Approval and Promulgation of Definition of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Oregon-Washington
[Federal Register: September 29, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50423-50426]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[OR-A-95-01a; FRL-5302-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Definition of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Oregon-Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct-Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves the
separation of the Portland, Oregon-Vancouver, Washington interstate
carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area into two distinct nonattainment
areas. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has
submitted sufficient technical documentation to adequately assure EPA
that Vancouver and Portland are two separate CO airsheds. EPA believes
any future problems will be hotspot in nature and therefore, EPA
believes the CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) will be
protected in each state. This boundary correction will change the
boundary description published in the November 6, 1991 Federal Register
document.
DATES: This action will be effective on November 28, 1995 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by October 30, 1995. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Air & Radiation Branch (AT-082), EPA, Docket OR-A-95-01,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Documents which are
incorporated by reference are available for public inspection at the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Copies of
material submitted to EPA may be examined during normal business hours
at the following locations: EPA, Region 10, Air & Radiation Branch,
1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), Seattle, Washington 98101, and Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Portland,
Oregon 97204-1390.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Lee, Air and Radiation Branch
(AT-082), EPA, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-1814.
[[Page 50424]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
In the November 6, 1991 Federal Register notice, 56 FR 56847, the
Portland-Vancouver area was designated as a nonattainment area for CO.
The boundary for the Portland portion of the interstate nonattainment
area is the Portland Metro Service District Boundary which includes
Clackamas County (part), Multnomah County (part) and Washington County
(part). The boundary for the Vancouver portion of the interstate
nonattainment area is Clark County (part) Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA). The Portland-Vancouver interstate CO nonattainment area is
classified as moderate less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million
(ppm).
Prior to the boundary being set, the 1990 Clean Air Act required
the Governor of each state to submit boundary descriptions for those
areas which were to be designated nonattainment. The Governor of Oregon
and the Governor of Washington each submitted a letter dated March 15,
1991, that listed and described the nonattainment area boundaries for
their respective states. For CO, Oregon listed the Portland
Metropolitan Area as nonattainment with the boundary being the
Metropolitan Service District (METRO) which surrounds the urban growth
boundaries of cities within the greater Portland Metropolitan Area
<SUP>1. The Washington letter listed Vancouver as nonattainment with
the boundary being the Washington portion of the Portland-Vancouver
Interstate AQMA.
\1\ The Portland portion of the Air Quality Maintenance Area had
been designated as a CO nonattainment area prior to the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments, 43 FR 8962, (March 3, 1978), listed as PortlandVancouver
(Oregon Portion).
In the November 6, 1991, notice EPA identified Portland-Vancouver
as an interstate nonattainment area with the Portland portion of the
nonattainment area boundary being METRO and the Vancouver portion of
the nonattainment boundary being the AQMA (Vancouver portion).
The ODEQ contends that the November 6, 1991, Federal Register
notice is in error. The ODEQ has written EPA that it never recommended
nor acknowledged an interstate CO nonattainment area or a contiguous
boundary with Vancouver, Washington.
EPA considered ODEQ's request, and finds that the designations were
properly promulagated. However, EPA acknowledges ODEQ's position in
that there are two distinct airsheds that should be separately
regulated. EPA requested a technical justification be submitted by the
state of Oregon to demonstrate that the Portland and Vancouver CO
airsheds are distinct and that there is an acceptably minimal CO
transport between the two cities.
On August 5, 1994, and January 3, 1995, the State of Oregon,
through the ODEQ, submitted technical justification which supports the
separation of the Portland-Vancouver CO interstate nonattainment area
into two distinct nonattainment areas (Portland, Oregon and Vancouver,
Washington).
Of significance in EPA's review is that both areas have been
successful in attaining the CO standard. Portland has been in
attainment of the CO standard since 1990, and Vancouver has been in
attainment since 1991. Both cities are currently in the process of
preparing CO maintenance plans for redesignation.
Technical Justification Conclusions
EPA requested ODEQ submit documentation which demonstrates that the
Portland and Vancouver airsheds are distinct, and that the CO NAAQS
which have been attained will be maintained despite any differences in
the prospective maintenance plans. EPA also requested ODEQ discuss the
potential CO impacts of the interstate commute.
To address EPAs technical concerns, ODEQ completed a monitoring
data analysis which compared Portland and Vancouver CO data, taking
into consideration meteorological impacts (wind direction and wind
speed) for pollutant transport. The results of this analysis
demonstrated that elevated CO concentrations in either city were not
influenced by meteorological transport of the pollutant between the two
airsheds.
To further support this conclusion, ODEQ also conducted a
statistical analysis which compared Portland and Vancouver CO monitored
data to investigate whether a correlation existed between measured
concentrations at the Portland and Vancouver monitoring sites. The
analysis demonstrated no correlation in measured CO concentrations
between the two cities.
In addition, special studies were performed in both Portland
(September 1991, the 1994 report is in development) and Vancouver (May
1994) that demonstrated that CO impacts in each area are limited to
intersections with steep gradients of decreasing CO concentration away
from the intersections.
To address EPA's interstate commuting concerns, ODEQ conducted a CO
impact analysis of the interstate commute traffic focusing on high
volume intersections. Since vehicles registered in both nonattainment
areas are subjected to essentially identical control strategies
(oxygenated fuel, basic I/M), the impact of either the Portland or
Vancouver vehicles on the contiguous CO nonattainment areas
concentrations is insignificant.
The ODEQ has written EPA of its commitment to providing long-term
maintenance of the CO national ambient air quality standard not only in
it's own jurisdiction but in other contiguous areas. Any future change
in the CO control strategies for either Portland or Vancouver will be
addressed in their future CO redesignation/maintenance plans which have
to be evaluated and approved by EPA.
The technical justification submitted to EPA contains an adequate
demonstration that Vancouver's and Portland's airsheds are distinct,
relative to CO, and that Oregon and Washington are firmly committed to
air quality maintenance in both Portland and Vancouver despite
potential differences in the prospective maintenance plans.
II. This Action
With this action EPA is approving the technical correction to the
CO nonattainment boundary description for Portland-Vancouver under
section 110(k)(6). EPA believes that any future problems will be
hotspot in nature and therefore EPA believes that the CO NAAQS will be
protected in each state. This action will separate the PortlandVancouver
Interstate CO nonattainment area into two separate
nonattainment areas; Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.
In separating the Portland-Vancouver nonattainment area, the METRO
boundary will be recognized as the CO nonattainment boundary for
Portland, and the Vancouver portion of the AQMA will remain Vancouver's
CO nonattainment boundary. Both areas will remain classified as
moderate nonattainment (less than or equal to 12.7 ppm) for CO.
Vancouver's design value will remain at 10.0 ppm and Portland's design
value has been determined to be 9.8 ppm.
The separated Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington CO
nonattainment designations are listed under ``Designated Area'' in the
table at the end of this rulemaking action. The additional language is
highlighted for easy reference.
III. Administrative Review
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603
[[Page 50425]]
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 SIPapproval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective November 28, 1995 unless, within 30 days of its publication,
adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent notice that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective November 28, 1995.
The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federallyapproved
SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined
that this action conforms with those requirements.
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.
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 November 28, 1995. 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), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: September 22, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
U.S. EPA Administrator.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 81.338 is amended by removing the entry for ``PortlandVancouver
Area'' and adding the entry for ``Portland Area'' in
``Oregon-Carbon Monoxide'' table to read as follows:
Sec. 81.338 Oregon.
* * * *
Oregon--Carbon Monoxide
Designation Classification
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
*
Portland Area:
Portland Metro Service
District Boundary
(part). 12.7ppm.
(part). 12.7ppm.
(part). 12.7ppm.
*
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
Washington--Carbon Monoxide
Designation Classification
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
*
Vancouver Area
Quality eq>12.7ppm.
Maintenance Area.
*
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}