these 
control measures. See 55 FR 10972 (February 23, 1993). The following 
describes the control measures contained in Oregon's March 10, 2005 
submittal that constitute RACT/RACM.
(a) Industrial controls
    Oregon adopted specific industrial rules for the wood products 
industries in the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) 
in 1978, 1983, 1989. Oregon revised and resubmitted the 1989 rules to 
EPA in 1991 based on EPA's comments on deficient sections of the 1989 
rules. The 1979 and 1983 rules include: (1) Tighter pollution control 
requirements for particle dryers, fiber dryers, veneer dryers, large 
wood-fired boilers, charcoal furnaces, and air conveying systems for 
sander dust and sawdust; (2) additional source testing requirements; 
(3) operation and maintenance plans to prevent or minimize excess 
emissions; and (4) site-specific fugitive dust control plans. These 
industrial requirements resulted in a 70% reduction in industrial 
particulate emissions between 1978 and 1986.
    The 1991 PM10 strategies for major industry require: (1) Tighter 
emission limits and better pollution control equipment on veneer dryers 
and large

[[Page 35167]]

wood-fired boilers; (2) more extensive source testing and continuous 
emission monitoring in order to maximize performance of pollution 
control equipment; and (3) more restrictive emission offset 
requirements for new or expanding industries. These rules were last 
approved into the SIP in 2003. See 68 FR 2891 (January 22, 2003). See 
the TSD for this action for a complete list of industrial source rules 
applying in the Medford-Ashland NAA.
    As explained above, Oregon submitted revisions to the industrial 
source rules applying in the Medford-Ashland NAA to EPA on March 10, 
2005 with the attainment and maintenance plan. These revisions are 
described below in section III.E.9., and in the TSD for this action.
(b) Residential Woodsmoke Controls
Curtailment
    Throughout the 1980s, the local jurisdictions in the Medford-
Ashland NAA developed and implemented strategies to reduce emissions 
from residential wood burning. Jackson County led the effort with a 
voluntary wood burning curtailment program which began on November 19, 
1985 (25% compliance), followed by the City of Medford's mandatory 
curtailment program adopted on November 2, 1989 (80% compliance). The 
City of Central Point also adopted a mandatory curtailment program on 
December 21, 1989 and subsequently, Jackson County converted its 
voluntary curtailment program to a mandatory curtailment program. 
Curtailment surveys have indicated compliance rates of 90% in the 
Medford area, and 88% in the core Medford-Central Point area. 
Compliance was about 66% in other parts of the curtailment area.
    In 1998, a unified ordinance was developed to align approaches in 
Medford and Central Point to the existing Jackson County ordinance. The 
unified Jackson County ordinance includes a prohibition on burning in 
noncertified woodstoves on yellow and red advisory days, a no visible 
emissions standard for certified woodstoves on yellow and red advisory 
days and a 50% opacity limit on woodstove smoke at all other times. 
This unified ordinance applies in most of the Medford-Ashland 
nonattainment area, including portions of Jackson County, and the 
cities of Ashland, Central Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix and 
Talent. These woodstove curtailment ordinances are required by local 
law and contain enforcement mechanisms.
    In addition to these local curtailment programs, OAR 340-262-0200 
to 0250 contain mandatory woodstove curtailment provisions that apply 
statewide. These statewide curtailment provisions ensure that local 
governments implement prohibitions on wood burning in uncertified 
woodstoves, fireplaces or wood burning appliances during periods of 
stagnation. This rule was last approved into the Oregon SIP on March 
24, 2003. See 68 FR 2891 (January 22, 2003).
Woodstove Replacement
    In 1988, the Jackson County housing authority began the Cooperative 
Local Effort for Air Resources (CLEAR) to replace woodstoves with 
cleaner burning units and provide cost-effective weatherization in low-
income homes. About $1.8 million has been obtained for CLEAR, and the 
Jackson County Housing Authority has replaced approximately 580 
noncertified woodstoves in low income houses. A similar project called 
Save Our Livability, View and Environment (SAVE) was implemented in 
Ashland in 1990.
Home Weatherization
    Weatherization of homes prior to installation of a new woodstove 
has been required by ordinances in the City of Medford (No. 4732) and 
Jackson County (No. 82-60) since 1982.
Certification
    A statewide certification program for residential woodstoves 
consistent with EPA's New Source Performance Standard for woodstoves 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) was adopted in 1989 and approved into the 
SIP in 1992. See 57 FR 24373 (June 9, 1992). The most recent revisions 
to the Oregon rules containing provisions for the statewide 
certification (OAR 340-262-0100 to 0130) were approved on March 23, 
2003. See 68 FR 2891 (January 22, 2003).
(c) Other Area Source Strategies
Open Burning
    Open burning of domestic waste is controlled in the Medford-Ashland 
NAA through State regulations in OAR 340-240-0250. These rules have 
been approved into the SIP. See 68 FR 2891 (January 22, 2003). In 
addition to the open burning rules already approved into the SIP, local 
ordinances throughout the AQMA restrict the practice of open burning. 
Within the Medford-Ashland NAA, ordinances prohibit open burning inside 
the Domestic Open Burning Boundary except by special permit. These 
residential open burning ordinances are required by local law and 
contain enforcement mechanisms.
Road Dust
    PM10 emissions generated through motor vehicle traffic (road dust) 
have been reduced by paving unpaved roads, and curb and gutter 
shoulders on paved roads. In addition, Jackson County recently used 
Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to purchase a 
high-efficiency, vacuum street sweeper for use in the Medford-White 
City area. At a minimum, the cleaning program must continue to use the 
sweeper at least two times a month and cover Medford, White City and 
intervening major corridors. This measure is a Transportation Control 
Measure that Jackson County must implement to meet Transportation 
Conformity requirements (TCM).
Fugitive Dust
    OAR 340-240-0180 directs sawmills, plywood mills and veneer 
manufacturing plants, particleboard and hardboard plants, charcoal 
manufacturing plants, asphalt plants, rock crushers, animal feed 
manufacturers, and other major industrial facilities as identified by 
Oregon in the Medford-Ashland NAA to prepare and implement site-
specific plans for the control of fugitive emissions. This rule is in 
the federally approved SIP. See 68 FR 2891 (January 22, 2003). In 
addition, the cities of Ashland and Jacksonville have ordinances to 
control dust track out.
Prescribed Forestry Burning
    The Oregon Smoke Management Plan (SMP) is a program designed to 
manage smoke impacts from burning of silivcultural wastes and 
prescribed forestry burning. The SMP established a Special Protection 
Zone around the Medford-Ashland NAA wherein mandatory restrictions on 
slash burning are implemented based on meteorological conditions and 
other factors. EPA approved the Smoke Management Plan into the SIP as 
part of the Oregon Visibility Plan on November 1, 2001 (66 FR 55105).
    Where sources of PM10 contribute insignificantly to the PM10 
problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable (and 
would not constitute RACM) to require the sources to implement all 
potentially available control measures. See 57 FR 13540 (April 16, 1992 
and 58 FR 13233 (March 10, 1993). Pages 62 and 63 of the emissions 
inventory submitted with the attainment and maintenance plan contain a 
summary of area source

[[Page 35168]]

emissions in 1998. Based on the 1998 emissions inventory, EPA believes 
that sources other than residential wood smoke, fugitive dust, mobile 
sources, residential domestic burning, and industrial point sources 
contribute insignificantly to the emissions inventory, and therefore 
additional control measures are not necessary to constitute RACM/RACT.
    Statewide and local industrial source control rules, local 
ordinances that control residential wood smoke, local ordinances 
controlling residential open burning, statewide wood stove 
certification and curtailment rules, local dust track out ordinances, 
and the Oregon Smoke Management Plan are permanent control measures 
with enforcement mechanisms. Based on the 1998 emissions inventory for 
the Medford-Ashland NAA and air quality monitoring and modeling data 
that show that the controls submitted with the attainment and 
maintenance plan have resulted in the Medford-Ashland NAA attaining the 
PM10 NAAQS, EPA is determining that the PM10 controls submitted with 
the attainment and maintenance plan meet RACT and RACM requirements. 
The technical support document for this action contains a list of 
control strategies that EPA is concluding meets RACT and RACM and the 
State effective date for these rules.
3. Attainment Demonstration
    Initial moderate PM10 areas were required to submit either a 
demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will 
provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later 
than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by that date 
is impracticable. To demonstrate attainment, the State must rely on a 
combination of supporting evidence. First, the State must demonstrate 
that an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient 
air quality data from an ambient air monitoring network representing 
peak PM10 concentrations, and stored in the EPA Air Quality System 
(AQS) database. Second, the State must provide EPA-approved air quality 
modeling data that demonstrates that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS. The following describes how Oregon meets monitoring 
and modeling requirements for the attainment demonstration in the 
Medford-Ashland NAA.
    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m3. An area has 
attained the 24-hour standard when the average number of expected 
exceedences per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a 
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be 
collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR part 58, 
including appendices). The annual PM10 NAAQS is 50 [mu]g/m3. To 
determine attainment with the annual PM10 NAAQS, the standard is 
compared to the expected annual mean, which is the average of the 
weighted annual mean for three consecutive years.
    Section 4.12.2.2 of the attainment and maintenance plan contains 
monitoring data from the Medford-Ashland monitoring network. The 
monitor at the intersection of Welch Street and Jackson Street in 
Medford since 1989 is the design monitor for the Medford-Ashland NAA 
and has met EPA design and siting criteria. Data from the Welch and 
Jackson monitor has been quality assured by the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality and stored in the AQS database. The last 
exceedence of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at the Welch and Jackson monitor 
was in 1991. The highest 24-hour values over a year since 1991 have 
ranged from 124 [mu]g/m3 in 1992 to 58 [mu]g/m3 
in 2003, and there has been a general decline in ambient concentrations 
of 24-hour PM10 since 1991.
    The monitor located at the White City Post Office and operating 
since 1985 is the design monitor for White City. The monitor has met 
EPA design and siting criteria and based on quality assured monitoring 
data has not recorded exceedences of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS since 1991. 
The highest 24-hour concentration at this monitor since 1991 has ranged 
from 118 [mu]g/m3 in 1992 to 68 [mu]g/m3 in 2003. 
The PM10 levels measured at this monitor have not exceeded the annual 
PM10 NAAQS since 1990.
    Based on quality assured monitoring data from the Medford-Ashland 
monitoring network, there have been no exceedences of the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS or the annual PM10 NAAQS in the Medford-Ashland NAA since 1991. 
Therefore, the Medford-Ashland NAA reached attainment of the PM10 NAAQS 
during the three year period following the year of the last exceedence 
(1992-1994), and attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
date of December 31, 1994.
    For the modeling demonstration, generally EPA recommends that 
attainment be demonstrated according to the PM-10 SIP Development 
Guideline (June 1987), which presents three methods. Federal 
regulations require demonstration of attainment ``by means of a 
proportional model or dispersion model or other procedure which is 
shown to be adequate and appropriate for such purposes''. 40 CFR 
51.112. The preferred method is the use of both dispersion and receptor 
modeling in combination, but the regulations and the guideline also 
allows the use of dispersion modeling alone, or in combination with 
proportional rollback modeling. In this instance, Oregon selected 
CALPUFF, a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady-state puff dispersion 
model that simulates the effects of time- and space-varying 
meteorological conditions on pollution transport, transformation and 
removal to model attainment with the PM10 NAAQS in the Medford-Ashland 
NAA.
    Section 4.14.5 of the attainment and maintenance plan contains 
Oregon's documentation and technical analysis of the modeling results. 
Oregon modeled an area encompassing at least the Medford-Ashland NAA. 
Inputs to the model included topographic data, worst case meteorology 
from 1998, 1999 and 2000, and land use and emissions inventory data for 
the year 1998. The meteorological domain for the model extends from 
just west of Grants Pass to approximately 12 kilometers east of Mt. 
McLoughlin and from Crater Lake to about 10 kilometers into California.
    As explained above, the 24-hour standard is attained when the 
expected number of days per calendar year exceeding 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-
hour NAAQS is < = 1. To determine compliance with the 24-hour standard 
by modeling, the 4th highest modeled PM10 value is compared with the 
standard. To determine compliance with the annual PM10 standard, the 
modeled annual average values are compared with the annual PM10 
standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\. In this case, the model did not predict any 
4th high daily values above the 24-hour PM10 standard, and did not 
predict any annual average PM10 values above the annual PM10 standard. 
Therefore, Oregon's CALPUFF model runs, using worst case meteorology 
predicted compliance with the 24-hour and annual PM10 standards.
    Because Oregon has used an approved model that has performed within 
EPA parameters to simulate ambient air quality during the attainment 
period of 1998 and the simulation has predicted compliance with the 
PM10 NAAQS in all areas in the modeling domain, Oregon has provided 
modeling that demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour and annual PM10 
NAAQS. The modeling demonstration of attainment combined with the 
monitoring data submitted on March 10, 2005 is an adequate showing that 
the Medford-

[[Page 35169]]

Ashland area has attained the PM10 NAAQS.
4. Quantitative Milestones Which are To Be Achieved Every Three Years 
and Which Demonstrate Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Toward 
Attainment by December 31, 1994
    Qualitative milestones are no longer required in the Medford-
Ashland NAA since this requirement relates to the applicable attainment 
date, and we have determined based on an analysis of monitoring and 
modeling data that the area attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date.
5. PM10 Precursors
    The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary 
sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 
precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in the area. See 
section 189(e) of the Act. The General Preamble contains guidance 
addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e). See 57 FR 
13539-13542 (April 16, 1992).
    As stated above in section III.C.3., there are no measured or 
modeled PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in the Medford-Ashland NAA. 
Therefore, major stationary sources of PM10 precursors may be excluded 
from control requirements based on the determination that PM10 levels 
in the area have not exceeded the NAAQS since the early nineteen 
nineties.
6. Attainment and Maintenance Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires a comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Medford-
Ashland PM10 nonattainment area and section 175A of the Act and the 
Calcagni memo require an attainment emissions inventory to identify the 
level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Where 
the State has made an adequate demonstration that air quality has 
improved as a result of the SIP, the attainment inventory will 
generally be an inventory of actual emissions at the time the area 
attained the standard.
    Oregon included in the plan an attainment year emissions inventory 
for the calendar year 1998, and a maintenance emissions inventory which 
represents 24-hour and annual emissions for the year 2015. Oregon chose 
1998 as its base year to estimate actual emissions for attainment 
because it is the most recent year for which Oregon had complete 
meteorological data, and because 1998 meteorology included inversions 
and stagnation events that are representative of the worst case 
meteorology inputs necessary for modeling attainment. EPA has reviewed 
the attainment year and maintenance year emissions inventories and has 
determined that they are accurate and comprehensive and therefore meet 
the requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the Act.
    Based on the 1998 emissions inventory, the major sources of PM10 
emissions over 24-hours were: total area sources including residential 
wood combustion (43%), mobile sources (45%), major point sources (10%) 
and nonroad mobile sources (2%). Residential fuel combustion alone 
accounted for 29% of the daily worst case 1998 emissions. Annual 1998 
emissions were comprised of mobile emissions (67%), area source 
emissions (18%), major point source emissions (14%), and nonroad mobile 
sources (2%). Residential fuel combustion comprised 11% of the area 
source fraction of the 1998 annual emissions.
7. Air Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Section 172(c)(7) requires that States meet the applicable 
requirements in section 110(a)(2) of the Act which includes the 
requirement to operate an appropriate air monitoring network in accord 
with 40 CFR part 58 to verify attainment status of the area. In 
addition, section 175(A) of the Act requires that states verify 
continued attainment of the NAAQS through operation of an appropriate 
air quality monitoring network. The State of Oregon operates two PM10 
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the Medford-Ashland 
NAA. There is a monitor at the intersection of Welch and Jackson 
Streets in the City of Medford, and a monitor at the White City Post 
Office. Both monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and siting 
requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E, and have 
been monitoring for PM10 since 1991. In section 4.14.12.9 of the 
attainment and maintenance plan, the State commits to continued 
operation of the monitoring network. Based on meeting SLAMS network 
design and siting requirements and its commitment to continue to 
operate the monitoring network, the State has met air quality 
monitoring requirements.
8. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Section 175(A) of the Act requires a demonstration of maintenance 
of the NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A State may generally 
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future 
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of 
the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future 
anticipated mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a 
violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, the showing should be based on 
the same level of modeling used for the attainment demonstration 
required as part of the approved attainment plan.
    In this case, Oregon submitted CALPUFF modeling results that 
demonstrate maintenance for the Medford-Ashland NAA in the year 2015. 
Since CALPUFF was also used for the modeled attainment demonstration, 
the level of modeling submitted for the maintenance demonstration is 
equivalent to the level of modeling used in the attainment 
demonstration. Emissions inputs to the model were developed from the 
1998 base year inventory using growth factors and allowable emissions. 
Emissions inputs into the model were calculated with the controls that 
the State submitted with the attainment and maintenance plan in place, 
and maintenance was projected to 2015. Based on the CALPUFF modeling 
results submitted with the plan, EPA believes that the State is 
demonstrating maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS for the ten-year period 
2005-2015. Oregon, in section 4.14.6.2 of the attainment and 
maintenance plan, provided a summary of the modeling results. For the 
annual PM10 NAAQS, Oregon provided a table with the top 1% of the model 
predicted and a figure with all of the model's predicted annual average 
PM10 values. None of the predicted annual average values exceeded the 
annual PM10 NAAQS, 50 [mu]g/m3. Based on our review of this 
information, EPA is determining that the model did not predict any 
violations of the annual PM10 NAAQS in any grids and the State has 
demonstrated that the Medford-Ashland area will continue to maintain 
the annual PM10 NAAQS in 2015.
    Oregon also provided a table of the top 1% of the fourth highest 
predicted 24-hour PM10 values in the plan. To determine compliance with 
the 24-hour NAAQS using modeling, the fourth highest predicted 24-hour 
PM10 value is used to represent the expected 24-hour PM10 ambient air 
quality level over a three-year period. Based on the top 1% of the 
fourth highest predicted 24-hour PM10 values in the plan, there were no 
predicted 24-hour values that exceeded 150 [mu]g/m3. 
Therefore the model did not predict any violations of the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS. Oregon has demonstrated maintenance with the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
in the year 2015.

[[Page 35170]]

9. Contingency Measures and Contingency Provisions
    As described in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all attainment plans 
must include contingency measures. See 57 FR 13543-13544 (April 16, 
1992). Section 175A of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation 
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. These contingency 
provisions are distinguished from those contingency measures generally 
required under section 172(c)(9). Contingency measures described in 
section 172(c)(9) of the Act should consist of other available measures 
which were to become effective without further action by the State or 
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve 
RFP or to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. 
See 57 FR 13543-13544 (April 16, 1992). In this case, contingency 
measures are no longer required in the Medford-Ashland NAA since the 
requirement relates to the applicable attainment date, and the area has 
attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. For the 
purposes of section 175A, contingency provisions are required. However, 
the State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures 
that will take effect without further action by the State in order for 
the maintenance plan to be approved.
    Section 4.14.9.0 of the attainment and maintenance plan provides 
the process for identification of contingency measures if monitored air 
quality values exceed early warning thresholds of 120 [mu]g/
m3 (24-hour average) or 40 [mu]g/m3 (annual 
average) or if there is a violation of the PM10 NAAQS. In the event of 
a monitored value over the threshold, or a violation, Oregon will first 
review the relevant air quality data to determine the cause of the 
event. Following this review, it may convene the Medford-Ashland Air 
Quality Advisory Committee to assist in this review and to determine if 
a corrective action is needed. These contingency provisions meet the 
requirements of section 175(A) of the Act.
10. Conclusion
    As discussed above, Oregon is meeting all of the requirements in 
Subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the Act for PM10 nonattainment 
areas and attainment plans, and section 175(A) planning requirements 
for PM10 nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for the Medford-
Ashland NAA. In this action, EPA is approving Oregon's March 10, 2005 
submittal of the attainment and maintenance plan for the Medford-
Ashland NAA which includes implementation of RACT/RACM, the calendar 
year 1998 attainment year emissions inventory, the calendar year 2015 
maintenance emissions inventory, the attainment and maintenance 
demonstrations through air quality monitoring data and CALPUFF 
modeling, continued operation of an EPA approved monitoring network, 
and implementation of a major new source permitting program.

D. Clean Air Act Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas

    Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the 
area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS 
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the Act, and the General Preamble to Title I of the Act provide the 
criteria for redesignation. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These 
criteria are further clarified in the Calcagni Memo. The criteria for 
redesignation are:
    (1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS;
    (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the 
area under section 110(k) of the Act;
    (3) The state containing the area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the Act;
    (4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; 
and
    (5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act.

E. Review of the Oregon State Submittal Addressing the Requirements for 
Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Plans

1. Attainment of the Applicable NAAQS
    States must demonstrate that an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS 
through analysis of ambient air quality data from an ambient air 
monitoring network representing peak PM10 concentrations. The data 
should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. As 
explained above in III.C.3. of this action, the Medford-Ashland NAA has 
attained the PM10 NAAQS based on quality assured air quality monitoring 
data from the Welch and Jackson monitor and from the White City Post 
Office monitor which has been stored in the AQS database. Current 
monitoring data shows that the area has continued to meet the annual 
and 24-hour PM NAAQS for every three-year period since the attainment 
date.
2. Fully Approved Attainment Plan
    In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be 
fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all 
requirements that apply to the area. In this case, the Medford-Ashland 
area must have an approved moderate area plan as described above in 
section III.B. As explained above in section III.C. of this action, the 
State has met the attainment plan requirements for the Medford-Ashland 
NAA. As also described above in section III.C. , EPA is approving the 
attainment plan for the Medford Ashland NAA. Therefore, upon the 
effective date for this action, Oregon will have a fully approved 
attainment plan under section 175(A) of the Act.
3. Section 110 and Part D Requirements
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act requires that a State containing a 
nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under section 
110 and Part D of the Act for an area to be redesignated to attainment. 
EPA interprets this to mean that the State must meet all requirements 
that applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission 
of a complete redesignation request. As explained above in section 
III.C. of this action, based on EPA's review of the attainment and 
maintenance plan, Oregon has met the Part D requirements for the 
Medford-Ashland NAA. The following is a summary of how Oregon meets the 
Clean Air Act section 110 requirements.
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for 
implementation plans. These requirements include, but are not limited 
to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures 
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provisions for Part C--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Part D--New Source 
Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for stationary source emission 
control measures, monitoring and reporting; provisions for modeling; 
and provisions for public and local agency participation. See the 
General Preamble for further explanation of these requirements. See 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    EPA has approved Oregon's plan for the attainment and maintenance 
of the national standards under Section 110.

[[Page 35171]]

See 40 CFR 52.1972. Therefore, for purposes of redesignation, the State 
has satisfied all requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the Act.
4. Permanent and Enforceable Improvements in Air Quality
    The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in 
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making 
this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality improvements 
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing 
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other 
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are 
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence 
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.
    Oregon has demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the 
Medford-Ashland NAA are the result of permanent emission reductions and 
not a result of either economic trends or meteorology. Medford-
Ashland's attainment history corresponds with the adoption of PM10 
controls in the area. In the 1980's, Oregon adopted rules containing 
control measures for the Medford-Ashland NAA, and in 1991, the Oregon 
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted the more comprehensive 
suite of controls that are currently in place. See 57 FR 24373 (June 9, 
1992), 58 FR 10972 (February 23, 1993) and 56 FR 36006 (July 30, 1991). 
In 1992, the year following the EQC's adoption of the full suite of 
PM10 controls in Medford-Ashland, there were no exceedences of the PM10 
NAAQS in the Medford-Ashland NAA. Since 1992, there has been a 
decreasing trend in PM10 emissions, despite population and economic 
growth. Section 4.14.3.3 of the attainment and maintenance plan 
describes population and emission growth in the Medford-Ashland NAA. 
From 1976-1996 population growth in the Medford-Ashland NAA was 
estimated at 2.6%/year for urban areas and .05%/year for rural areas.
    In addition, CALPUFF modeling submitted with the plan demonstrates 
that the reductions in emissions are not due to temporary 
meteorological effects. The meteorology used for CALPUFF modeling 
represents a worst case meteorological scenario, and is comparable to 
1985 meteorology, the year that Medford-Ashland experienced PM10 levels 
higher than 300 [mu]g/m3 over 24 hours. Thus, based on a 
review of control measures contained in the attainment plan and the 
corresponding emission reductions, we have determined that the air 
quality improvements in the Medford-Ashland NAA are due to permanent 
and enforceable reductions.
5. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
    As described above in section III.C. , EPA is approving the 
maintenance plan for the Medford-Ashland NAA. Therefore, upon the 
effective date for this action, Oregon will have a fully approved 
maintenance plan under section 175(A) of the Act.
6. Transportation and General Conformity
Transportation Conformity
    Under section 176(c) of the Act, transportation plans, programs and 
projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or 
approved under the Federal Transit Act must conform to the applicable 
SIP. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to the 
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from the implementation of 
that transportation plan are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 
emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP for the maintenance year 
and other analysis years.
    Section 4.14.4.0 of the plan contains a description of the air 
quality conformity process for the Medford-Ashland NAA. The Rogue 
Valley Council of Governments is the local agency that creates and 
maintains the Rogue Valley Transportation Plan which must conform at 
planning intervals established in 40 CFR 93 with the MVEB for the year 
2015. Table 1. contains the MVEB established in the attainment and 
maintenance plan.

             Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (PM10)
                        [Annual PM10 (tons/year)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual
                                                                  PM10
                                                                 (tons/
                                                                 year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year.........................................................       2015
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget...............................       3754
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to conforming to the MVEB in the SIP, the local agency 
must show at planning intervals established in 40 CFR part 93 that 
transportation control measures (TCMs) are being implemented. The 
street cleaning program for reducing particulate pollution in the City 
of Medford and White City is the only transportation control measure in 
the attainment and maintenance plan. At a minimum, the cleaning program 
must continue to use a high efficiency, vacuum street sweeper or 
equivalent, and cover an area that includes Medford, White City and 
significant intervening travel corridors, and provide cleaning 
frequency no less than twice per month.
    The transportation conformity rule establishes adequacy criteria 
for MVEBs (40 CFR 93.118). In section 4.14.4.0 of the plan, Oregon 
lists the adequacy criteria and how it meets these criteria. On 
February 3, 2005, EPA posted a proposal to find the Medford-Ashland 
MVEB adequate for transportation conformity purposes on EPA's 
conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq. MVEBs established in 

the plan are posted on this Web site to provide the public with an 
opportunity to review and comment on the MVEB in the plan. The comment 
period for the adequacy posting for the Medford-Ashland NAA ended on 
March 15, 2005. EPA did not receive any comments on this posting.
General Conformity
    For Federal actions which are required to address the specific 
requirements of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements 
applies particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will 
not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate 
current violations, or delay timely attainment. To satisfy this 
requirement to the State may allocate a budget in the SIP for future 
Federal actions that could result in emissions. This budget can be used 
to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect emissions from 
the action (or portion thereof), would not exceed the emissions budgets 
specified in the applicable SIP.'' and therefore not cause or 
contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current 
violations or delay timely attainment 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). The 
decision about whether to include specific allocations of allowable 
emissions increases to sources is one made by the state and local air 
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are unlike, and are not to be 
confused with, those used in transportation conformity. Emissions 
budgets in transportation conformity are required to limit and restrain 
emissions from motor vehicles. Emissions budgets in general conformity 
allow increases in emissions up to specified levels for Federal 
actions. Oregon has not chosen to include specific emissions 
allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the 
provisions of general conformity.
    Based on our review of the Medford PM10 attainment and maintenance 
plan and for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the 
requirements for an approvable maintenance plan under the Act have been 
met. Therefore, we are approving the attainment and

[[Page 35172]]

maintenance plan for PM10 submitted for the Medford nonattainment area. 
In addition, based on our evaluation of Oregon's March 10, 2005 SIP 
submittal, we conclude the requirements for redesignation in section 
107(d)(3)(E) have been met. Therefore, we are redesignating the 
Medford-Ashland PM10 nonattainment area to attainment.
7. Rule Revisions Submitted on March 10, 2005
    Oregon submitted revisions to OAR Chapter 340 Divisions 204 
(Designation of Air Quality Areas), 224 (Major New Source Review), 225 
(Air Quality Analysis Requirements) and 240 (Rules for Areas with 
Unique Air Quality Needs) with the attainment and maintenance plan on 
March 10, 2005. EPA has reviewed these revisions and determined that 
the revisions are approvable because they are either nonsubstantive 
changes or they exceed the requirements in the Clean Air Act. Below is 
a summary of these revisions and EPA's basis for finding these 
revisions approvable. The TSD for this action contains a complete 
description of the rule revisions and EPA's analysis.
Divisions 200, 204, 224 and 225
    EPA is not taking action on OAR Chapter 340 Division 200 because 
the revised section describes the State's procedures for adopting its 
SIP and incorporates by reference all of the revisions adopted by the 
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) for approval into the Oregon SIP 
(as a matter of state law) and is not needed as part of the federally 
enforceable SIP for Oregon.
    The revisions to OAR Chapter 340 Divisions 204, 224 and 225 
submitted on March 10, 2005 clean up the rules and address the New 
Source Review program changes permitted by the Clean Air Act upon 
redesignation of an area to attainment. Once an area is redesignated to 
attainment and becomes a maintenance area, the PSD and maintenance NSR 
programs apply instead of the more stringent nonattainment NSR program. 
However, for the Medford-Ashland PM10 Maintenance Area, Oregon is 
retaining in its maintenance NSR rules the same requirements that 
applied under the nonattainment NSR rules [i.e., the State is 
continuing the requirement to install lowest achievable emission rate 
technology (LAER), the requirement to obtain emission offsets and 
demonstrate an air quality benefit, and the lower threshold for 
triggering NSR]. By having maintenance NSR requirements in addition to 
PSD requirements, the Medford-Ashland PM10 attainment and maintenance 
plan goes beyond what is required by the CAA.
    We are taking no action on OAR Chapter 340 Division 204-0030, 224-
0060, or 225-020 at this time because they have been revised by ODEQ 
(state effective September 9, 2005) since the submittal of the Medford-
Ashland attainment and maintenance plan. Sections 204-0030, 224-0060, 
and 225-0020 were revised and submitted to EPA on October 25, 2005 as 
part of the Lakeview and La Grande PM10 Maintenance Plans and 
redesignation requests. We reviewed these rule changes and acted on 
them in Federal Register notices on March 22, 2006. See 71 FR 14393-
14399, and 70 FR 14399-14406. To be consistent with those actions, we 
are incorporating by reference the more recent version (September 9, 
2005) of these sections. With the exception of OAR Chapter 340 Division 
204-0030, 224-0060, or 225-020, EPA is approving the revisions to 
Divisions 204, 224, and 225 included in the March 10, 2005 submittal 
because they are either minor, nonsubstantive revisions or meet or go 
beyond the requirements of the CAA.
Division 240
    Sections in this Division were cleaned up to remove provisions with 
past implementation dates and to make other non-substantive changes. 
OAR 340-240-0220 (Source Testing) was revised to allow boilers to 
exceed their normal steaming rates by up to 10% to allow for variations 
in fuel changes and meteorological conditions. We are approving this 
revision since this additional allowance would not result in emissions 
in excess of emission limits.

IV. Conclusion and Action

    Based on our review of the Medford-Ashland PM10 attainment and 
maintenance plan, and for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that 
the CAA requirements for an approvable attainment and maintenance plan 
have been met. Therefore, we are approving the attainment and 
maintenance plan for PM10 submitted for the Medford-Ashland NAA. Also 
based on our evaluation of DEQ's March 10, 2005 submittal, we conclude 
that all the requirements for redesignation in section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the Act have been met. Therefore, we are redesignating the Medford-
Ashland PM10 nonattainment area to attainment. Finally, we have 
reviewed the revisions to Oregon's industrial source rules submitted on 
May 14, 2004 and March 10, 2005 and, with the exceptions discussed 
above, find them approvable. Accordingly, in this action we are 
approving the rule revisions submitted on May 14, 2004 and March 10, 
2005 with the exception of the four sections we are not acting on for 
reasons described above.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

[[Page 35173]]

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 18, 2006. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 16, 2006.
L. Michael Borgert,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(148) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (148) On March 10, 2005, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality submitted a PM10 attainment and maintenance plan and requested 
redesignation of the Medford-Ashland PM10 nonattainment area to 
attainment for PM10. On May 14, 2004, the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality submitted revisions to Oregon Administrative 
Rules, Chapter 340, Divisions 224 and 225 to clarify the requirements 
for creating and using emission offsets and to make other minor 
revisions. The State's attainment and maintenance plan, redesignation 
request, and rule revisions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following sections of Oregon Administrative Rules 340: 204-
0010, 224-0070, 225-0045, 225-0090, 240-0030, 240-0100, 240-0110, 240-
0120, 240-0130, 240-0140, 240-0150, 240-0180, 240-0190, 240-0210, 240-
0220, and 240-0230 as effective January 4, 2005; 224-0010, 224-0030, 
224-0050, 224-0080, and 225-0050 as effective April 14, 2004 and; 224-
0060, and 225-0020 as effective September 9, 2005.
    (B) The following sections of the Codified Ordinances of Jackson 
County: 1810.01, as effective May 2, 1990; 1810.02, as effective August 
22, 2001; 1810.03, as effective December 20, 1989; 1810.04, as 
effective May 2, 1990; 1810.05, as effective May 2, 1990; 1810.06, as 
effective December 4, 1985; 1810.07, as effective August 22, 2001; 
1810.08, as effective December 20, 1989; Exhibit A, as effective May 2, 
1990; Exhibit B, as effective May 2, 1990; Exhibit C, as effective May 
2, 1990; and Exhibit D, as effective May 2, 1990.
    (C) The following sections of the Code of the City of Medford, 
Oregon: 5.550 as effective March 16, 2000; 7.220, as effective 
September 17, 1998; 7.222, as effective September 17, 1998; 7.224, as 
effective September 17, 1998; 7.240 as effective August 2, 1990, and 
7.242 as effective September 17, 1998.
    (D) The following sections of the City of Central Point Municipal 
Code: 8.01.010, 8.01.012, 8.01.014, 8.01.020, 8.01.030, and 8.01.032 as 
effective 1998; 8.04.040 H., as effective 1979; and 8.04.095 as 
effective 1994.
    (E) The following sections of the City of Ashland Municipal Code: 
10.30.005 and 10.30.010 as effective 1998; 10.30.020, as effective 
2000; 10.30.030 and 10.30.040, as effective 1993; 9.24.010, 9.24.020, 
9.24.030, 9.24.040, and 9.24.050 as effective 1998.
    (F) The following sections of the City of Talent ordinances: 
Ordinance 565, as effective August 20, 1992; and Ordinance 
98-635-0, as effective March 4, 1998.
    (G) The following sections of the City of Phoenix code: 8.16.040, 
as effective 1982; 8.16.050, as effective 1982; 8.16.090, as effective 
1982; 8.20.010, as effective 1998; 8.20.020, as effective 1998; 
8.20.030 as effective 1998; 8.20.040, as effective 1998; and 8.20.050 
as effective 1998.
    (H) The following sections of the City of Jacksonville code: 
Ordinance 375, amending 8.08.100 of the Jacksonville Municipal Code as 
effective April 21, 1992; City of Jacksonville Code Chapter 8.10, as 
effective February 1992.
    (I) The following sections of the City of Eagle Point Code: 
8.08.160, as effective 2000; 8.08.170, as effective 1990; 8.08.180, as 
effective 1990; 8.08.190 as effective 1990; and 8.08.200 as effective 
1990.
    (J) Remove the following old sections of the Oregon Administrative 
Rules 340 from the current incorporation by reference: 240-0200, 240-
0240, and 240-0270.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) The following sections of the Codified Ordinances of Jackson 
County: 1810.09 as effective December 20, 1989, and 1810.99, as 
effective October 29, 2003.
    (B) The following sections of the Code of the City of Medford, 
Oregon: 7.226, as effective November 20, 1989; and 7.300 as effective 
April 6, 2000.
    (C) The following sections of the City of Central Point Municipal 
Code: 8.04.100, 8.04.110, 8.04.120, 8.04.130, and 8.04.140 as effective 
1966, and 8.04.150 as effective 1995.
    (D) The following sections of the City of Ashland Municipal Code: 
10.30.050,

[[Page 35174]]

as effective 1993; and 9.24.060, as effective 1998.

0
3. Section 52.1973 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(5) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1973  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) EPA approves as a revision to the Oregon State Implementation 
Plan, the Medford PM10 attainment and maintenance plan adopted by the 
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission on December 10, 2004 and 
submitted to EPA on March 10, 2005.
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. In Sec.  81.338, the table entitled ``Oregon PM-10'' is amended by 
revising the entry for ``Medford Air Quality Maintenance Area 
(including White City)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.338  Oregon.

* * * * *

                                                  Oregon--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type               Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Medford Air Quality Maintenance            8/18/06  Attainment.
 Area (including White City).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-5509 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P