[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25497-25499]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11496]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0347; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cortland, Elmira,
Ithaca, and Endicott, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cortland County Airport-Chase
Field, Cortland, NY, Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira/Corning,
NY, Ithaca

Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY and Tri-Cities Airport, Endicott,
NY to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving these
airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Bldg., Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-
2019-0347; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-6, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; 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 proposed 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 would establish Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Cortland County Airport-Chase Field,
Cortland, NY, Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira/Corning, NY,
Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY and Tri-Cities Airport,
Endicott, NY to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at these airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2019-0347 and Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-6) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ``ADDRESSES'' section for the
address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2019-0347; Airspace Docket No. 19-AEA-6.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket. All communications received on or before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will
be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 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 Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of
Cortland County Airport-Chase Field, Cortland, NY, within a 12.5-mile
radius of Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira/Corning, NY, within a
9.5-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY and
within an 8-mile radius of Tri-Cities Airport, Endicott, NY, providing
the controlled airspace required to support the RNAV (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Cortland, NY [New]

Cortland County Airport-Chase Field, NY
    (lat. 42[deg]35'34'' N, long. 76[deg]12'54'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Cortland County Airport-Chase Field.
* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Elmira/Corning, NY [New]

Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, NY
    (lat. 42[deg]9'35'' N, long. 76[deg]53'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 12.5-mile radius of Elmira/Corning Regional Airport.
* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Ithaca, NY [New]

Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, NY
    (lat. 42[deg]29'29'' N, long. 76[deg]27'31'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.5-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport.
* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Endicott, NY [New]

Tri Cities Airport, NY
    (lat. 42[deg]4'43'' N, long. 76[deg]5'47'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of Tri Cities Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 23, 2019,
Geoff Lelliott,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2019-11496 Filed 5-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35163-35174]
[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

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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

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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>
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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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-

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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.

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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.

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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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

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<PHONE_NUMBER> (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.

    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,

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


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23510]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-735-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to United Energy NR Agmt
263830 Filing--Metadata Update to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220414-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1143-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
Supplemental Information in Response to FERC March 30, 2022 Data
Request.
    Filed Date: 4/13/22.
    Accession Number: 20220413-5222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-819-000.
    Applicants: Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Adelphia Operational Purchase and
Sales Report April 13 2022 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220414-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 14, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08469 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80073-80074]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1311]

Paul S. Singh: Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) permanently debarring Paul S. Singh from providing services
in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug
product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. Singh
was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Dr. Singh was given
notice of the proposed permanent debarment and an opportunity to
request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Dr.
Singh failed to request a hearing. Dr. Singh's failure to request a
hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this
action.

DATES: This order is effective November 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for special termination of debarment to
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement,
Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ELEM-4144), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B))
requires debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual
has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating
to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act. On July 31,
2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
entered judgment against Dr. Singh for one count of mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.
    FDA's finding that the debarment is appropriate is based on the
felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this
conviction is as follows: Dr. Singh was the President and Secretary of
Paul S. Singh, DO, Inc., and provided obstetric and gynecological
services to women. Beginning on or about May 2008, and continuing to at
least on or about June 2012, within the Eastern District of California
and elsewhere, Dr. Singh devised a scheme and artifice to defraud
health care benefit programs, patients, and others of money and
property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises.
    During the time period described, Dr. Singh provided his patients
forms of birth control, including the insertion of an intrauterine
device (``IUD''). IUDs are regulated by FDA. At the relevant time, FDA
had only approved one IUD, which used copper as its active ingredient,
the ParaGard T-380A IUD. ParaGard T-380A was sold only by its
manufacturer and was not available on third-party Web sites.
    The insertion of a non-FDA approved copper IUD risks a patient's
health and safety. Dr. Singh knew of this risk and knew that inserting
a non-FDA approved copper IUD was prohibited by FDA. Despite this, Dr.
Singh obtained non-FDA approved copper IUDs by purchasing them on the
Internet and inserted them in his patients. Dr. Singh failed to inform
his patients that he had inserted a non-FDA approved copper IUD, and
none of his patients consented to the insertion of one. On or about
August 17, 2010, FDA agents met with Dr. Singh and warned him that he
could not insert non-FDA approved copper IUDs, and he agreed that he
would stop doing so. Notwithstanding this warning, Dr. Singh continued
to insert non-FDA approved copper IUDs in his patients and falsely
claimed to his patients that he was inserting FDA-approved copper IUDs.
    Dr. Singh billed at least 10 different health care benefit programs
for payment for the insertion of non-FDA approved copper IUDs in his
patients. In submitting these claims, Dr. Singh knowingly
misrepresented the type of IUD he had inserted. Dr. Singh caused the
U.S. mails to be used to carry out an essential part of his scheme. At
all relevant times, Dr. Singh acted with the intent to defraud. As a
result of Dr. Singh's conduct, he made false claims of over $83,000 to
health care benefit programs, his patients, and others.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Dr. Singh by certified
mail on August 17, 2016, a notice proposing to permanently debar him
from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on
a finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Dr. Singh
was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. FDA determined that
Dr. Singh's felony conviction was related to the regulation of drug
products because the conduct underlying his conviction undermined FDA's
regulatory oversight over drug products marketed in the United States--
it involved using and misrepresenting as approved unapproved IUDs that
presented health risks to patients. The proposal also offered Dr. Singh
an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the
date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised
him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the
opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. The proposal was received on August 23, 2016. Dr. Singh did not
request a hearing and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a
hearing and any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import
Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under sections 306(a)(2)(B)
of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to him (Staff Manual Guide
1410.35), finds that Paul S. Singh has been convicted of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product
under the FD&C Act. Section 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act requires
that Dr. Singh's debarment be permanent.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Paul S. Singh is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512,
or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
DATES) (see sections 201(dd) (21 U.S.C. 321(dd)), 306(c)(1)(B), and
306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act). Any person with an approved or
pending drug product application who knowingly employs or retains as a
consultant or contractor, or otherwise uses the services of Paul S.
Singh, in any capacity during his debarment, will be subject to civil
money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335b(a)(6))). If Dr. Singh provides services in any capacity to a
person with an approved or pending drug product application during his
period of debarment he will be subject to civil money penalties
(section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In addition, FDA will not accept
or review any abbreviated new drug applications from Paul S. Singh
during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
    Any application by Dr. Singh for special termination of debarment
under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with
Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1311 and sent to the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in
four copies. The public availability of information in these
submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket, and
will be viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

    Dated: November 9, 2016.
Armando Zamora,
Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of
Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-27418 Filed 11-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P