[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21547-21555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08394]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket : EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0193; FRL 9738-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Oregon: Eugene-Springfield PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance
Plan and Redesignation Request
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State of Oregon on January 13,
2012, for the Eugene-Springfield nonattainment area (Eugene-Springfield
NAA) and the State's request to redesignate the area to attainment for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM10). EPA is approving the State's request
because it meets Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for redesignation.
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial SIP
revision and anticipates no adverse comments.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 10, 2013, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 13, 2013.
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-2012-0193, by any of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]
Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101
Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, 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-
2012-0193. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your
[[Page 21548]]
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at telephone number:
(206) 553-6357, email address: [email protected], 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. This Action
II. Background
A. PM10 NAAQS
B. Eugene-Springfield NAA and Planning Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. Requirements for Redesignation
A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas
B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas
C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
V. Review of the Oregon Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMPs
A. Has the Eugene-Springfield NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?
B. Does the Eugene-Springfield NAA have a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) of the CAA?
C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA?
D. Has the State demonstrated that the Air Quality Improvement
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to section 175A of the CAA?
F. Has the State demonstrated that the Eugene-Springfield NAA
qualifies for the LMP Option?
G. Does the State have an approved Attainment Emissions
Inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of
an appropriate EPA-approved Air Quality Monitoring Network, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58?
I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for
contingency provisions?
J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Revisions to SIP Rules to Reflect Redesignation
VII. Final Action
VIII. Oregon Notice Provision
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. This Action
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the LMP submitted by
the State of Oregon on January 13, 2012, for the Eugene-Springfield
nonattainment area (Eugene-Springfield NAA) and concurrently to
redesignate the area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA
has reviewed air quality data for the area and determined that the
Eugene-Springfield NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the
required attainment date, and that monitoring data continue to show
attainment. Also in this action, EPA is approving revisions to the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to reflect the redesignation.
II. Background
A. PM10 NAAQS
``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. The
size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing
health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that
generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once
inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause
serious adverse health effects. People with heart or lung diseases,
children and older adults are the most likely to be affected by
particle pollution exposure. However, even healthy individuals may
experience temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of
particle pollution.
On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated a NAAQS for PM10 (52 FR
24634). EPA established a 24-hour standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and an
annual standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\, expressed as an annual arithmetic
mean. EPA also promulgated secondary PM10 standards that
were identical to the primary standards. In a rulemaking action dated
October 17, 2006, EPA retained the 24-hour PM10 standard but
revoked the annual PM10 standard (71 FR 61144, effective
December 18, 2006).
B. Eugene-Springfield NAA and Planning Background
On August 7, 1987, EPA designated the Eugene-Springfield area as a
PM10 nonattainment area due to measured violations of the
24-hour PM10 standard (52 FR 29383). The notice announcing
the designation, upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, was
published on March 15, 1991, 56 FR 11101. On November 6, 1991, the
Eugene-Springfield NAA was subsequently classified as moderate under
sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the CAA (56 FR 56694).
After the Eugene-Springfield NAA was designated nonattainment for
PM10, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
and Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) worked with the
communities of Eugene and Springfield to develop a plan to bring the
area into attainment no later than December 31, 1994. The State
submitted the plan to EPA on November 15, 1991, as a moderate
PM10 SIP under section 189(a) of the CAA. The primary
control measure submitted by the State was a comprehensive wood burning
curtailment program. EPA took final action to approve the State's
moderate PM10 SIP on August 24, 1994, 59 FR 43483.
On January 13, 2012, the State submitted to EPA for approval the
Eugene-Springfield PM10 LMP and requested that EPA
redesignate the Eugene-Springfield NAA to attainment for the
PM10 NAAQS. Oregon also submitted revisions to rules in the
State's Federally-approved SIP to reflect the redesignation.
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to EPA. The State of
Oregon provided notice and an opportunity for public comment from
August 26, 2011 through September 26, 2011. A notice of public hearing
was
[[Page 21549]]
published in The Eugene Register-Guard on August 26, 2011 and the
Oregon Bulletin, Volume 50, No. 9 on September 1, 2011. The State held
a public hearing on September 27, 2011, in Springfield, Oregon. This
SIP revision became State effective on December 21, 2011, and was
submitted by the Governor's designee to the EPA on January 13, 2012.
EPA has evaluated the State's submittal and determined that the State
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
IV. Requirements for Redesignation
A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Area
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 CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for
redesignation (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). These criteria 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'' (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 CAA;
3. The state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
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 CAA.
B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas
On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance
plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman,
Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option memo)). The LMP Option memo contains
a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality
criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard
10 years into the future. Thus, EPA has already provided the
maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in
the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission inventories
for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine
transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer necessary.
To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
PM10 NAAQS and, based upon the most recent 5 years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, the 24-hour design value
should be at or below 98 [mu]g/m\3\. If an area cannot meet this test,
it may still be able to qualify for the LMP Option if the average
design value (ADV) for the site is less than the site-specific critical
design value (CDV). In addition, the area should expect only limited
growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including
fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test. The LMP Option memo also identifies core
provisions that must be included the LMP. These provisions include an
attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation
of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency
provisions.
C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a Federal action
conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions
budget for the area.
While EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas
need not be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a regional
emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal actions
subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy
the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the
same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be
unlimited.
V. Review of the Oregon Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMPs
A. Has the Eugene-Springfield NAA Attained 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 quality-assured and stored in the
EPA Air Quality System database. EPA has reviewed air quality data for
the area and has determined that the Eugene-Springfield NAA attained
the PM10 NAAQS \1\ by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 1994, and continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS.
EPA's analysis is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked
effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006),
this notice discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM10
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m\3\. An area has
attained this 24-hour standard when the average number of expected
exceedances 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).
A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, was submitted by Oregon to EPA on
December 27, 1979 (40 CFR 52.1970), and approved by EPA on March 4,
1981 (46 FR 15136). This monitoring plan has been subsequently updated,
with the most recent submittal dated July 1, 2011, and approved by EPA
on January 6, 2012 (Oregon Air Monitoring Plan Approval Letter, dated
January 6, 2012). The monitoring plan describes the PM10
monitoring network throughout the State, which includes site
41-039-0058-81102-1 (commonly referred to as the ``Highway 99
Site'' or ``Key Bank Site'' (Highway 99/Key Bank Site)) in the Eugene-
Springfield area. In the submittal, LRAPA states that the Highway 99/
Key Bank Site historically measures the highest PM10
concentrations, and that a review of data from 2000 through 2008 shows
that PM10 concentrations recorded at this site remain well
below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. In addition, LRAPA states that
the Highway 99/Key Bank Site is
[[Page 21550]]
operated in compliance with EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in 40
CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
Data from the Highway 99/Key Bank Site has been quality assured by
ODEQ and submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), accessible
through EPA's AirData Web site at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/. Based on
EPA's review of data in AQS, there have been no exceedances of the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS in the Eugene-Springfield NAA since 1987.
Accordingly, during the three-year period ending with the December 31,
1994, attainment date, no exceedances occurred in the Eugene-
Springfield NAA, and the expected exceedance rate for the Eugene-
Springfield NAA for 1992-1994 is 0. Therefore, Eugene-Springfield NAA
attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the required attainment
date of December 31, 1994 (PM10 Design Value Report for Lane
County, Oregon, dated April 30, 2012). EPA has also reviewed more
recent ambient air quality data for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS,
and has determined that the Eugene-Springfield area continues to attain
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A summary of EPA's data review and
analysis can be found in the docket for this action (Eugene-Springfield
PM10 NAAQS and LMP Determination Memo, dated July 23, 2012).
B. Does the Eugene-Springfield NAA have a fully approved SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA?
In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA, and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. As discussed in Section II. B.
above, Oregon submitted a moderate PM10 SIP for the Eugene-
Springfield NAA on November 15, 1991. EPA took final action to fully
approve the State's moderate PM10 SIP on August 24, 1994 (59
FR 43483), as satisfying all requirements that apply to the area. Thus
the area has a fully approved nonattainment area SIP under section
110(k) of CAA.
C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under section
110 and Part D of the CAA 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. The following is a summary of how
Oregon meets these requirements.
1. Clean Air Act Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
nonattainment 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; implementation of a permit
program; 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 (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). For purposes of
redesignation of the Eugene-Springfield PM10 NAA, EPA has
reviewed the Oregon SIP and finds that the State has satisfied all
applicable requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2) for the
PM10 NAAQS. EPA's approval of Oregon's SIP for attainment
and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS under CAA section 110 can
be found at 40 CFR 52.1972.
2. Part D Requirements
Part D of the CAA contains general requirements applicable to all
areas designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed
by a series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and
the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional
Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following
paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the Eugene-
Springfield NAA.
(2)(a) Part D, section 172(c)(2)--Reasonable Further Progress
Section 172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment area
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the
General Preamble (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2)
requires nonattainment plans to provide for reasonable further progress
(RFP). Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by this part (part D of title I) or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.'' The requirements for reasonable further progress,
identification of certain emissions increases and other measures needed
for attainment were satisfied with the approved Eugene-Springfield
PM10 SIP (59 FR 43483). In this action, EPA has determined
that the Eugene-Springfield NAA attained the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS by the December 31, 1994, attainment date. Therefore, EPA
believes no further showing of RFP or quantitative milestones is
necessary.
(2)(b) Part D, section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Eugene-
Springfield PM10 NAA. Oregon included an emissions inventory
for the Eugene-Springfield area for the year 2008 in the submittal. The
inventory estimated annual and winter day emissions from point sources,
residential wood combustion, road dust, and motor vehicle exhaust,
brake and tire wear. The emissions inventory includes an inventory of
point sources of PM10 greater than or equal to 10 tons/year
to estimate emissions for 2008. Residential wood combustion emission
estimates were developed from a 2009 survey of households in the
Eugene-Springfield area, included in the State's submittal. Emissions
estimates for road dust and motor vehicle exhaust, brake wear, and tire
wear were developed using EPA-approved methods, and vehicle miles
traveled estimates were obtained from the local metropolitan planning
organization, Lane Council of Governments. EPA reviewed the inventory
and associated calculations submitted by Oregon and believes that the
2008 Eugene-Springfield emissions inventory is current, accurate and
comprehensive and therefore meets the requirements of section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA.
(2)(c) Part D, section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
The CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR. The State must have an approved major NSR
program that meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5). EPA evaluated
and initially approved the Oregon major NSR program on August 13, 1982
(47 FR 35191), as being equivalent or more stringent than EPA's
regulations on a program basis. EPA subsequently approved revisions to
Oregon's major NSR program on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891), and most
recently approved revisions to the major
[[Page 21551]]
NSR rules on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). In the Eugene-Springfield
NAA, the requirements of the Part D NSR program will be replaced by the
State's Maintenance Area NSR requirements upon the effective date of
redesignation.
(2)(d) Part D, section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA section
110(a)(2): Air Quality Monitoring Requirements
Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. Oregon submitted a comprehensive
air quality monitoring plan, meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 58
to EPA on December 27, 1979 (40 CFR 52.1970), and EPA approved the plan
on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15136). This monitoring plan has been
subsequently updated, with the most recent submittal dated July 1,
2011, and approved by EPA on January 6, 2012 (Oregon Air Monitoring
Plan Approval Letter, dated January 6, 2012). As stated in the
submittal, ODEQ and LRAPA operate a PM10 monitoring network
which includes site 41-039-0058-81102-1 (Highway 99/Key Bank
Site) in the Eugene-Springfield area. The Highway 99/Key Bank Site is
operated in compliance with EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in 40
CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. In addition, the
submittal provides a commitment to continued operation of the
PM10 monitoring network and the Highway 99/Key Bank Site in
the Eugene-Springfield area.
(2)(e) Part D, section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if an area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Since, as part of this action, EPA has
determined the Eugene-Springfield NAA attained the PM10
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994,
contingency measures are no longer required under section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA. However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance
plans under Section 175A. Please see section V. I. for a description of
Oregon's maintenance plan contingency provisions.
(2)(f) Part D, section 189(a), (c) and (e)--Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas
Section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas. Any of these requirements which
were applicable and due prior to the submission of the redesignation
request must be fully approved into the SIP before redesignating the
area to attainment. With respect to the Eugene-Springfield NAA, these
requirements include:
(a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
were implemented by December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C));
(b) either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than December 31, 1994, or
a demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable (section
189(a)(1)(B));
(c) quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3 years and
which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (section
189(c)(1)); and
(d) 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 (section 189(e)).
Provisions for reasonably available control measures, attainment
demonstration, and RFP milestones were fully approved into the SIP upon
EPA approval of the moderate PM10 SIP for the Eugene-
Springfield NAA on August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43483). EPA most recently
approved revisions to Oregon's major NSR rules on December 27, 2011 (76
FR 80747). Oregon's major NSR rules include control requirements that
apply to major stationary sources of PM10 and
PM10 precursors in nonattainment areas, maintenance areas,
and attainment/unclassifiable areas. For the Eugene-Springfield area,
EPA determined that major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS.
Therefore, in EPA's action to approve the moderate PM10 SIP
for Eugene-Springfield, EPA granted the exclusion from control
requirements authorized under section 189(e) for major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors (59 FR 43483).
D. Has the State demonstrated that the Air Quality Improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that a nonattainment
area may not be redesignated unless EPA determines that the improvement
in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP. Therefore, a state
must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions by demonstrating 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.
Permanent and enforceable control measures in the Eugene-
Springfield moderate PM10 SIP include a mandatory home wood
heating curtailment program, and existing controls on local industrial
sources. These controls were approved by EPA into the Eugene-
Springfield PM10 SIP, and they are both permanent and
Federally enforceable (59 FR 43483). As described in the submittal, the
primary control measure relied on is the mandatory home wood heating
curtailment program which was fully implemented on November 1, 1991.
The program consists of a daily multi-stage advisory issued each winter
from November through the end of February. The daily advisory, which is
based upon forecast meteorology and air quality, provides a color-coded
stage based on air quality conditions. During good air quality
conditions, a Green advisory allowing residential wood combustion is
issued. If air quality conditions are deteriorating, a Yellow advisory
requesting voluntary curtailment of residential wood burning is issued.
If PM10 levels are forecast to be near or exceeding the
standard, a Red advisory prohibiting residential wood burning is issued
(with an exemption for economic need). Each of the three jurisdictions
in the Eugene-Springfield NAA--Lane County, the City of Eugene, and the
City of Springfield--enacted ordinances that prohibit the use of solid-
fuel space heating devices based on the advisories. The enforcement of
these ordinances has been delegated to LRAPA.
EPA believes that areas that qualify for the LMP Option will meet
the NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions. Therefore,
under the LMP Option, the maintenance demonstration is presumed to be
satisfied if an area meets the qualifying criteria. A description of
the LMP qualifying criteria and how the Eugene-Springfield area meets
these criteria is provided below. By qualifying for the LMP Option,
Oregon presumptively demonstrates that the air quality improvements in
the Eugene-Springfield area are the result of permanent emission
reductions and not a result of either economic trends or meteorology.
[[Page 21552]]
E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA?
In this action, we are approving the LMP in accordance with the
principles outlined in the LMP Option memo. Upon the effective date of
this action, the area will have a fully approved maintenance plan.
F. Has the state demonstrated that the Eugene-Springfield NAA Qualifies
for the LMP Option?
The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. In this action, EPA has determined that the Eugene-Springfield
NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the required attainment date,
and continues to be in attainment with the PM10 NAAQS.
Please see section V. A. for a detailed discussion.
Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past 5 years of
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value (CDV).
The CDV is a margin of safety value and is the value at which an area
has been determined to have a 1 in 10 probability of exceeding the
NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two methods for review of
monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for the LMP Option. The
first method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ for the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS and 40 [micro]g/
m\3\ for the annual PM10 NAAQS. A second method that applies
to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the calculation of a site-
specific CDV and a comparison of the site-specific CDV with the ADV for
the past 5 years of monitoring data. The State's submittal provides a
comparison of 5-year ADVs compared to the 24-hour and annual CDVs, as
described in the first method for review of monitoring data to qualify
for the LMP Option. Oregon's analysis demonstrates that the Eugene-
Springfield NAA meets the LMP design value criteria for the period
2004-2008. Using EPA-recommended methodology, Oregon calculated the 24-
hour ADV for the area to be 66 [micro]g/m\3\, which is well below the
CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. Oregon calculated the annual ADV to be 17
[micro]g/m \3\, which is well below the CDV of 40 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA
has reviewed the Oregon calculations and concurs with the State's
findings. EPA also calculated average design values using more recent
data and found that the Eugene-Springfield area meets the LMP design
value criteria for the period 2007-2011. EPA's design value
calculations and analysis can be found in the docket for this action
(Eugene-Springfield PM10 NAAQS and LMP Determination Memo,
dated July 23, 2012). Therefore, EPA finds that Eugene-Springfield
meets the design value criteria outlined in the LMP Option memo.
Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test in attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the
methodology outlined in attachment B, Oregon submitted an analysis of
whether increased emissions from on-road mobile sources would increase
PM10 concentrations in the Eugene-Springfield NAA to levels
that would threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the
LMP policy. Based on monitoring data for the period 2004-2008, Oregon
has determined that the Eugene-Springfield NAA passes the motor vehicle
regional emissions analysis test. EPA has reviewed the calculations in
the State's submittal and concurs with this conclusion.
As described above, the Eugene-Springfield NAA meets the
qualification criteria set forth in the LMP Option memo and therefore
qualifies for the LMP Option. The LMP Option memo also indicates that
once a state selects the LMP Option and it is in effect, the state will
be expected to determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP criteria are
still being met. If the state determines that the LMP criteria are not
being met, it should take action to reduce PM10
concentrations enough to requalify for the LMP Option. One possible
approach the state could take is to implement contingency provisions.
Please see Section V. I. for a description of contingency provisions
submitted as part of the State's submittal.
As a result of the above analysis, EPA is approving the LMP for the
Eugene-Springfield area and the State's request to redesignate the
Eugene-Springfield NAA to attainment for PM10.
G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
Pursuant to the LMP Option memo, the state's approved attainment
plan should include an emissions inventory which can be used to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability
requirements of the LMP Option. The state should review its inventory
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the
inventory if necessary.
Oregon's submittal includes an emissions inventory for the year
2008. After reviewing the 2008 emissions inventory and determining that
it is current, accurate and complete, as well as reviewing monitoring
data for the years 2004-2008, EPA has determined that the 2008
emissions inventory is representative of the attainment year inventory
since the NAAQS was not violated during 2008. In addition, the year
2008 is representative of the level of emissions during the time period
used to calculate the average design value since 2008 is one of the
years during the five year period used to calculate the design value
(2004-2008). The submittal meets EPA guidance, as described above, for
purposes of an attainment emissions inventory.
H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?
PM10 monitoring was established in the Eugene-
Springfield area in 1984. LRAPA currently maintains a PM10
monitoring network which includes the Highway 99/Key Bank Site within
the Eugene-Springfield area. Oregon and LRAPA's monitoring network was
developed and has been maintained in accordance with Federal siting and
design criteria in 40 CFR part 58 and in consultation with EPA Region
10. EPA most recently approved Oregon's air monitoring plan, on January
6, 2012 (Oregon Air Monitoring Plan Approval Letter, dated January 6,
2012). In the submittal, LRAPA states that it will continue to monitor
for PM10 in the Eugene-Springfield NAA.
I. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for contingency
provisions?
CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo and Calcagni memo,
these contingency provisions are considered to be an enforceable part
of the SIP. The plan should clearly identify the provisions to be
adopted, a schedule and procedures for adoption and implementation, and
a specific time limit for action by the state. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency provision, the contingency provision
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the provision.
The LMP Option memo and Calcagni memo state that EPA will
[[Page 21553]]
review what constitutes a contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At
a minimum, it must require that the State will implement all measures
contained in the Part D nonattainment plan for the area prior to
redesignation.
In the submittal, ODEQ and LRAPA have included maintenance plan
contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to meet the
PM10 NAAQS. Specifically, ODEQ and LRAPA submitted revised
local home wood heating curtailment program requirements for the three
jurisdictions in the area, specifically, Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County. The local ordinances implementing the program have been
strengthened to include a requirement prohibiting solid fuel space
heating devices from burning plastics, petroleum by-products, petroleum
treated materials, rubber products, animal remains, animal or vegetable
matter resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking or service of
food, or of any other material which normally emits dense smoke or
noxious odors. In addition, during a Green or Yellow advisory, the
discharge of emissions from a solid fuel space heating device is now
limited to a maximum opacity of 40%, with a 10 minute exemption during
every 4-hour period for the building of a new fire. These revised
ordinances have been adopted by the local jurisdictions and are
currently being implemented in the Eugene-Springfield area. The
ordinances each specify ``triggers'' for implementing provisions, based
on forecasted PM10 levels. In addition to the local home
wood heating curtailment program, the LMP references the Oregon ``Heat
Smart'' law. This law has been adopted state-wide and requires the
removal and decommissioning of any uncertified woodstove or fireplace
insert from a home when it is sold.
The contingency provisions submitted by ODEQ and LRAPA have been
adopted by the local jurisdictions, are currently being implemented in
the Eugene-Springfield area, and contain triggers based on forecasted
PM10 levels for implementing specific provisions to reduce
particulate matter emissions from home wood heating. Therefore, EPA
believes the contingency provisions are adequate to meet CAA Section
175A requirements.
J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
1. Transportation Conformity
Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with
maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option are not subject to the
budget test, the areas remain subject to other transportation
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must
document and ensure that:
a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
In a letter to LRAPA dated October 3, 1994, EPA determined that the
Eugene-Springfield area met the criteria to be exempted from regional
emissions analysis for PM10 (Conformity Letter, dated
October 3, 1994). However, project level conformity requirements would
continue to apply to the area. With EPA's approval of the LMP, the area
continues to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis,
but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the
transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
2. 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. One way that this
requirement can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and
indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined
and documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the
applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with
all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the
emissions budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (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 different than
those used in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in
transportation conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions.
Emissions budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up
to specified levels. Oregon has not chosen to include specific
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the
provisions of general conformity.
VI. Revisions to SIP Rules To Reflect Redesignation
In the submittal, Oregon included revisions to Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) and LRAPA rules in the SIP to reflect the
redesignation of the Eugene-Springfield area. In this action, EPA is
approving changes to OAR Chapter 340, Division 204 Designation of Air
Quality Areas, Rule 0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas and Rule
0040 Designation of Maintenance Areas to remove Eugene-Springfield from
the list of PM10 nonattainment areas and add the area to the
list of PM10 maintenance areas. In addition, EPA is
approving minor editorial changes to OAR Chapter 340, Division 204
Designation of Air Quality Areas, Rule 0010 Definitions to consistently
refer to the Eugene-Springfield ``Urban Growth Boundary'' rather than
the Eugene-Springfield ``Urban Growth Area.'' EPA is taking no action
on OAR Chapter 340, Division 200 General Air Pollution Procedures and
Definitions, Rule 0040 State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation
Plan because this rule describes the State's procedures for adopting
its SIP and incorporates by reference all of the revisions adopted by
the Environmental Quality Council for approval into the Oregon SIP (as
a matter of state law). This is not what is actually approved by EPA as
the Federally-enforceable SIP for Oregon, so we are therefore taking no
action on it.
EPA is also approving changes to LRAPA Title 29 Designation of Air
Quality Areas, Section 29-0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas and
Section 29-0040 Designation of
[[Page 21554]]
Maintenance Areas to remove Eugene-Springfield from the list of
PM10 nonattainment areas and add the area to the list of
PM10 maintenance areas. In addition, EPA is approving minor
editorial changes to LRAPA Title 29, Designation of Air Quality Areas,
Section 29-0010 Definitions to refer to the Eugene-Springfield ``Urban
Growth Boundary'' rather than the Eugene-Springfield ``Urban Growth
Area.''
Finally, EPA is approving changes to LRAPA Title 32 Emission
Standards, Section 32-060 Air Conveying Systems and Section 32-065
Sulfur Content of Fuels to ensure the requirements of these rules
continue to apply to the Eugene-Springfield area after redesignation.
VII. Final Action
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the LMP submitted by
the State of Oregon for the Eugene-Springfield NAA and concurrently
redesignate the area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA
has reviewed air quality data for the area and determined that the
Eugene-Springfield NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the
required attainment date, and that air monitoring data continue to show
attainment. Also in this action, EPA is approving revisions to rules in
the State's Federally-approved SIP to reflect the redesignation. EPA is
approving this revision to the SIP because it meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 10, 2013
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
May 13, 2013.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on June 10, 2013 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule.
VIII. Oregon Notice Provision
Oregon Revised Statute 468.126 prohibits ODEQ from imposing a
penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the
source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the
violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance
schedule within that five day period. By its terms, the statute does
not apply to Oregon's Title V program or to any program if application
of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal
delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application
of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP,
no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 10, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 21555]]
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 24, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Note: This document was received by the Office of the Federal
Register on April 5, 2013.
40 CFR part 52 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)(155) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1970 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(155) On January 13, 2012, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality submitted the Eugene-Springfield PM10 Limited
Maintenance Plan and requested redesignation of the Eugene-Springfield
nonattainment area to attainment for the PM10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The State also submitted revisions to
rules in the Federally-approved SIP to reflect the requested
redesignation. The State's Limited Maintenance Plan, redesignation
request, and rule revisions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) The following revised sections of the Oregon Administrative
Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, effective December 21, 2011: Division 204,
Designation of Air Quality Areas: Rule 0010 Definitions; Rule 0030
Designation of Nonattainment Areas; and Rule 0040 Designation of
Maintenance Areas.
(B) Letter from Merlyn Hough, dated January 8, 2013, certifying
that Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) adopted LRAPA
provisions from Titles 29 and 32 on September 26, 2011 as described in
the LRAPA Board meeting minutes.
(C) Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) Board meeting
minutes, dated September 26, 2011.
(D) The following revised sections of the Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency (LRAPA) Rules, Title 29 Designation of Air Quality
Areas, adopted September 26, 2011: Section 29-0010 Definitions (except
paragraphs 1 through 5, and 7 through 14); Section 29-0030 Designation
of Nonattainment Areas; and Section 29-0040 Designation of Maintenance
Areas.
(E) The following revised sections of the Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency (LRAPA) Rules Title 32 Emission Standards, adopted
September 26, 2011: Section 32-060 Air Conveying Systems; and Section
32-065 Sulfur Content of Fuels (except paragraphs 1 and 2).
0
3. Section 52.1973 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1973 Approval of plans.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) EPA approves as a revision to the Oregon State Implementation
Plan, the Eugene-Springfield PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan
adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission on December 15,
2011 and submitted to EPA on January 13, 2012.
* * * * *
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
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 ``Eugene/Springfield (the Urban Growth Boundary
area)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.338 Oregon.
* * * * *
Oregon--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Eugene/Springfield (the Urban 6/10/13 Attainment........... .............. .....................
Growth Boundary area).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-08394 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P