[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79655-79661]
[DOCID:fr30de08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0915; FRL-8747-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon;
Salem Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area; Designation of Areas for Air
Quality Planning Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a redesignation
request and a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Oregon. On August 9, 2007 the State of Oregon submitted a
request to EPA that the Salem carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area
be redesignated to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) and concurrently submitted a maintenance plan that
provides for continued attainment of the CO NAAQS. The Salem CO
nonattainment area has not violated the 8-hour CO NAAQS since 1985.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 2, 2009, without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 29, 2008. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal 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-2007-0915, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel,
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-
2007-0915. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The 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 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the
above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. Redesignation and Maintenance Plan Requirements
    A. Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas
    B. Maintenance Plan Requirements
    C. Conformity Requirements
IV. Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
    A. Evaluation of Redesignation Requirements
    1. Has the Salem Nonattainment Area Attained the Applicable
NAAQS?
    2. Does the Salem Nonattainment Area Have a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the Act?
    3. Has the State Demonstrated the Air Quality Improvement Is Due
to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions?
    4. Has the State Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the Act?
    5. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the Act?
    B. Evaluation of Maintenance Plan Requirements
    1. Does the State Have an Approved Attainment Emissions
Inventory?
    2. Has the State Demonstrated the CO Standard Will Be
Maintained?
    3. How Will the State Continue To Verify Attainment?
    4. What Contingency Plan Does the State Provide?
    C. Transportation and General Conformity
    1. How Is Transportation Conformity Demonstrated to a Limited
Maintenance Plan?
    2. What Is the Adequacy Status of This Limited Maintenance Plan?
    3. Are the Requirements for General Conformity Altered Under
This Limited Maintenance Plan?
V. Final Action
VI. Oregon Notice Provision
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the State of Oregon's
August 9, 2007 request to redesignate the Salem CO nonattainment area
to attainment for the CO NAAQS and to approve the Salem area CO
maintenance plan. The Salem CO nonattainment area is eligible for
redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS because the area
has not violated the CO standard since 1985. The CO maintenance plan
meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and demonstrates
that the Salem area will be able to remain in attainment for CO for the
next 10 years.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The Salem CO nonattainment area is located in the central
Willamette Valley of north western Oregon. On March 3, 1978, a 32
square mile area within the city limits of Salem was designated by EPA
as nonattainment for the CO NAAQS (43 FR 9028). EPA approved an
expansion to the original nonattainment area on June 24, 1980 (45 FR
42275). Although Oregon refers to the expanded nonattainment area as
the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study or Salem-Keizer area, for
purposes of this action, we are referring to the expanded nonattainment
area as the Salem CO nonattainment area.
    On June 29, 1979, the State of Oregon submitted to EPA a control
strategy for the Salem CO nonattainment area designed to bring about
attainment of the CO NAAQS. In EPA's approval of the SIP revision, it
was noted that over 99 percent of CO emissions in the Salem CO
nonattainment area originated from mobile sources and the control
strategy relied only on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control
Program to demonstrate attainment (45 FR 42275, June 24, 1980). Based
on air quality monitoring data, the Salem CO nonattainment area
achieved the CO NAAQS in 1987.
    Under section 107(d)(1)(C), any area that was designated
nonattainment before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 was to retain the designation upon enactment by
operation of law. CO nonattainment areas that had not violated the CO
standard in either year for the two-year period 1988-1989 were to be
designated nonattainment and identified as ``not classified''
nonattainment areas. Accordingly, on November 6, 1991, the Salem CO
nonattainment area was designated nonattainment for the CO NAAQS by EPA
and identified as ``not-classified'' (56 FR 56818).
    As vehicle emission standards have become more stringent, CO
concentrations in the Salem area have continued to decline. In the last
10 years, the highest design value (second highest 8-hour average CO
concentration) measured in Salem in any calendar year by the approved
monitoring network was 5.9 ppm, which is less than the 8-hour CO
standard of 9.0 ppm. In order for the Salem CO nonattainment area to be
redesignated to attainment, the State must submit to EPA for approval a
redesignation request and a maintenance plan that ensures continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS. A SIP revision containing these elements
was submitted to EPA on August 9, 2007.

III. Redesignation and Maintenance Plan Requirements

    Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the
area has measured air quality data showing that it has attained the
NAAQS and when certain planning requirements are met. EPA has reviewed
the State's redesignation request and maintenance plan. EPA believes
the submittal meets the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E). The
requirements for redesignation and maintenance plan approval are
presented below and our evaluation of how the current submittal meets
these requirements is presented in section IV.

A. Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that EPA can redesignate an
area to attainment if the following conditions are met:
    1. The area has attained the applicable NAAQS.
    2. The area must have a fully approved implementation plan under
section 110(k).
    3. The air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions.

    4. The area must meet all relevant requirements under section 110
and Part D of the Act.
    5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A.

B. Maintenance Plan Requirements

    Section 175A of the Act defines the general framework of a
maintenance plan, which must provide for maintenance (i.e., continued
attainment) of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years
after redesignation. The following is a list of core provisions
required in an approvable maintenance plan.
    1. The State must develop an attainment emissions inventory to
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the NAAQS.
    2. The State must demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS.
    3. The State must verify continued attainment through operation of
an appropriate air quality monitoring network.
    4. The maintenance plan must include contingency provisions to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area.

C. Conformity Requirements

    Section 176(c) of the Act prohibits Federal entities from taking
actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas which do not conform to
the SIP for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA
promulgated two sets of regulations to implement section 176(c), the
transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule (40 CFR
parts 51 and 93). Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of
demonstrating that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is
to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are
consistent with the emissions budget for the area.

IV. Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

    We have reviewed the redesignation request and maintenance plan for
the Salem CO nonattainment area and conclude that the submittal meets
the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), noted above. The following is
our evaluation of how each of the requirements is met.

A. Evaluation of Redesignation Requirements

1. Has the Salem Nonattainment Area Attained the Applicable NAAQS?
    The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic
meter) for an 8-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per
year. An area seeking redesignation to attainment must show attainment
of the CO NAAQS for at least two consecutive calendar years. States
must demonstrate that an area has attained the CO NAAQS through
complete quality-assured data. The redesignation request for the Salem
CO nonattainment area is based on air quality data that shows the CO
standard was not violated for the 20-year period from 1986 through
2006. These data were collected by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in accordance with 40 CFR 50.8 and entered
in EPA's Air Quality System. Since 2006, ODEQ has continued to verify
attainment in the Salem area by conducting a triennial review of Marion
and Polk County CO emissions from the statewide emissions inventory and
tracking CO measurements in other areas of the state. Because the Salem
area has complete quality-assured monitoring data and emissions
inventory data showing attainment with no violations after 1986, EPA
concludes that the area has attained the NAAQS for CO.
2. Does the Salem Nonattainment Area Have a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the Act?
    Section 110(k) contains the requirements for EPA action on plan
submissions. In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the
area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act. Based on
the approval into the SIP of provisions under the pre-1990 Act (37 FR
10888, May 31, 1972 and 45 FR 42275, June 24, 1980) and documentation
that has been provided in this SIP submission, we conclude that Oregon
has a fully approved SIP for the Salem CO nonattainment area under
section 110(k).
3. Has the State Demonstrated the Air Quality Improvement Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions?
    The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting
from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable reductions.
    The State attributes the reductions in CO emissions in the Salem
area primarily to the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program
and fleet turnover, the control measures relied on in the CO attainment
plan. Although emissions inventories reveal that the highest wintertime
emissions in the Salem area are currently from woodstoves and
fireplaces, the State explained in its submittal that these sources are
widely distributed throughout the area and contribute to low-level CO
concentrations. Due to the tendency of mobile on-road sources to
assemble spatially, mobile on-road sources continue to be the most
likely to produce the highest CO concentrations in the Salem area.
    We have evaluated the control measures used and the attainment
emission inventory and conclude that emissions reductions in the
attainment year are not the result of short term economic slow downs or
unusual meteorological conditions. In its submittal, the State has
demonstrated that emissions reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle
Emission Standards and fleet turnover will continue into the
maintenance period. We conclude that the improvement in air quality in
the Salem CO nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions
that are permanent and enforceable.
4. Has the State Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the Act?
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an area must meet all
applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the Act. EPA
interprets this requirement to mean that the State must meet all
requirements that applied to the area prior to, or at the time of, the
submission of a complete redesignation request. The following is a
summary of how the Salem area meets these requirements.
a. Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. On May 31, 1972, EPA approved the original Oregon
SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Act (37 FR
10888). For the purpose of this redesignation, EPA review of the Oregon
SIP shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the Act. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1972, EPA has approved
Oregon's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under section 110.
b. Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. On June 24, 1980, EPA approved the State of
Oregon's Part D plan for the Salem CO nonattainment area (45 FR 42275).
Following enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Salem
CO

nonattainment area was designated nonattainment for the CO NAAQS by
operation of law. Because the area had not violated the CO standard in
either year for the two-year period 1988-1989, it was identified as a
``not classified'' nonattainment area (56 FR 56818, November 6, 1991).
Before the Salem ``not classified'' CO nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of Part D. Under Part D, an area's
classification indicates the requirements to which it is subject.
Subpart 1 of Part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or
nonclassifiable.
    The relevant subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections
172(c) and 176. The General Preamble provides EPA's interpretation of
the requirements for ``not classified'' CO areas (57 FR 13535). The
General Preamble reads: ``Although it seems clear that the CO-specific
requirements of subpart 3 of Part D do not apply to CO ``not
classified'' areas, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are silent as to
how the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D, which contains general SIP
planning requirements for all designated nonattainment areas, should be
interpreted for such CO areas. Nevertheless, because these areas are
designated nonattainment, some aspects of subpart 1 necessarily
apply.''
    The General Preamble provides that for ``not classified'' CO
nonattainment areas, the applicable requirements of section 172 are:
Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory; section 172(c)(5) New Source
Review (NSR); and section 172(c)(7)--Compliance with section 110(a)(2)
Air Quality Monitoring Requirements.
[1] Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of all actual emissions from all sources in the Salem
CO nonattainment area. Oregon's submittal provided an emission
inventory for the Salem CO maintenance plan for the 1999 attainment
year. The State explained that it considers the use of the 1999
emissions inventory to be as good as, or more conservative than, the
use of a more recent year because 1999 represents the year with the
highest design value in the last 10-year period. Additionally, the
State provided a fleet-average emission factor analysis showing that CO
emission rates from on-road motor vehicles will continue to decline
well below the 1999 rates. The State explained that the tendency of
mobile on-road sources to assemble spatially makes this source the most
likely to produce the highest CO concentrations in the Salem area. We
have reviewed the emission inventory and determined that it meets the
emission inventory obligation and that it represents emissions in the
area that provide for attainment with a 1998-1999 design value of 5.9
ppm CO.
[2] Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review
    The Act requires all nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR. The State must have an approved NSR program
that meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5). EPA evaluated and
initially approved the ODEQ NSR program on August 13, 1982 (47 FR
35191), as being equivalent or more stringent than EPA's regulations on
a program basis. EPA most recently approved the ODEQ NSR program, on
January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891) and revisions on June 19, 2006 (71 FR
35163).
    In the Salem CO nonattainment area, the requirements of the Part D
NSR program will be replaced by the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program upon the effective date of this
redesignation. We fully approved Oregon's PSD program on January 22,
2003 (68 FR 2891) and revisions on June 19, 2006 (71 FR 35163). See
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Divisions 200, 202, 209, 212,
216, 222, 224, 225 and 268.
[3] Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With Section 110(a)(2): Air Quality
Monitoring Requirements
    According to the General Preamble of April 16, 1992, ``not
classified'' CO nonattainment areas should meet the ``applicable'' air
quality monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Act. EPA
previously approved Oregon's SIP for monitoring on December 5, 1980 (45
FR 80559). Most recently, EPA approved Oregon's monitoring network for
all pollutants, including CO, on November 16, 2007.
5. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the Act?
    For an area to be redesignated to attainment, the area must have a
fully approved maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section
175A of the Act. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation to
attainment. In this action, we are approving the maintenance plan
submitted by the State on August 9, 2007. We evaluate the plan in the
following section and conclude that the requirements for an approvable
maintenance plan under the Act have been met.

B. Evaluation of Maintenance Plan Requirements

    EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan that meets the
requirements of section 175A of the Act. Section 175A defines the
general framework of a maintenance plan, which must provide for
maintenance, i.e., continued attainment, of the relevant NAAQS in the
area for at least 10 years after redesignation. In addition, areas that
can demonstrate CO design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of
exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters may use a
limited maintenance plan option.
    The 8-hour CO design value for the Salem area is 5.9 ppm and the
State of Oregon has opted to develop a limited maintenance plan to keep
the area in attainment for the next 10 years. The following is our
evaluation of how the maintenance requirements are met.
1. Does the State Have an Approved Attainment Emissions Inventory?
    The maintenance plan must contain an attainment emissions inventory
to identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the CO NAAQS. This inventory is to be consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas and
should represent emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment. The inventory should be based on
actual ``typical winter day'' emissions of CO. Areas meeting the
criteria for a limited maintenance plan are not required to provide a
future-year emission inventory.
    The Salem CO maintenance plan contains an attainment emissions
inventory for the year 1999. The State explained that it considers the
1999 attainment year to be as good as, or more conservative than, the
use of a more recent year because it represents the year with the
highest design value in the last 10-year period. In addition, the State
provided an emission factor analysis of on-road motor vehicles, the
source considered to be the most likely to produce the highest CO
concentrations, showing that CO emission rates from on-road motor
vehicles will continue to decline well below the 1999 rates.
    We have reviewed the 1999 emission inventory and determined that it
is consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on maintenance plan
emission

inventories. The 1999 attainment year coincides with a period in which
a design value of 5.9 ppm CO was calculated. Therefore, this inventory
represents emissions during an attainment year and meets the
maintenance plan emission inventory requirement. The table below shows
the pounds of CO emitted per winter day in 1999 by source category.

         Summary of 1999 Seasonal CO Emissions in the Salem Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Seasonal day
                  Main source category                     CO emissions
                                                             (lb/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point........................................          57,168
Stationary Area.........................................         239,142
Mobile Non-Road.........................................          19,820
Mobile On-Road..........................................         197,400
                                                         ---------------
    Total All Sources...................................         513,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Has the State Demonstrated the CO Standard Will Be Maintained?
    The Salem CO maintenance plan was developed using the limited
maintenance plan option, which is available to ``not classified'' CO
areas that can demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85
percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive
quarters. For areas using the limited maintenance plan option, the
maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied because EPA believes if the area begins the maintenance
period at or below 85 percent of exceedance levels, the air quality
along with the continued applicability of PSD requirements, any control
measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over the initial 10-year maintenance
period. There is no requirement to project emissions over the
maintenance period.
    The CO design value for 1998-1999 for the Salem area is 5.9 ppm,
which is below the limited maintenance plan requirement of 7.65 ppm.
Therefore, the Salem area has adequately demonstrated that it will
maintain the CO NAAQS 10 years into the future.
3. How Will the State Continue To Verify Attainment?
    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 50 CFR part 58. The State of Oregon has an approved
monitoring network that includes the Salem area. The monitoring network
was most recently approved by EPA on November 16, 2007. In the 2006
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment, EPA approved ODEQ's request
to discontinue CO monitoring at Salem because recent monitoring data
indicated that 8-hour averages were about one-half of the CO standard.
ODEQ will track CO measurements in other areas of the state where
monitors remain. If ambient CO levels rise significantly, ODEQ will
resume monitoring in the Salem area. In addition, ODEQ will continue to
verify attainment in the Salem area by conducting a triennial review of
Marion and Polk County CO emissions from the statewide emissions
inventory.
4. What Contingency Plan Does the State Provide?
    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. The Salem CO maintenance plan requires ODEQ to resume
ambient CO monitoring directly in the Salem area if a significant
increase in CO emissions is shown as described above. If a violation of
the standard occurs, the plan contains a contingency measure that
requires new and expanding industries to install lowest achievable
emission rate controls and for ODEQ to investigate and take necessary
corrective action to bring the area into compliance. EPA believes that
the contingency measures in the Salem CO maintenance plan meet the
contingency provision requirements of 175A(d).

C. Transportation and General Conformity

1. How Is Transportation Conformity Demonstrated to a Limited
Maintenance Plan?
    Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would
result. For transportation conformity purposes, EPA would conclude that
emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period
and therefore a regional emissions analysis would not be required.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas
remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40
CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
2. What Is the Adequacy Status of This Limited Maintenance Plan?
    On October 7, 2008, EPA posted a proposal to find the Salem limited
maintenance plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget adequate for
transportation conformity purposes on EPA's conformity Web site: http:/
/www.epa.gov/oms/traq. As stated above, limited maintenance plan
budgets are unconstrained and consequently, the adequacy review period
for these maintenance plans serves to allow the public to comment on
whether limited maintenance is appropriate for these areas. Interested
parties may comment on the adequacy and approval of the limited
maintenance plans by submitting their comments on the proposed rule
published concurrently with this direct final rule. The comment period
for the adequacy posting for the Salem limited maintenance plan ended
on November 6, 2008. EPA did not receive any comments on this posting.
3. Are the Requirements for General Conformity Altered Under This
Limited Maintenance Plan?
    Although the requirements to perform a regional emissions analysis
and budget test under the transportation conformity rule are altered
under a limited maintenance plan, the

requirements for general conformity are not changed. Subpart B General
Conformity Rules for Federal actions still apply.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Salem CO
maintenance plan and redesignate the Salem CO nonattainment area to
attainment. This action is based on our evaluation of ODEQ's August 9,
2007 submittal. We conclude that the Clean Air Act requirements are
effectively satisfied and we believe the area will continue to meet the
NAAQS for CO for at least ten years beyond this redesignation, as
required by the Act.
    EPA is incorporating by reference the revisions submitted by the
State to the Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 204,
Sections: 0030 (1) and (2), and 0040 [except (2)(c)], as effective June
28, 2007. EPA is taking no action on Chapter 340, Division 200, Section
0040, State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan, because this
section describes the State's procedures for adopting its SIP and
incorporates by reference all of the revisions adopted by the
Environmental Quality Council for approval into the Oregon SIP (as a
matter of state law). This is not what is actually approved by EPA as
the Federally-enforceable SIP for Oregon, so we are therefore taking no
action on it. Previously,<PHONE_NUMBER> had been approved by EPA into
the SIP in error and we are revising Sec.  52.1970(c)(145)(i)(A) to
correct this error.

VI. Oregon Notice Provision

    ORS 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation
of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been
provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has
not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that
five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's
Title V program or to any program if application of the notice
provision would disqualify the program from federal delegation. Oregon
has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice
provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance
notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 2, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: November 21, 2008.
Elin D. Miller,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are 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 revising paragraph (c)(145)(i)(A) and
adding paragraph (c)(149) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (145) * * *
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340: 240-0090 and 240-
0440, as effective December 15, 2004.
* * * * *
    (149) On August 9, 2007, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality submitted a CO maintenance plan and requested redesignation of
the Salem CO nonattainment area to attainment for CO. The State's
maintenance plan and the redesignation request meet the requirements of
the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following revised sections of Oregon Administrative Rule
340: 204-0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas (1) and (2) and 204-
0040 Designation of Maintenance Areas (except (2)(c)), as effective
June 28, 2007.

0
3. Section 52.1973 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1973  Approval of plans.

    (a) * * *
    (2) EPA approves as a revision to the Oregon State Implementation
Plan, the Salem carbon monoxide maintenance plan submitted to EPA on
August 9, 2007.
* * * * *

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-Carbon Monoxide'' is
amended by revising the entry for ``Salem Area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.338  Oregon.

* * * * *

                                                                 Oregon--Carbon Monoxide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation                                             Classification
            Designated area            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date\1\                       Type                       Date\1\                       Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                                        Attainment.............................
Salem Area:
    Salem Area Transportation Study             3/2/08
     Marion County (part).
    Polk County (part)................          3/2/08

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-30825 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47413-47414]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0890; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Wichita, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class D airspace and Class E airspace
designated as surface area, at Beech Factory Airport, Wichita, KS. This
action is for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 5, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs,

describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This
rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
supports the establishment of Class D airspace and Class E airspace
designated as a surface area at Beech Factory Airport, Wichita, KS, to
support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 28436; June 19, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0890 to
propose establishment of Class D and E airspace designated as surface
area, at Beech Factory Airport, Wichita, KS. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000
and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 3, 2018,
and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes the Class D airspace at Beech Factory Airport,
Wichita, KS, extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700
feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Beech Factory Airport, excluding
that airspace within the McConnell AFB, KS, excluding that airspace
north of a line extending from lat. 37[deg]43'07'' N, long.
97[deg]17'51'' W to lat. 37[deg]43'47'' N, long. 97[deg]08'21'' W,
within the Colonel James Jabara Airport, Wichita, KS.
    Establishing Class E airspace area designated as surface area at
Beech Factory Airport, Wichita, KS, extending upward from the surface
to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Beech
Factory Airport, excluding that airspace within the McConnell AFB,
Class D airspace area, and excluding that airspace north of a line
extending from lat. 37[deg]43'07'' N, long. 97[deg]17'51'' W to lat.
37[deg]43'47'' N, long. 97[deg]08'21'' W, within the Colonel James
Jabara Airport, Wichita, KS.
    Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for IFR operations at
this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE KS D Wichita, Beech Factory Airport, KS [New]

Wichita Beech Factory Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]41'38'' N, long. 097[deg]12'54'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Beech Factory Airport,
excluding that airspace within the McConnell AFB, KS, Class D
airspace area, and excluding that portion of Colonel James Jabara
Airport, Class E airspace area north of a line from lat.
37[deg]43'07'' N, long. 97[deg]17'51'' W to lat. 37[deg]43'47'' N,
long. 97[deg]08'21'' W. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE KS E2 Wichita, Beech Factory Airport, KS [New]

Wichita Beech Factory Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]41'38'' N, long. 097[deg]12'54'' W)

    That airspace within a 4.2-mile radius of Beech Factory Airport,
excluding that airspace within the McConnell AFB, KS, Class D
airspace area, and that portion of Colonel James Jabara Airport,
Class E airspace area north of a line from lat. 37[deg]43'07'' N,
long. 97[deg]17'51'' W to lat. 37[deg]43'47'' N, long.
97[deg]08'21'' W. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 3, 2019.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-19424 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:  May 21, 2012

FROM: Colleen McKaughan

TO: File

SUBJECT:  Meeting with Nevada Department of Environmental Quality (NDEP)

Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division, and Thomas Webb,
Air Division Planning Office met with NDEP officials, Mike Elges, Rob
Bamford, Vinson Guthreau, and their attorney, Jasmine Mehta, on May 4,
2012.

EPA and NDEP briefly discussed the hearings the day/night before and the
issues that were raised.  The turnout was better than expected at both
hearings. NDEP was looking for clarification on next steps for both
EPA’s final action on Reid Gardner and replacing the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) with a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision. EPA clarified that the FIP was very narrow so any replacement
SIP could also be very narrow.  We all acknowledged that EPA would be
responding to comments before taking final action, and the content of
the comments is yet unknown. The close of the public comment period is
June 4th.