United States
Environmental Protection
Agency ,
Office Of Air Quality
Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA452/R-02-004
November 2001
Air
Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean
Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington
-------
-------
EPA-452/R-Q2-004
Federal Implementation Plans
Under the Clean Air Act
for Indian Reservations
in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Executive Summary ES-1
1 Introduction j_ -,
1.1 Agency Requirements for an EIA ...': ...!.. 1-2
1.2 Scope and Purpose 1-2
1.3 Organization of the Report 1_3
2 Profiles of Indian Reservations and Trust Lands 2-1
2.1 Burns Paiute 2-2
2.2 Chehalis 2-2
2.3 Coeur d'Alene 2-5
2.4 Colville ., 2-7
2.5 Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
Siuslaw Indians ' ' 2-8
2.6 Coquille Indian Tribal Community 2-11
2.7 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 2-12
2.8 Grand Ronde 2-13
2.10 Jamestown S'Klallam '.'.'.'.'.'. 2-15
2.11 Kalispel 2-15
2.12 Klamath 2-17
2.13 Kootenai 2_17
2.14 LowerElwha S'Klallam ............,.......[.. 2-18
2.15 Lummi 2_is
2.16 Makah 2_20
2.17 Muckleshoot 2-21
2.18 NezPerce 2-23
2.19 Nisqually . " 2_23
2.20 Nooksack 2_26
2.21 Port Gamble S'Klallam \.. ]........ 2-26
2.22 Puyallup 2_27
2.23 Quileute 2-27
in
-------
2.24 Quinault 2-28
2.25 Samish 2-29
2.26 Sauk-Suiattle 2-29
2.27 Shoalwater Bay 2-30
2.28 Shoshone-Bannock (Fort Hall Reservation) 2-30
2.29 Siletz 2-31
2.30 Skokomish :....... 2-33
2.31 Snoqualmie 2-34
2.32 Spokane 2-34
2.33 Squaxin Island Reservation 2-35
2.34 Stillaquamish .... 2-37
2.35 Suquamish (Port Madison Reservation) 2-37
2.36 Swinomish 2-38
2.37 Tulalip Reservation * 2-40
2.38 Umatffla 2-42
2.39 Upper Skagit Reservation 2-44
2.40 Warm Springs 2-45
2.41 Yakama Reservation 2-46
3 Profiles of Affected Industries 3-1
3.1 Utilities (SIC 49/NAICS 221, 562,486) 3-1
3.2 Wood Product Manufacturing (SIC 24/NAICS 321) 3-2
3.3 Agricultural Production—Crops (SIC 01/NAICS 111) 3-3
3.4 Mining (except oil and gas) (SIC 14/NAICS 212) : 3-4
3.5 Gasoline Stations (SIC 55/NAICS 447) 3-4
3.6 Food Manufacturing (SIC 20/NAICS 311) 3-6
3.7 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (SIC 29/NAICS 324) ... 3-6
3.8 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods (SIC 51/NAICS 422) 3-7
3.9 Repair and Maintenance (SIC 75/NAICS 811) ' 3-8
4 Information Collection-Costs 4-1
4.1 Labor Costs for Basic Rules 4-2
4.1.1 Visible Emissions (49.124) 4-3
4.1.2 Particulate Matter (49.125) 4-4
4.1.3 Fugitive Particulate Matter (49.126) 4-4'
4.1.4 Sulfur Dioxide (49.129) 4-6
4.1.5 Sulfur Content of Fuels (49.130) * 4-6
4.1.6 Open Burning (49.131) 4-7
4.1.7 Registration of Air Pollution Sources/Reporting of
Emissions (49.138) 4-8
4.1.8 Operating Permits for Non-Title V Sources (49.139) 4-9
IV
-------
4.2 Nonlabor Costs for Basic Rules 4.9
4.2.1 Visible Emissions (49.124) '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."" 4-10
4.2.2 Particulate Matter (49.125) , 4_u
4.2.3 Sulfur Dioxide (49.129) 4-12
4.3 Costs for Additional Rules 4_j2
4.3.1 Woodwaste Burners (49.127) .....].] 4-13
4.3.2 Rules for Burning Permits (49.132) 4_13
4.3.3 Rules for Agricultural Burning Permits (49.133) 4.14
4.3.4 Rules for Forestry Burning Permits (49.134) 4.14
4.4 Total Costs "" 4_16
5 Economic Impact Analysis 5_ j
5.1 Overview of Economic Modeling Approaches 5_1
5.1.1 Behavioral Approach 5_2
5.1.2 Nonbehavioral Approach 5.5
5.1.3 Selected Modeling Approach for Region 10 Tribal
Air Rules Analysis 5_6
5.2 Economic Impact Methodology 5-7
5.2.1 Facility-Level Control Costs !. 5-8
5.2.2 Facility-Level Revenue 5.9
5.2.3 Facility- and Company-Level Cost-to-Sales Ratios 5-10
5.3 Economic Impact Analysis 5-11
6 Small Entity and Environmental Justice Impact Determinations 6-1
6.1 Identification of Small Entities 6_2
6.2 Screening-Level Analysis 6_3
6.2.1. Small Businesses ; 6-5
6.2.2 Small Government Impacts g_5
6.2.3 Facilities Owned by Unidentified Entities 6-5
6.2.4 Assessment g_7
6.3 Environmental Justice Statement 5.7
References r, t
• •K"*
Appendixes
A Summary of Tribal Air Rules A_}
B The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code Matched to the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code B-l
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
5-1 Supply Curves for Facilities 5_2
5-2 Market Equilibrium Without and With Regulation 5.4
VI
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
'age
2-1 Tribal Land Holdings and Demographic Information 2-3
2-2 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Coeur d'Alene Tribal Lands .. 2-6
2-3 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Coeur d'Alene Tribal Lands ... 2-7
2-4 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Colville Tribal Lands 2-9
2-5 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Colville Tribal Lands 2-10
2-6 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Coquille Tribal Lands 2-11
2-7 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Coquille Tribal Lands 2-12
2-8 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Cow Creek Band of Umpqua
Tribal Lands 2-12
2-9 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribal
Lands 9 13
2-10 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Grand Ronde Tribal Lands 2-14
2-11 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Grand Ronde Tribal Lands '..'. 2-14
2-12 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Kalispel Tribal Lands 2-16
2-13 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Kalispel Tribal Lands 2-16
2-14 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Lummi Tribal Lands 2-19
2-15 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Lummi Tribal Lands 2-19
2-16 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Makah Tribal Lands 2-20
2-17 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Makah Tribal Lands 2-21
2-18 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Muckleshoot Tribal Lands . . 2-22
2-19 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Muckleshoot Tribal Lands 2-22
2-20 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Nez Perce Tribal Lands 2-24
2-21 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Nez Perce Tribal Lands 2-25
2-22 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Quinault Tribal Lands 2-28
2-23 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Quinault Tribal Lands 2-29
2-24 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Shoshone-Bannock (Fort Hall
Reservation) Tribal Lands 2-31
2-25 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Lands .. 2-32
2-26 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Siletz Tribal Lands 2-33
2-27 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Siletz Tribal Lands .: 2-33
Vll
-------
2-28 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Spokane Tribal Lands 2-35
2-29 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Spokane Tribal Lands 2-36
2-30 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Squaxin Island Tribal Lands 2-36
2-31 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Squaxin Island Tribal Lands 2-37
2-32 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Suquamish (Port Madison) Tribal
Lands 2-38
2-33 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Suquamish (Port Madison) Tribal
Lands , 2-39
2-34 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Swinomish Tribal Lands 2-40
2-35 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Swinomish Tribal Lands 2-40
2-36 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Tulalip Tribal Lands 2-41
2-37 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Tulalip Tribal Lands 2-42
2-38 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Umatilla Tribal Lands .., 2-43
2-39 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Umatilla Tribal Lands 2-44
•2-40 Potentially Affected Facility Located on Upper Skagit Tribal Lands 2-45
2-41 Rules Applying to Facility Located on Upper Skagit Tribal Lands 2-45
2-42 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Warm Springs Tribal Lands 2-46
2-43 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Warm Springs Tribal Lands 2-47
2-44 Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Yakama Tribal Lands 2-48
2-45 Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Yakama Tribal Lands 2-51
3-1 Selected Industry Statistics for Utilities (NAICS 221, 562,486): 1997 3-2
3-2 Selected Industry Statistics for Wood Product Manufacturing
(NAICS 321): 1997 .3-3
3-3 Selected Industry Statistics for Agricultural Production
(NAICS 111): 1997 3-4
3-4 Selected Industry Statistics for Mining (except oil and gas) (NAICS 212):
1997 .' i 3-5
3-5 Selected Industry Statistics for Gasoline Stations (NAICS 447): 1997 ...... 3-5
3-6 Selected Industry Statistics for Food Manufacturing (NAICS 311): 1997 '.... 3-7
3-7 Selected Industry Statistics for Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing (NAICS 324): 1997 .3-7
3-8 Selected Industry Statistics for Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods
(NAICS 422): 1997 3-8
3-9 Selected Industry Statistics for Repair and Maintenance
(NAICS 811): 1997 ." 3-9
4-1 Labor Costs per Facility for the Visible Emissions Rule (49.124) (1999$) 4-4
4-2 Labor Costs per Facility for the Particulate Matter Rule (49.125) (1999$) 4-5
vni
-------
4-3 Labor Costs per Respondent for the Fugitive Paniculate Matter Rule
(49.126) (1999$) 4-6
4-4 Labor Costs per Facility for the Sulfur Dioxide Rule (49.129) (1999$) ...... 4-7
4-5 Labor Costs per Facility for the Sulfur in Fuels Rule (49.130) (1999$) ..4-7
4-6 Labor Costs per Respondent for the Open Burning Rule (49.131) (1999$) ... 4-8
a 4-7 Labor Costs per Facility for the Registration Rule (49.138) (1999$) 4-10
4-8 Labor Costs per Facility for the Operating Permits Rule (49.139) (1999$) ..4-11
4, 4-9 Nonlabor Costs per Facility for the Visible Emissions Rule (49 124)
(1999$) .... _ 4_n
4-10 Nonlabor Costs per Facility for the Particulate Matter Rule (49 125)
(1999$).... .......4-12
4-11 Nonlabor Costs per Facility for the Sulfur Dioxide Rule (49.129) (1999$) 4-12
4-12 Labor Costs per Facility for the Woodwaste Burners Rule (49 127)
(1999$) 4_13
4-13 Labor Costs per Facility for the Open Burning Permits Rules (49 132)
(1999$)........ ; 4_14
4-14 Labor Costs per Facility for the Agricultural Burning Permits Rules
(49.133) (1999$) 4_15
4-15 Labor Costs per Facility for the Forestry Burning Permits Rules (49 134)
(1999$) ; 4_15
4-16 Total Cost of the Tribal Air Rules (1999$) 4_17
5-1 Facility-Level Economic Impacts by Reservation: 1999 5-12
5-2 Profitability Measures for Potentially Affected Industries: 1997 5-14
6-1 Potentially Affected Facilities Owned by Governmental Jurisdictions 6-3
6-2 Potentially Affected Facilities with Unknown Ownership 6-4
6-3 Summary Statistics for SBREFA Screening Analysis 6-6
IX
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
~ (EPA) broad authority to protect air resources throughout the nation, including the air resources on
*•' Indian reservations. To meet this commitment to protect human health and air quality resources, EPA
*- Region 10 is proposing gap-filling rules for Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
The proposed rules will regulate activities, pollutants, and sources by supplementing the existing
Federal regulatory programs. These rules will provide regulatory tools for use by EPA Region 10 in
implementing the CAA on Indian reservations, in addition to the regulations already established by
EPA. This report evaluates the economic impacts resulting from the proposed rules.
The rules being proposed are divided into basic and additional.rules as follows:
Basic Rules
Section 49.124
Section 49.125
Section 49.126
Section 49.129
Section 49.130
Section 49.131
Section 49.135
Section 49.137
Section 49.138
Section 49.139
Visible emissions
Paniculate matter
Fugitive particulate matter
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur content of fuels
Open burning
.Emissions detrimental to human health and welfare
Air pollution episodes
Registration of air pollution sources and reporting of emissions
Rules for Non-Title V operating permits
Additional Rules
Section 49.127 .Woodwaste burners
Particulate matter emissions from wood products industry sources
Open burning permits
Agricultural burning permits
Forestry burning permits
Emissions detrimental to persons or property, cultural and traditional resources
Section 49.128
Section 49.132
Section 49.133
Section 49.134
Section 49.136
The total annualized cost of compliance for the basic rules is estimated to be $ 134,282 and the
total cost of compliance for the additional rules is estimated to be $22,928, for a total of $157,211.
EPA's analysis of this rule shows there is not a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
ES-1
-------
There are ten basic rules being proposed for all of the reservations located in Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington and six additional rules that will only be proposed on reservations where a Tribe's
authorized representative requests in writing to have these rules apply on their reservation.
Information collection request (ICR) costs have been estimated for eight of these rules (49.124,
49.125,49.126,49.129,49.130,49.131,49.138, 49.139). The other two basic rules (49.135, 49.137)
were determined not to require an ICR cost estimation, as explained in more detail in Appendix A.
Six additional rules (49.127,49.128,49.132,49.133,49.134, 49.136) .will only be proposed on
reservations where a Tribe's authorized representative requests in writing to have these rules apply
on their reservation. As of December 2000, EPA Region 10 has received requests for additional
rules from three Tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho has requested all six of the additional rules,
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation of Oregon have requested four of the six rules
(49.132,49.133,49.134,49.136), and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in
Washington have requested two of the six rules (49.127,49.128). ICR costs have been estimated for
four of the six additional rules (49.127,49.132,49.133,49.134) based on information supplied by the
Tribes requesting the additional rules. For the other two additional rules (49.128, 49.136), EPA
determined that estimating ICR costs was unnecessary, as described in Appendix A.
There are 41 Federally recognized American Indian tribes located in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington, although only 39 currently have reservations. Region 10 has previously conducted
studies to identify the air pollution sources on reservation lands of these tribes! Industrial sources of
air pollution were found on the reservations of 18 tribes, while four additional reservations were
identified as potentially having sources of air pollution from facilities located on the reservation.1 For
each facility, identified as potentially affected by any of the proposed rules, the specific rules believed
to apply to that facility were assigned based on EPA Region 10 professional judgment.2 A total of
187 potentially affected facilities were identified on Region 10 reservations. Of that total, costs were
assigned to 166 facilities. The other 21 facilities were categorized as potentially affected, but no costs
JFor example, some of the reservations have casinos that may use diesel generators for backup power, but it is
"not known which (if any) of the casinos have these pollution sources and which do not.
2Only the basic rules were assigned to individual facilities. The additional rule for woodwaste burners (49.127)
was estimated by the tribal air specialist of the Nez PerceTribe of Idaho to apply to five facilities on their
reservation, but the facilities were not individually identified. The other additional rules that had costs
associated with them (49.132,49.133, and 49.134) are rules for obtaining permits for three categories of open
burning. These rules apply primarily to unidentified farmers and large landowners, not the identified
facilities on the reservations.
ES-2
-------
were estimated for this group because it was unknown whether they would actually incur costs due to
a lack of detailed information about these facilities.
In addition to the costs incurred by the individually identified facilities located on the *
reservations in EPA Region 10, two of the basic rules will affect entities other than the identified
facilities that are air pollution sources. The basic Rules for Limiting Fugitive Particulate Matter
Emissions (49.126) will apply to construction and demolition contractors conducting projects on the
reservations, and the General Rules for Open Burning (49.131) will apply to fire protection services
requesting permission to burn houses for training purposes. It was assumed that there will be one
construction/demolition project per year per reservation and one request per year per reservation for .
permission to burn a house for fire protection services training.
None of the additional rules were assigned to a particular facility. Estimated costs for these
rules for the reservations that requested them were generated based on estimates of the number of
individuals that would be affected by each of the rules. These estimates were provided by Tribal air
quality specialists and EPA Region 10. The individual entities that would be affected could not be
identified, but the costs associated with each of the additional rules were calculated at the individual
respondent level and the EPA Region 10 level.
For the purposes of generating cost estimates for each of the proposed rules, EPA assumed
that there will be no capital costs incurred under any of these rules. EPA makes this assumption
because the unique nature of this rule—sources are believed to be complying in the absence of the
rule because they thought they were subject to State and local (S/L) rules—makes it difficult to
establish a counterfactual baseline showing what sources would be doing had they realized they were
not subject to those rules. In working with the State, local, and Tribal authorities, as well as the
businesses and other entities affected by these rules, EPA has learned that S/L authorities have
generally implemented their air quality programs throughout their designated land areas, including
reservation lands. In most cases, sources located on fcidian reservations have installed or upgraded
pollution controls to comply with S/L rules. This has occurred despite the fact that EPA.is on record
that, pursuant to the CAA, S/L requirements do not extend onto Indian reservations absent explicit
Congressional authority. The net result is that EPA expects most sources affected by the proposed
air quality rules already have sufficient control equipment to enable them to attain and maintain
compliance with the proposed rules. EPA does not anticipate facilities adding control devices as a
result of these rules. . . .
In addition, EPA has not estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to comply with
these rules because EPA would need, at a minimum, extensive data on the type of controls in place at
ES-3
-------
each facility as well as facility output. At the time of this analysis, such data are only available for
one of the rules for a small subset of affected firms. EPA believes that O&M costs should be
considered, but insufficient data were available to estimate them. O&M cost estimates based on
information gathered from comments on the proposal will be included in the analysis for the final rule.
Thus, the costs estimated for these rules are primarily the labor costs associated with record
keeping and reporting under the regulations. In addition, for the purposes of the cost estimation, it
was assumed that some sources will incur nonlabor costs to train visible emissions readers (under
Rule 49.124) or perform source tests (under Rules 49.126 or 49.129) to ensure compliance, although
these actions are not required by the proposed rules.3 For the analysis, costs for both the basic rules
and the additional rules were estimated. For the basic rules, the annualized labor and non-labor costs
were estimated to be $117,182 and $17,100, respectively, while incremental capital costs and
incremental O&M costs were assumed to be zero. As mentioned above, there may be some O&M
costs associated with continued compliance with the rules, but there were insufficient data to estimate
the magnitude of these costs. Thus, the total estimated cost associated with the basic rules is
$134,282.
The additional rules apply only on reservations where EPA, in consultation with the Tribes,
has determined that they are appropriate. Cost estimates for the additional rules only account for
costs on those reservations for which EPA has proposed additional rules. The additional rules were
estimated to have annualized labor costs of $22,928, while non-labor costs, incremental capital costs,
and incremental O&M costs were each assumed to equal zero, for a total of $22,928. Overall,
annualized labor costs were estimated to be $140,111, annualized non-labor costs were estimated to
be $17,100, incremental capital costs are assumed to be zero, and incremental O&M costs are
assumed to be zero for a total estimated cost of $157,211.
The proposed rules to control air pollution sources on Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington will affect a variety of industries in these regions. Implementation of the proposed
rules will increase the costs of production at affected facilities. However, the increased costs as a
result of these rules are estimated to be insignificant. Therefore, to develop quantitative estimates of
the economic impacts of the rule, EPA employed a nonbehavioral approach where the impacts of the
regulation are simply assumed to fall oh the entities owning the facilities faced with the compliance
It was assumed that only Title V sources would ever require training of visible emissions readers or the
performance of source tests because these sources tend to be the largest facilities on the Indian
reservations. Thus, it is expected that they would be more likely to voluntarily incur the costs associated
with these actions.
ES-4
-------
responsibilities. EPA believes this approach is reasonable given limited market data and extremely
small regulatory costs.
To measure the size of the economic impact, a simple "sales test" was performed. This test
computes annualized compliance costs as a percentage of sales for each affected facility, known as
the cost-to-sales ratio (CSR). Because it is not known which individual facilities will incur costs
expected to apply to a fraction of the affected facilities, the CSR for each facility was calculated as if
. the maximum cost for that facility under the proposed rules would apply, implying that all facility-level
results are from a worst-case scenario. This method will overstate the impacts on individual facilities
that do not actually incur the maximum costs. CSR for these rules are relatively low, even under the
worst-case scenario. There are no facilities with a CSR greater than 3 percent and only one facility
with a CSR above 1 percent. Among the 18 reservations with estimated costs, the highest average
CSR for any reservation is 0.12 percent.
For the affected entities other than the identified facilities, the tosts are so low that it is
extremely unlikely that there will be any significant impact on these entities. The CSR for contractors
affected by Rule 49.126 was estimated as 0.04 percent of sales based on the average value of
shipments per establishment for contractors in Oregon and Washington.4 Fire protection services are
estimated to incur an annual cost of $51 under Rule 49.131, while permit applicants under additional
Rules 49.132, 49.133, and 49.134 (on reservations that request these rules) are estimated to incur
annual costs of $38 and facilities that must dismantle their woodwaste burners under additional Rule
49.127 are estimated to incur annualized costs of $43. The affected entities would have to have
revenues of less than $5,100, $3,800, and $4,300, respectively, for the CSR to be above 1 percent of
sales,5 which is extremely unlikely.
The small business impacts of the rule are minimal. EPA identified 125 small companies that
own 134 facilities, or 72 percent of all potentially affected facilities. Ten large companies own 13
facilities, or 7 percent of the total. Eighteen facilities, or 10 percent of all potentially affected facilities
were assumed to be owned by small governmental jurisdictions. Ownership for 20 facilities (11
percent) could not be determined, but it is likely that small firms own these facilities. A simple "sales
test," in which the annualized compliance costs under a worst-case scenario are computed as a share
of sales for affected companies or governmental jurisdictions, shows that the average total annual
4Data were unavailable for Idaho, but the value based on Oregon and Washington was assumed to be
representative of Idaho as well.
A CSR of 1 percent is typically used as a lower bound for significance of regulatory impacts.
ES-5
-------
compliance cost (TACC) was projected to be roughly $1,000 per small company. The average
(median) CSR is 0.05 (0.01) percent for the identified small businesses with sales data. One small
business is projected to be potentially affected at the 1 to 3 percent level. No small companies are
affected at or above 3 percent of sales. In addition, all 18 facilities potentially owned by small
governmental jurisdictions are affected at less than 0.10 percent of sales, and the average cost per
facility is estimated to be less than $1,400 per year. All 20 facilities potentially owned by small
companies were affected at less than 0.15 percent of sales, and the average cost per facility is
estimated to be approximately $700 per year.
In addition to the identified facilities, there are other individuals that may be affected by one
or more of the basic or additional rules, such as fire protection services, contractors, and citizens
conducting open burns. Because no information is available on these affected entities, it was
assumed that all of them are small entities. However, the costs to these groups are negligible, as.
discussed above. Based on these results, the Agency certifies that the rule will not impose a
significant Impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Finally, the proposed rales are specifically targeted to areas where a disproportionate
percentage of the health and environmental benefits will flow to disadvantaged people. Therefore, no
environmental justice concern is associated with this rale because it will improve human health and
environmental conditions of American Indians in Region 10.
ES-6
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) broacUuthority to protect air resources throughout the nation, including the ah" resources on
Indian reservations and other areas under the jurisdiction of Indian Tribes. Based on the specific
language of Sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA, EPA promulgated a final rule, entitled
"Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management," on February 12,1998,63 FR 7254. The
rule, generally referred to as the "Tribal Authority Rule" (TAR), establishes how EPA can approve
Tribal eligibility applications for "treatment in the same manner as a State" (commonly referred to as
"TAS") under CAA authorities on Indian reservations.
In the TAR, EPA stated its intention to use its authority under the CAA "to protect air
quality throughout Indian country" by directly implementing the CAA's requirements where Tribes
have chosen not to develop or implement a program. EPA wrote in the final rule that it would
"promulgate without unreasonable delay such Federal implementation plans (FIP) provisions as
appropriate to protect air quality."
To meet this commitment to protect human health and air quality resources, Region 10 is
proposing gap-filling rules for Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. These rules
are intended to fill the gap in current regulations until individual Tribes develop and implement
approved Tribal implementation plans (TIP). These rules will regulate activities, pollutants, and
sources by supplementing the existing Federal regulatory programs, such as the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD), National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) programs. These rules are
intended to provide regulatory tools for use by Region 10 in implementing the CAA in Indian
reservations, in addition to the regulations already established by EPA.
1-1
-------
1.1 Agency Requirements for an EIA
Congress and the Executive Office have imposed statutory and administrative requirements
for conducting economic analyses to accompany regulatory actions. Section 317 of the CAA .
specifically requires estimation of the cost and economic impacts for'specific regulations and
standards proposed under the authority of the Act. In addition, Executive Order (EO) 12866
requires a more comprehensive analysis of benefits and costs for proposed significant regulatory
actions.1 Other statutory and administrative requirements include examination of the composition
and distribution of benefits and costs. For example, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
requires EPA to consider the economic impacts of regulatory actions on small entities. The Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has developed the OAQPS Economic Analysis
Resource Document, which provides detailed instructions and expectations for economic analyses
performed by this office that support such rulemakings (EPA, 1999).
1.2 Scope and Purpose
The CAA's purpose is to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources
(Section 101(b)), including those resources on Indian reservations. This report evaluates the
economic impacts of proposed rules regulating air pollution sources on Indian reservations in Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington.
These proposed rules will apply to air pollution sources in the exterior boundaries of the
Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, as specifically identified in 40 CFR Part 49,
Subpart M Implementation Plans for Tribes—Region X. The rules will apply to any person or
organization who owns or operates an air pollution source on Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon,
or,Washington. Rules of general applicability will regulate emissions of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide from combustion and process sources, sources of visible emissions, and sources of fugitive
dust. Additional rules will control particulate matter emissions from wood waste burners2 and
'Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance under EO 12866 stipulates that a full benefit-cost analysis
is required only for economically significant actions (i.e., when the regulatory action has an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more).
nThese wood waste burners were formerly known as "wigwam burners" in the Pacific Northwest.
1-2
-------
certain wood product industry sources. The rules will regulate open burning and will include
provisions to require permits for open burns, agricultural burns, and forestry burns. The rules will
also provide the Regional Administrator with the authority to impose restrictions on emissions "
during periods of impaired air quality and to address localized air quality problems when emissions
from sources are detrimental to people or property. Finally, the rules will require registration of
; many stationary sources of air pollution and will provide the opportunity for small (non-Title V)
stationary sources to have operating permits. The proposed regulations are summarized in more
detail in Appendix A.
1.3 Organization of the Report
The remainder of this report is divided into five sections that profile the affected entities,
describe the methodology, and present the results of this analysis:
• Section 2 provides brief profiles of the Indian reservations and trust lands located in
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington and lists the potentially affected facilities that have
been identified on each reservation or trust land area.
• Section 3 profiles the industries with the largest number of affected facilities and
presents data on the number of establishments, value of shipments, and employment by
two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAlCS) codes for the three
States in Region 10 with facilities that are affected by the rule.
• Section 4 reviews the estimated costs of compliance with the proposed regulations.
• Section 5. describes the methodology for assessing the economic impacts of the
proposed air quality rules and presents the results of the economic analysis.
• Section 6 provides the Agency's analysis of the regulations' impact on small businesses.
In addition to these sections, Appendix A summarizes the proposed rules, and Appendix B
provides a table showing the conversion of facility SIC codes to the corresponding NAICS codes
used for this analysis. ..
1-3
-------
-------
SECTION2
PROFILES OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS AND TRUST LANDS
EPA Region 10 includes the States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. In this
area, there are 268 Federally recognized American Indian Tribes comprising about 40 percent of
all Indian Tribes in the United States (EPA Region 10,2000). The great majority of these Tribes
(227) are located in Alaska. However, only one reservation exists in Alaska, the Annette Island
Reserve where the Metlakatla Indian community is located. Additional Indian reservations in
Alaska include at least three Alaskan native villages (Kake, Klawotk, and Angoon) with some trust
lands, and individual Alaska native allotment lands (approximately 1.5 million acres spread over
15,000 individual parcels). EPA is working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to complete
the mapping of Alaska Indian reservations. Once the extent and location of Indian reservations are
known, air quality characterizations and subsequent assessments of the need for rules can be
initiated. Region 10 anticipates that Alaska conditions may warrant a completely different array of
rules. Hence, Alaska is not included in this rulemaking.
Region 10 has previously conducted studies to identify the air pollution sources on
reservation lands of the Tribes located in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Industrial sources of air
pollution were found on the reservations of 18 Tribes. Four additional reservations were identified
as potentially having sources of air pollution located in facilities on the reservations Brief
summaries of tribal activities on-reservation are provided below. The primary source for this
information is the publication "American Indian Reservations and Indian Trust Areas" (U S
Department of Commerce, 1996) also known as the Tiller's Guide.1 This source provides brief
profiles of each Indian reservation in the United States, including tribal land holdings, culture and
Reservations are ands validly set apart for the use of designated Tribes and held out as reservations by treaty
tfatoto, executive order, or administrative procedure. Trust lands are lands held by the U.S.
r In
. s e y e ..
tort far Indians, usually for a Tribe. The Federal government is the trustee; a Tribe or an fa
2-1
-------
history, economic infrastructure, and business enterprises. All information in the individual
reservation descriptions is drawn from this source unless otherwise noted. Table 2-1 summarizes
the information on tribal land holdings and demography for each reservation. The following sections
.describing each Tribe include a list of the facilities that are sources of air pollution that EPA has
identified on the Tribe's reservation lands and the specific rules believed to apply to them. Region
10 believes that the vast majority of existing sources are listed, although its records may not contain
every source to which these rules will apply. In particular, some facilities may have come into
operation since the source survey was conducted, and they will not appear on the list.
2.1 Burns Paiute -
The Burns Paiute tribal land holdings encompass approximately 11,500 acres in
southeastern/central Oregon. The Tribe's reservation contains 760 acres (EPA Region 10,2000).
Over 10,500 acres of the lands are individually owned. Traditionally, the Burns Paiute practiced a
subsistence pattern based on hunting, fishing, and gathering. Today, the economy of the reservation
is tied to agricultural activities, the lumber industry, and government service.
There are no identified facilities on this land subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.2 Chehalis
The Chehalis Reservation covers 4,125 acres in western Washington State and is about 30
miles southwest of the State capital of Olympia and at the juncture of the Black and Chehalis
Rivers. On this reservation, non-Indians own the majority of the lands. The two major Tribes living
on the reservation are the Lower Chehalis and the Upper Chehalis. Traditionally, the Chehalis
culture lived on the region's abundance of fish and forest. The Upper Chehalis relied on river-
based resources for their subsistence, while the Lower Chehalis depended on their ocean-based
assets. Today, the Tribes have three commercial fish farms that are not only generating profits for
the reservation but also enhancing the Chehalis River Basin. There are also some forestry, tree
farming, and harvesting activities on the reservation.
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. Tribal Land Holdings and Demographic Information"
Tribeb
Burns Paiute
Chehalis
;, Coeurd'Alene
Colville
Coos, Lower Urnpqua,
Siuslaw
Coquille
Cow Creek Band of
Umpqua
Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde
Hoh
Jamestown S'Klallam
Kalispel
Klamath
Kootenai
Lower Elwha S'Klallam
Lummi
Makah
Muckleshoot
Nez Perce
Nisqually
Nooksack
Port Gamble S'Klallam
Puyallup
Quileute
Quinault
Samish
Sauk-Suiattle
Shoalwater Bay
Shoshone-Bannock
Siletz
Skokomish
Snoqualmie
Spokane
Squaxin Island
=====
State
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Washington
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Washington
Washington
Washington
Oregon
Idaho
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Idaho
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington •
Washington
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
"" "~ ' ' iSS
Total Area0
(acres)
11,466
4,215
345,000
1,400,000
10
925
47
10,300
443
12
4,629
372
250
443
21,000
27,950
3,840
750,000
4,800
2,500
1,301
103
.700
208,150
0"
23
. 333
544,000
4,014
5,000
Oe
154,898
1,979
=====
Reservation
Population
247
871
1,588
4,929
594
346
447
5,298
97
641
, 170
2,633
150
1,149
4,648
1,753
3,521
1,839.
2,905
820
753
14,282
785
' 2,975
NA
120
743
6,365
1,778
1,333
NA
1,416
515
=^= "'. i .;ss
Tribal
Population
281
546
1,493
8,355
594
673
961
3,369
139
216
247
3,057
165
638
3,415
2,126
1,307
3,300
475
1,252
829
2,126
736
2,502
591
192
150
3,959
2,847
250
NA
2,139
579'
=====
Total
Reservation
Labor Force
41
412
412
3,081
•J-JQ .
*jjy
33
. 101
17.1
2,730
13
U
246
51
1,076
48
690
1,228
763
1,328
958
y>jo
1,205
213
494
4,438
281
1,231
NA
31
•J L
258
£*tJQ
1,551
760
/ \J\J
469
T^Ujli
NA '
J.1^T^
768
334
2-3
-------
Table 2-1. Tribal Land Holdings and Demographic Information8 (continued)
Tribeb
Stillaquamish
Suquamish
Swinomish
Tulalip
Umatilla
Upper Skagit
Wann Springs
Yakama
State
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Washington
Total Areac
(acres)
NA
7,486
7,169
11,500
172,140
250
643,570
1,372,000
Reservation
Population
1,476
1,032
959
4,549
2,154
610
2,885
15,968
Total
•Tribal Reservation
Population Labor Force
237
806
629
2,939
1,855
619
3,610
8,624
456
471
448
1,079
832
302
890
5,326
NA = Not available
1 Disclaimer—The numbers cited in Table 2-1 are from the Department of Commerce report, not from EPA
primary research. In cases where EPA Region 10 information varies significantly from a reported number, this
is noted in the description of the individual Tribe. The data characterized as EPA Region 10 information is not
a legal conclusion, but represents information available to EPA Region 10 at the time this analysis was
prepared. .
b All of the Tribes are located on reservations of the same name except for the Shoshone-Bannock, who live on
the Fort Hall reservation, and the Suquamish, who live on the Port Madison reservation.
c The reader is referred to the guide itself for more detailed descriptions on tribal land holdings. EPA Region 10
data vary from that reported here in some cases.
d This Tribe is a Federally recognized Tribe that owns no land at this time but has declared a site near
Anacortes, WA, as a possible site for them to purchase. They maintain an office in Anacortes, WA, currently
and are in the process of establishing their tribal government offices (U.S. Department of Interior,- 2000).
* The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally recognized in October 1999. The Snoqualmie have no land at this
time but have declared the Snoqualmie Valley as a possible site for purchase. They maintain an office in Fall
City, WA, and are in the process of establishing their tribal government offices (U.S. Department of Interior,
2000).
Sources: Indian Health Service. 1999. "Portland Area IHS." . As obtained on September 27,2000.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996. American Indian Reservations and Indian Trust Areas.
Washington, DC. Also available online at .
, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1995. "Indian Service Population and Labor
Force Estimates." Washington, DC. . As obtained on
September 5,2000.
U.S. Department of Interior. 2000a. "Samish Indian Nation." . As obtained on September 27,2000.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000b. "Snoqualmie Indian Tribe." . As obtained on November 1,2000.
2-4
-------
The tribal government directly employs a number of tribal members in its administrative and
operational services. Some tribal members are employed by the Tribe's bingo operation, which
brings in a steadily increasing number of visitors to the reservation. In addition, non-Indians own a
dairy farm and an egg farm on the reservation that also generate significant revenues and
employment.
There are no identified facilities on this land subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.3 Coeur d'Alene
The Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation covers approximately 345,000 acres in the Idaho
panhandle, about 40 miles southwest of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The Coeur d'Alene are a Salishan-
speaking Tribe; they traditionally hunted buffalo on the Montana Plains, fished for salmon.at
Spokane Falls, and dug for cams and other wild root crops near Kalispel and present-day Palouse.
The reservation contains over 180,000 acres of forested land on which a limited amount of timber
harvesting is allowed. In addition, the region is rich in streams, rivers, and lakes, most of which
provide excellent recreational fishing.
The reservation hosts several businesses, such as the Development Enterprise, the Coeur
d'Alene Tribal Gaming Facility, and Pacific Crown Timber Products. The Tribe operates the
Development Enterprise, a small grains farm established in 1970 that generates significant income
for the tribal government. The Coeur d'Alene Tribal Gaming Facility is generating considerable
tribal revenue and employment as well. The largest private employer of tribal members in this
region is Pacific Crown Timber Products, but many people are also employed in the construction
industry. Despite some growth in industry, the largest employer on the reservation is the tribal
government that employs about 480 people. Tourism and recreational activities are popular in this
area, so the Coeur d'Alene are considering developing a resort on the reservation.
This reservation includes 15 identified facilities that are potentially affected by the proposed
air quality rules. The affected facilities include lumber mills, fertilizer handling plants, grain elevators,
gas stations, a landfill, a wood-burning co-generation plant, and a gravel pit. Table 2-2 provides
the names of the facilities, the corresponding Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North
2-5
-------
Table 2-2. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Coeur d'Alene Tribal Lands
Facility Name
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
AG West Petroleum 5172 42
Claude's Paint Shop and Auto 7532 81
Body Repair
Fertilizer Handling Plants (1) 5191 42
Fertilizer Handling Plants (2) 5191 42
Forest Products Inc. 24 31-33
Gravel Pit, Property of State of 1442 21
Idaho
Meridith's Repair 5541,7538 44-45,81
Potlatch Corporation-Saint 2436 31-33
Maries
Prairie Grain Inc. 5153 42
Prairie Grain Inc. 5153 42
Pruitt Petroleum 5172 42
Rayonier Inland Wood 2421 32
Products
Rockford Grain Growers, Inc. 5153 42
Seeds Inc. ' 5191 42
St. Maries Oil 5172 42
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Wholesalers, Except Bulk Stations
and Terminals
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Farm Supplies
Farm Supplies
Lumber and Wood Products
Construction Sand and Gravel
Gasoline Service Stations
Softwood Veneer and Plywood
Grain and Field Beans
Grain and Field Beans
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Wholesalers, Except Bulk Stations
and Terminals
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Cash Grains, NEC
Farm Supplies
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Wholesalers, Except Bulk Stations
and Terminals
* Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2-6
-------
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes,2 and the industries of interest,
Table 2-3 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
2.4 Colville
The Colville Reservation is located in northeastern Washington State and is about 100 miles
northwest of Spokane. This reservation spans about 1.4 million acres and is rich in timberland,
farmlands, open range lands, lakes, and streams. Approximately half of the reservation consists of
commercially viable timberlands in addition to 288,000 acres of open range lands and almost
82,000 acres of commercial farmland. This reservation also contains considerable mineral
resources, hydroelectric potential, and fish and wildlife reserves.
The Colville Tribal Enterprise Corporation operates a construction company and a lumber
mill on the reservation; both generate significant revenues and employ tribal members. The tribal
government employs about 180 tribal members on a full-time and part-time basis. The Tribe runs a
bingo parlor that has grown to employ more than 100 people and brings in considerable revenues
to the reservation. Also the Tribe has been exploring the development of a resort in the Bissel Flats
area given that Grand Coulee Dam and Lake Roosevelt are extremely popular tourist attractions on
the reservation.
Twenty-eight facilities have been identified on the reservation as potentially subject to the
proposed air quality rules. The affected facilities include an asphalt mix/batch plant, gas stations,
food processing plants, gravel pits, and lumber mills, among others. Table 2-4 provides the names
or types of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest.
Table 2-5 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
In addition, this reservation has requested that Additional Rules 49.127 and 49.128 be
applied to their lands. There are no woodwaste burners currently located on the reservation, and
the only wood products facility to which Rule 49.128 might have applied has been shut down.
Therefore, these rules will only apply to new operations.
f)
A table displaying affected SIC codes and their corresponding NAICS codes is provided in Appendix B. The
NAICS codes were used to estimate facility revenue for the analysis in Section 5 based on the average sales
per facility for that NAICS code in the county where the facility is located. Because NAICS data were only
available for manufacturing at an aggregate level for 31-33, manufacturing industries have 31-33 as their
NAICS code.
2-7
-------
Table 2-3. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Coeur d'Alene Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
AG West Petroleum
Claude's Paint Shop and Auto
Body Repair
Fertilizer Handling Plants (1)
Fertilizer Handling Plants (2)
Forest Products Inc.
Gravel Pit, Property of State
of Idaho
Meridith's Repair
Potlatch Corporation—
Saint Maries
Prairie Grain Inc.
Prairie Grain Inc.
Pruitt Petroleum
Rayonier Inland Wood Products
Rockford Grain Growers, Inc.
Seeds Inc.
St. Maries Oil
S
/
^
S
S
S
S
S
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter.
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2.5 Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians
The 10-acre reservation for the Confederated Tribe of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
Indians is located in southwestern Oregon along the Pacific coast and is about 100 miles southwest
of Eugene. Hanus and Miluk are two of the languages spoken by the confederated Tribes. The
Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua have similar languages.
2-8
-------
Table 2-4. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on CoMlle Tribal Lands
Facility Name or Type
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code*
SIC Industry Description
Allied Concrete Company 3272 31-33
Basin Asphalt 2951 31-33
Bridge Creek Gravel Pit 1442 21
Cache Creek Pit 1442 21
Coulee Concrete 2951 31-33
Gravel Pit . 1442 21
Gravel Pit 1442 21
Gravel Pit 1442 21
Gravel Pit and Rock Crusher 1442,1429 21
Hall Creek Pit ' 1442 • 21
Holt and Robinson Fruit 20 31-33
Company
Holt and Robinson Fruit 4222
Company #2
Inchelium Wood Treatment Plant 2491 31-33
Magi Inc. - ; 4222 48-49
Meadowmoor Dairy Company 0241 11
Morrill Asphalt Paving Company, 2951 31-33
Inc.
Morrill Asphalt Paving Company, 2951 31-33
Inc.
North Central Petroleum 5541 44-45
North Central Petroleum 5541 44-45
Northwest Paving 2951 31-33
Omak Elementary School 8211 61
Omak Wood Products 2421 31-33
Precision Pine Company 2426 31-33
Skookum, Inc. , 4222 48-49
Washington Water Power 4911 22
Williams Refrigeration, Kamm K- NA 48^9
335 202
Williams Refrigeration, Kamm K- 4222 48-49
335 202
WSDOT Gravel Pit 1442 21
Concrete Products, Except Block and
Brick
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Construction Sand and Gravel
Construction Sand and Gravel
Construction Machinery and
Equipment
Construction Sand and Gravel
Construction Sand and Gravel
Construction Sand and Gravel
Construction Sand and Gravel
Construction Sand and Gravel
Food and Kindred Products
48-49 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
Wood Preserving
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
Food and Kindred Products
Highway and Street Construction,
Except Elevated Highways
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Gasoline Service Stations
Gasoline Service Stations
Highway and Street Construction,
Except Elevated Highways
Elementary and Secondary Schools
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Hardwood Dimension and Flooring
Mills
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
Electric Services
NA
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
Construction Sand and Gravel
NA = Not available
a Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules. • .
2-9
-------
Table 2-5. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Colville Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124- 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Allied Concrete Company
Basin Asphalt
Bridge Creek Gravel Pit
Cache Creek Pit
Coulee Concrete
Gravel Pit
Gravel Pit
Gravel Pit
Gravel Pit and Rock Crusher
Hall Creek Pit
Holt and Robinson Fruit Company
Holt and Robinson Fruit Company #2b
Inchelium Wood Treatment Plant
Magi Inc.
Meadowmoor Dairy Company
Merrill Asphalt Paving Company Inc.
Morrill Asphalt Paving Company Inc.
North Central Petroleum
North Central Petroleum
Northwest Paving
Omak Elementary School
Omak Wood Products
Precision Pin'e Company
Skookum, Inc.b
Washington Water Powerb
Williams Refrigeration, Kamm
K-335 202
Williams Refrigeration, Kamm
K-335 202
WSDOT Gravel Pit
S
/
S
/
/
S
/
S
S
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Particulate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive particulate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
2-10
-------
The principal employers on the reservation are the timber industry, Blue Earth Food, a
gaming facility, and the tribal government. The majority of tribal members are engaged in the timber
industry. Another important employer is Blue Earth Foods, a tribally supported food distributor •
selling jams, jellies, fry bread mix, fruit bars, blackberries, and cranberries. It also hopes to sell
smoked meats in the future. The gaming facility was scheduled to open in 1996 and projected to
employ at least 50 people. However, there is no further information about the opening of this
facility. Besides the tribal government, State and Federal government offices also employ a small
number of tribal members.
No facility subject to the proposed air quality rules has been identified on this land.
2.6 Coquille Indian Tribal Community
The Coquille Indian Tribe has 925.26 acres of trust land and includes three sites. The
Grandmother Rock site is one part of the trust land and is located in Bandpn, Oregon, along the
south jetty of the Coquille River. The second piece of the reservation is 906.9 acres of trust land
along Cape Arago Highway, south of Coos Bay. The third part is the site of an abandoned
plywood mill along Highway 101 in North Bend, Oregon. The Coquille have traditionally relied
primarily on their timber and fishing industries, both of which have declined significantly since
peaking around 1980.
Today, the tribal government directly and indirectly creates jobs on the reservation, such as
the Tribe's administration-office, the tribal economic development corporation (CEDCO), the tribal
housing authority (CIHA), and the new Heritage Place Assisted Living Facility. In addition, the
Coquille plan to turn 400 acres of trust land into an industrial park, to construct a spring chinook
salmon hatchery and release-and-recapture facility, and to build a gaming/family entertainment
center.
This reservation has one identified facility, a casino, that is potentially subject to the
proposed air quality rules. Table 2-6 provides summary information on the casino, including the
corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industry classification. Table 2-7 summarizes the
rules believed to apply to the facility.
2-11
-------
Table 2-6. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Coquille Tribal Lands
Facility Type
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code8
SIC Industry Description
Casino
7999
71
Amusement and Recreation Services, NEC
" Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
.Table 2-7. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Coquille Tribal Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Casinob
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Particulate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive particulate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the.rules will apply.
2.7 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua
The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians Tribe owns 47 acres in Canyonville, near
Rosburg in southwestern Oregon. The tribal lands are used primarily for commercial development
purposes. Currently, the Tribe and its business operations employ about 300 people.
This reservation includes only one identified facility, a welding shop, that is potentially
subject to the proposed air quality rules. Table 2-8 provides summary information on this facility,
including the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industry classification. Table 2-9
summarizes the rules believed to apply to this facility.
2-12
-------
Table 2-8. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribal
Lands
Facility Type
Welding Shop
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code8
7692
SIC Industry Description
Velding Repair
Table 2-9. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribal
llanos
_Facility
Welding Shop
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2.8 Grand Ronde
The Grand Ronde tribal land holdings span 10,300 acres in the northwestern part of the
State of Oregon in the Willamette Valley. The land is surrounded by national forests and lies in the
heart of the Coast Range, making the region a popular site for camping, hiking, and other outdoor
activities. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde comprise five different Tribes, which are
originally from various parts of Oregon. They are the Kalapuya, the Molalla, the Rogue River the
Shasta, and me Umpqua. Some tribal members descend from the Chinook and Clackamas Tribes
2-13
-------
The Grand Ronde gain considerable timber income through timber sales from their land
holdings. The revenues have been used to fund a wide range of social services and development
projects, such as the recently completed community center, a fully equipped medical clinic, a new
dental center, an expanded health center, and housing facilities to accommodate tribal elders. The
Tribe is also considering the construction of a convention center/golf course complex, a mid-size
shopping mall, and gaming attractions.
Only a casino has been identified as potentially subject to the proposed air quality rules.
Table 2-10 provides the name of the facility, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the
industry classification. Table 2-11 summarizes the rules believed to apply to this facility.
Table 2-10. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Grand Ronde Tribal Lands
Facility Name
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
Spirit Mountain Casino
7999
71 Amusement and Recreation
Services, NEC
* Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
Table 2-11. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Grand Ronde Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Spirit Mountain Casino
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Particulate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
2-14
-------
2.9 Hoh
The Hoh Reservation lies on the Pacific Coast of northern Washington State and has the
Hoh River as its southern boundary. The reservation is located within the boundaries of the
Olympic National Park and in the area of the Hoh River Drainage system. The Hoh speak Quileute
and depend on the abundant natural resources provided by the waters of the Pacific Coast and by
the forests in the area.
. The tribal members are employed in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and public
administration, as well as in the tribal government. The Hoh Tribe also operates a fish hatchery
program. For now, the Tribe is focusing on the creation of new, on-reservation jobs through
gaming opportunities that may lead to the opening of a resort and casino on the reservation. In
addition, eco-tourism might boost the reservation's economy given the beautiful natural setting on
the reservation.
; No facility potentially affected by the proposed air quality rules has been identified on this
reservation.
2.10 Jamestown S'KIallam
The S'KIallam Indians traditionally lived on the southern shores of the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, from the Hoko River to Discovery Bay. They followed a subsistence pattern of fishing and
gathering based on the abundant natural resources of the Northwest Coast. The Jamestown
S'KIallam Tribe is the one Tribe out of three S'KIallam Indian Tribes that stayed in the area. The
Jamestown reservation spans 12 acres east of Port Angeles, in western Washington State. The
reservation is near Dungeness Railroad Park,, and the area provides recreation opportunities for
fishing, boating, swimming, and water skiing.
The economy of Jamestown S'KIallam has been growing through the establishment of tribal
enterprises, including real estate development, an art gallery, and a fireworks operation. • A
restaurant, gift shop, and new casino offer many additional employment opportunities. The Tribe
operates a 120-acre oyster farm and receives revenue from its 18,000-square-foot industrial park.
No facility has been identified on the reservation as subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2-15
-------
2.11 Kalispel
The Kalispel Reservation is located in northeastern Washington State, about 55 miles north
of Spokane. It comprises 4,629 acres and has the Pend Oreille River as its western boundary.
The'area is surrounded by the national forest and contains about 1,160 acres of commercial
timberland. The Upper and Lower Kalispel Bands both speak the Interior Salish Language. The
present-day Kalispel descend from the Lower Kalispel Band, which used to occupy the territory
along the Pend Oreille River from Idaho up into British Columbia.
The Kalispel Indian Development Enterprise has been in charge of economic development
activities on the reservation relating to livestock, fish and wildlife management, forage production,
recreation, and commercial and industrial development. This tribal enterprise is also working on
developing a gaming facility and a fish and game enterprise. The primary sources of tribal income
are Federal grants and contracts. Kalispel Case Line, a tribal enterprise, manufactures protective
aluminum cases for guns, cameras, and bows. Despite some growth in Kalispel's economy, the
tribal government remains the biggest employer on the reservation.
A metal shop is the only identified facility potentially affected by the proposed air quality
rules. Table 2-12 summarizes the facility information, including the corresponding SIC and NAICS
codes, and the industry classification. Table 2-13 summarizes the rules believed to apply to this
facility.
Table 2-12. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Kalispel Tribal Lands
Facility Type
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
Metal Shop
3446
33
Special Trade Contractors, NEC
* Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2-16
-------
Table 2-13. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Kalispel Tribal Lands
Facility
Section"
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49139
Metal Shop"
a Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
2.12 Klamath
The Klamath tribal land holdings cover 372 acres in the south-central part of Oregon, near
Upper Klamath Lake. The Klamath Tribes consist of several Tribes including the Klamath, the
Modoc, and the Yahooskin Bands of Snake Indians. The Tribes traditionally subsisted on hunting
and fishing in the area.
During the 20th century, the Tribes' economy has been based heavily on timber, grazing,
* and agriculture. The Tribes have established the Klamath-Modoc, Yahooskin Band of Snake
Indians Development, Inc. to assist with planning their future commercial ventures. For now, the
Tribes have proposed a feasibility study regarding the development of a gaming facility.
There are no identified facilities on this land subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.13 Kootenai
According to Tiller's Guide, the Kootenai tribal land holdings occupy 250 acres in the
northern tip of the Idaho panhandle about 30 miles from the Canadian border, while EPA Region
10 records indicate the reservation consists of 12 acres. The Kootenai traditionally subsisted on
the region's rivers, lakes, prairies, and mountain forests and foUowed the salmon cycle as much as
any other source of food. Today, most of the tribal lands are under agricultural use, mainly in wheat
2-17
-------
and barley cultivation. The Tribe realizes about $20,000 annually from agriculture. Also the Tribe
is co-managing a project designed to repopulate the Kootenai River with sturgeon, which, along
with salmon, are fish of spiritual significance to the Tribe.
The tribal government employs approximately 30 of its members and is the largest source of
tribal employment. The Tribe's gaming facility, the Kootenai River Inn, employs around a half-
dozen tribal members, and generates considerable tribal revenues. Outdoor activities are popular in
the Bonners Ferry region, such as hiking, boating, fishing, swimming, skiing, snowmobiling, and
mountain climbing. Currently, the reservation plans to build a cogenerating power plant.
There are no identified facilities on this land subject to the proposed air quality rales.
2.14 Lower Ehvha S'Klallam
The Lower Elwha Reservation encompasses 443 noncontiguous acres at the mouth of the
Elwha River on northwestern Washington's Olympic Peninsula. This reservation is situated about
10 miles from the town of Port Angeles. The S'Klatlam Tribe is part of the Coast Salish linguistic
family and has traditionally occupied the southern shores of the Strait of De Fuca, from the Hoko
River to Discovery Bay.
The Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe operates a number of salmon hatcheries and remains
active in the region's commercial fishing industry, which provides some tribal employment
opportunities outside of the tribal government. The Tribal Housing Authority serves as the
contractor for the construction of houses and other structures on the reservation. Additionally, the
Tribe operates Saturday night bingo at the Tribal Center, and it generates-signtficant revenues.
There is no facility identified as subject to the proposed air quality rules on this reservation.
2.15 Lununi
The Lummi Reservation is sited hi northwest Washington State, 5 miles west of the city of
Bellingham, 100 miles north of Seattle, and about 50 miles south of Vancouver, B.C.; it spans
approximately 13,000 acres of upland and 8,000 acres of tidelands. Traditionally, the Lummi
traveled to off-reservation sites for fishing and gathering, particularly to their traditional reef-net
locations, and salmon was their primary source of food. Currently, about 9,700 acres are under the
2-18
-------
control of the Lummi Tribe. This region of the reservation features beautiful waters and forests that
are popular with visitors for fishing, hiking, and boating.
To diversify its economy in recent years, the Lummi Tribe has invested in a gaming
operation, seafood processing plants, and the development of a marina. The Tribal Business
Council is the biggest single employer on the reservation even though fishing remains the primary
source of private employment, and seasonal berry-picking is the major source of agricultural
employment of tribal members. A Georgia Pacific pulp mill in the area also employs a number of
tribal members.
Four facilities have been identified on this reservation as potentially affected by the
proposed air quality rules: a millwork plant, an auto recycling shop, and fish processing plants.
Table 2-14 provides the names or types of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes,
and the industries of interest. Table 2-15 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
Table 2-14. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Lummi Tribal Lands
Facility Name or Type
Lummi Auto Recycling
Native American Shellfish, Inc.
Oyster and Clam
Venture — Propane Boiler
Roberts Millwork
SIC Code
5093
2091
2091
2431
Two-Digit
NAICS Code0
42
31-33
31
31-33
SIC Industry Description
Scrap and Waste Materials
Canned and Cured Fish and Seafood
Fish Hatcheries and Preserves
Millwork
Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2-19
-------
Table 2-15. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Lummi Tribal Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Lummi Auto Recycling
Native American Shellfish, Inc.b
Oyster and Clam Venture—
Propane Boiler
Roberts Millworkb
1 Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter .
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
2.16 Makah
The Makah Reservation is located on the northwestern tip of Washington's Olympic
Peninsula on Cape Flattery and Koitlah Point, across the Strait of San Juan de Fuca from
Vancouver, B.C. This reservation lies 70 miles west of Port Angeles and covers 27,950 acres.
About 27,000 acres of reservation lands are forested. The Makah Tribe is related to the
Wakashan linguistic family and Nootkan cultural complex in the United States. The tribal economy
is mainly based on fishing and logging. Currently, the Makah have been focusing on the
development of tourism, particularly eco-tourism. Also the Tribe is exploring the possibility of
expanding its commercial fisheries.
The Makah Tribe houses several businesses on the reservation, such as independent
contractors among its members, Makah Tribal Bingo, a fishing resort (for sport fishing), the
Thunderbird Resort, and'RV park. Aside from the tribal businesses, the tribal government employs
a significant number of tribal members.
2-20
-------
This reservation has three identified facilities that are subject to the proposed air quality
rules: a landfill, forestry enterprise, and fish processing plant. Table 2-16 provides the names of
the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest. Table 2-17
summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
Table 2-16. Potentially Affected Fadlities Located on Makah Tribal Lands
Facility Name
Makah Fisheries Company
Makah Forestry Enterprises
Makah Landfill
" .
SIC Code
NA
NA
4953
====
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
31-33
31-33
56
=^==:^==
NA
NA
^s^^a^si
SIC Industry Description
Refuse Systems
NA = Not available
; a Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected bv
these proposed rules. J
Table 2-17. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Makah Tribal Lands
Section8
Facility
49.124
49.125
49.126
49.129
49.130
49.138
49.139
Makah Forestry Enterprisesb
Makah Landfill"
- —^-—-
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
2-21
-------
2.17 Muckleshoot
The Muckleshoot Indian Reservation is located on Muckleshoot Prairie between the Green
and White Rivers, just east of Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area in King County, Washington. The
reservation spans approximately 3,900 acres and consists of two separate areas. The western
piece of the reservation is urban and melds with the city of Auburn. The eastern portion is mainly
agricultural and open space area and also includes gravel quarries. Traditionally, the Muckleshoot
lived in the Pacific Northwest Coast region and relied on their natural resources, primarily salmon
and red cedar trees. Currently, about 200 acres of reservation land are used for fanning and
another 100 acres for grazing cattle.
The main sources of tribal employment on the reservation are fishing, tribal government, and
the Muckleshoot Bingo. The Tribe has two fish hatcheries hi place, and the fish committee of the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Natural Resources Department conducts and monitors fish husbandry.
In addition to the fishery, the Tribes operate Muckleshoot Bingo and Muckleshoot Indian Casino
and employ about 600 people. The Muckleshoot also have an amphitheater, a culture center, and
park projects to boost their economy.
Three facilities have been identified on this reservation as potentially affected by the
proposed air quality rules: a dry cleaner and two sand/gravel pits. Table 2-18 provides the names
of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest.
Table 2-19 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
Table 2-18. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Muckleshoot Tribal! Lands
Facility Name
SIC Code
Two-Digit .
NAICS Code8
SIC Industry Description
Forest Villa Cleaners and 7215
Launderette
Miles Sand and Gravel 1442
Miles Sand and Gravel (Tacoma) 1442
81 Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry
Cleaning
21 Ready-Mixed Concrete
21 Ready-Mixed Concrete
Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2-22
-------
Table 2-19. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Muckleshoot Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138
49.139
Forest Villa Cleaners and
Launderette
Miles Sand and Gravel
Miles Sand and Gravel (Tacoma)
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter •
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2.18 Nez Perce
The Nez Perce Reservation is located in north-central Idaho, spanning about 750,000
acres. This reservation covers several outdoor recreational areas, including Hell's Canyon,
Clearwater River, Clearwater National Forest, and Nez Perce National Forest. The Nez Perce
are a Sehaptian speaking Tribe linked culturally and linguistically to other Northwestern Tribes,
including the Yakama, Umatilla, Klickitat, and Wallawalla Tribes. The Nez Perce have traditionally
been dependent on hunting, gathering, and fishing. Today, the Tribe cultivates 37,639 acres of
reservation lands for crops.
The Tribe operates several tribally owned businesses, such as a tribal store, Nez Perce
Limestone Enterprise, and Nez Perce Forest Products Enterprise. The tribally owned Nez Perce
Express I and H are convenience/grocery stores that the Tribe plans to expand into larger
commercial centers. The Nez Perce Limestone Enterprise wholesales agricultural limestone and
pulp lime to local fertilizer and chemical companies. The Nez Perce Forest Products Enterprise
operates harvesting, marketing, and replanting of tribally owned timber. Besides the tribally owned
businesses, the Tribe hopes to expand its involvement in the local tourism and recreational market
2-23
-------
Twenty facilities have been identified on the reservation as potentially subject to the
proposed air quality rules. The affected facilities include lumber mills, asphalt mix/batch plants, print
shops, an auto body shop, grain elevators, a dam, a dry cleaner, and a sand/gravel pit. Table 2-20
provides the names or types of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the
industries of interest. Table 2-21 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
The Nez Perce Reservation has requested that Additional Rules 49.127,49.128,49.132,
49.133,49.134, and 49.136 be applied to their lands. Based on data from EPA Region 10 and
the Tribe's air specialists, it is estimated that five woodwaste burners would be affected by Rule
49.127. There are also estimated to be 145 open burning permit applications, 240 agricultural
'burning permit applications, and 20 forestry burning permit applications per year under these rules.
2.19 Nisqually
The Nisqually Reservation spans 4,800 acres in western Washington State, about 10 miles
east of Olympia. This reservation includes 800 forested acres and more than 250 acres of timber
management land have been restored to tribal ownership. The Nisqually operate two major fish
hatcheries on the Nisqually River, a shellfish enterprise, a construction enterprise, and a bingo hall.
These are the main sources of tribal income. The tribe is also engaged in environmental planning to
conserve resources on the reservation.
There is no facility on this reservation identified as subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.20 Nooksack
The 2,500-acre Nooksack Reservation is located in the Upper Nooksack River Valley, in
northwestern Washington State. The area includes the Nooksack drainage system and the shores
of the Nooksack River. Mount Baker, the Nooksack River, and Puget Sound are the recreational
areas in the region of this reservation. The Tribe operates two outlet malls, a fisheries lab, a boat
maintenance facility, and a gill-net loft and training area; all offer a fair amount of local employment.
Some people also find jobs at the pulp and paper mill in Bellingham or at the refineries in Ferndale.
Currently, the Nooksack are researching economic development projects and hoping to continue
their fisheries enhancement program.
No facility has been identified on the reservation as subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2-24
-------
Table 2-20. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Nez Perce Tribal Lands
Facility Name or Type
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
Auto Body Shop 7532
Blahnik Construction 1442
Blahnik Construction 2951
Channel Lumber 2421
Clearwater Forest Industries 24
Dry Cleaners 7216
Idaho Chip and Fiber 2421
Kamiah Mills 2421
Konkolville Lumber 2421
Lewiston Grain Growers, Inc. 5153
Nez Perce Forest Products 24
Enterprise
Nez Perce Limestone Enterprises 1422
(NPTLE)
Poe Asphalt Paving 2951
Print Shop 2751
Print Shop 2751
Star Cedar Products 2421
Sweetwater Creek Screw Factory 3452
Three Rivers Timber . 2421
Three Rivers Timber 2421
(Weyerhaeuser Company-
Kamiah Operations)
Valley Paving and Asphalt , 2951
81
21
31-33
56
31-33
81
31-33
31-33
31-33
42
31-33
21
31-33
51
51
56
31-33
31-33
31-33
31-33
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Construction Sand and Gravel
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Refuse Systems
Lumber and Wood Products
Garment Pressing, and Agents for
Laundries and Dry Cleaners
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Grain and Field Beans
Lumber and Wood Products
Crushed and Broken Limestone
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Miscellaneous Publishing
Miscellaneous Publishing
Refuse Systems
Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets, and
Washers
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
1 Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules. J
2-25
-------
Table 2-21. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Nez Perce Tribal Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Auto Body Shop /
Blahnik Construction S S
Blahnik Construction S /
Channel Lumber S ^ /
Clearwater Forest Industries S • S S / / / V
Dry.Cleaners S
Idaho Chip and Fiber , /
KamiahMills / V / ' / / / /
Konkolville Lumber S S V / / / S
Lewiston Grain Growers, Inc. S S S
Nez Perce Forest Products
Enterprise11
Nez Perce Limestone Enterprises S
-------
2.21 Port Gamble S'KIallani
The Port Gamble S'Klallani Tribe lives on the 1,301-acre Port Gamble Reservation which
is located in Washington State and on the northern end of the Kitsap Peninsula in Puget Sound
^ The reservation includes 2 miles of shoreline on Port Gamble Bay and Hood Canal and more than
1,000 acres of uplands along Puget Sound. The waters of Puget Sound are popular with visitors
- for fishing, boating, water skiing, and swimming as well as sight-seeing trips by ferry The Port
. Gamble S'Klallam are coast Salish-speaking people who belong to the resource-rich Pacific
Northwest Coast Indian culture. Traditionally, the Tribe lived on the southern shores of the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and practiced its subsistence pattern of hunting and fishing.
The Port Gamble Development Authority, established by Tribal council, helps the Tribe to
improve its economic opportunities and to recruit outside businesses to the community The Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe not only serves as its own general contractor for construction on the
reservation, but it also has the 20-acre Salish Business Park in the southeastern part of the
reservation. The S'Klallam are investigating new fishery and aquaculture projects as well as gaming
opportunities. <=> &
There is no facility identified on this reservation as subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.22 Puyallup
The Puyallup Reservation spans approximately 104 acres and is south of Seattle and near
Tacoma. EPA records indicate the reservation spans over 18,000 acres. The Puyallup Indian
Bingo Hall employs about 100 people and provides significant income to the Tribe.
Pursuant to agreements developed under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Land Claims
Settlement Act, ratified by Congress in 1989 (25 U.S.C. Section 1773), in the 1873 survey area of
the Puyallup Tribe, EPA may approve the State of Washington to administer environmental
-programs on nontrust lands. For trust lands, EPA is directly responsible for administering and
implementing Federal environmental laws and may approve the Puyallup Tribe to assume Federal
programs only on trust lands.
No facility has been identified on the trust lands of this reservation as affected by the
proposed air quality rules.
2-27
-------
2.23 Quileute
The 700-acre Quileute Indian Reservation is located on the Pacific Ocean in northwest
Washington. The Tribe members speak tine Quileute language, which is from the Chimakuan family
of languages. The Quileute culture relies on the ocean, river, and forest. Traditionally, the Quileute
built their homes out of cedar and hunted whales, seals, and other marine animals for their
subsistence. In addition, carving canoes from cedar trees is a century-old art. Today, the
reservation is more dependent on seasonal tourism and Tribal-generated jobs.
The Quileute Tribal Enterprise Board manages the La Push Ocean Park Resort, Shoreline
Resort, Quileute Seafood Company, the Boat Launcher Restaurant, and a grocery store/gas
station. Both resorts are situated on the Pacific coast and are owned by the Tribe. The Quileute
Seafood Company processes primarily shellfish and employs about 48 Tribal members.
There is no facility identified on this reservation as subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.24 Quinault
The Quinault Reservation encompasses 208,150 acres in western Washington State, 45
miles north of Hoquiam. The Pacific Ocean is its western border. The land on the reservation
remains heavily timbered despite decades of intensive logging. The Quinault are Salish-speaking
people. Historically, their primary economic activity was salmon and steelhead fishing.
The Tribal government ranks as the primary reservation-based employer, employing Tribal
members in fisheries and forest management besides social and health care programs. The Quinault
focus on the regeneration of abundant fish runs and forests, which can offer many jobs for future
generations. Also the Tribe operates two small mills, manufacturing cedar shake shingles and cedar
fences. Some retail businesses are affiliated with the Tribe, such as Taholah Mercantile (a general
store), Quinault Land and Timber Enterprise, Quinault Cablevision, and Quinault Utility Company.
This reservation has four identified facilities that are potentially affected by the proposed air
quality rules. The affected facilities include a rock crushing plant and lumber mills. Table 2-22
provides the names or types of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the
industries of interest. Table 2-23 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
2-28
-------
Table 2-22. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Quinault Tribal Lands
Facility Name or Type
A.E. Erickson Enterprises,
Incorporated
Crane Creek Cedar Company
Rock Crusher Plant
Sawmill
SIC Code
NA
2421
1429
2429
Two-Digit
NAICSCode"
NA
31-33
21
31-33
SIC Industry Description
NA
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Construction Sand and Gravel
Special Product Sawmills, NEC
NA = Not available
* Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
Table 2-23. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Quinault Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
A.E. Erickson Enterprises,'
Incorporated
Crane Creek Cedar Company
Rock Crusher Plant
Saw Mill
S
S
S
a Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2.25 Samish ,
The Samish Indian Tribe was Federally recognized on April 26, 1996, through the Federal
Acknowledgment Process 25 CFR 83-12. For now, the Samish Tribe owns no land but has
declared an area near Anacortes, Washington, as a possible reservation site. Currently, the Samish
2-29
-------
have an 11-member council and are reviewing potential economic development projects. In
addition, the Samish are in the process of establishing both their Tribal government offices and base
roll (DOI website, 2000).
There are no identified facilities on this land subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.26 Sauk-Suiattle
The Sauk-Suiattle Reservation covers 23 acres near Sauk Prairie in Washington State.
Most of the reservation is located in the Skagit County. The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe is a Puget
Sound Salish-speaking group. The Tribe traditionally fished for salmon, hunted game, and gathered
wild berries and roots.
No facility has been identified in this area as affected by the proposed air quality rules.
2.27 Shoalwater Bay
The Shoalwater Bay Reservation encompasses 333 acres of Tribal trust land on the shores
of the north cove of Willapa Bay in Pacific County, Washington, according to the IHS Indian
Health Service website (1999), although EPA Region 10 records indicate the reservation contains
1,034 acres.
No facility has been identified in this area as affected by the proposed air quality rules.
2.28 Shoshone-Bannock (Fort Hall Reservation)
The 544,000-acre Fort Hall Reservation is located in southeastern Idaho and comprises
two segments lying north and west of Pocatello. The reservation forms the shape of an inverted L
and has natural boundaries on its north and northwest sides formed by the Snake River, Blackfoot
River, and American Falls Reservoir. Both the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes traditionally
subsisted as hunters and gatherers by hunting wild game, fishing (primarily for salmon), and
collecting native plants and roots. Today, the Tribes lease 100,000 acres of irrigated land to
outside farm interests and operate about 2,000 acres on their own. Agriculture has become one of
the most significant sources of revenue for these Tribes.
The Shoshone and Bannock Tribes maintain a number of businesses on the reservation,
including a construction company, a bingo facility, and a commercial complex. The Tribes also
2-30
-------
raise bison to sell to local stores and restaurants. In addition, a private, outside company,called
Food Management Corporation employs a significant number of Tribal members. However, the
Tribal government remains the most important single source of Tribal employment.
This reservation includes 10 identified facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed
air quality rules. The affected facilities include grain elevators, natural gas pipelines and
compression stations, a food processing plant, and an asphalt mix/batch plant. Table 2-24 provides
the names of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest.
Table 2-25 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
Table 2-24. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Shoshone-Bannock (Fort Hall
Reservation) Tribal Lands •.-
Facility Name
Bannock Paving Company, Inc.
Entek Corporation
FMC Corporation
General Mills
J.K. Merrill and Sons
Kraft General Foods
McNabb Grain Inc.
Northwest Pipeline; Corporation
Northwest Pipeline Corporation
Pocatello Compressor Station
SIC Code
2951
NA
2819
NA
NA
20
5153
1311
4922
4922
Two-Digit
NAICS Code8
32
21
31-33
31-33
NA
31-33
42
21
48-49
48
NA = Not available
SIC Industry Description
Highway and Street Construction,
Except Elevated Highways
NA •
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
N.E.C.
NA
NA
Food and Kindred Products
Grain and Field Beans
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Natural Gas Transmission
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
1''._ •"
SIC C°des
2-31
-------
Table 2»25. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Lands
Section'
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Bannock Paving Co, Inc.
Entek Corporation
FMC Corporation
Genera] Mills
J.K. Merrill and Sons
Kraft General Foods
'McNabb Grain Inc.
Northwest Pipeline Corporation
Northwest Pipeline Corporation
Pocatello Compressor Station
/
V
/
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2.29 Siletz
The Siletz Reservation encompasses 4,014 acres in the coastal mountains of western
Oregon and contains prime Oregon Coastal Range timberland and residential land. Because the
reservation is located near some scenic recreational areas and fishing spots, the Tribe plans to open
a year-round campground on the reservation as well as a museum and interpretive center. In 1985;
the Tribe approved the formation of the Siletz Tribal Economic Development Commission
(STEDCO) to oversee economic development and manage Tribal economic enterprises. In
addition, the Siletz Tribal Economic Development Corporation is charged with managing and
expanding Tribal enterprises.
The Tribe owns and operates several businesses, such as the Siletz Tribal Forest Products
Company in Toledo, the Siletz Tribal Smoke House in Depoe Bay, a former State fish hatchery,
2-32
-------
and a gaming facility. The Tribal forestry program harvests about 2.23 million board feet and
provides the Tribe approximately $1.1 million each year in stumpage revenue. Additionally, the
Tribe is considering the creation of a Tribal construction crew for on-reservation housing repair.
Besides TribaUy run enterprises, the Siletz Tribal government employs about 120 people on a
permanent basis.
A smoked fish processing plant has been identified as the only facility on this reservation
potentially affected by the proposed air quality rules. Table 2-26 provides the name of the facility
and the corresponding NAICS code. Table 2-27 summarizes the rules believed to apply to this
facility.
Table 2-26. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Siletz Tribal Lands
Facility Name
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
Siletz Indian Smokehouse
NA
31-33b
NA
NA = Not available
a Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
b A specific SIC code was unavailable, but fish processing plants fall under the manufacturing sector which is
NAICS codes 31-33.
Table 2-27. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Siletz Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Siletz Indian Smokehouse
a Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2-33
-------
2.30 Skokomish
The Skokomish Reservation is sited on the delta of the Skokomish River, about 10 miles
north of Shelton and within 45 miles of the cities of Bremerton, Olympia, and Aberdeen. The area
features abundant fish, wildlife, and land reserves that are popular with fishermen, hunters, hikers,
and campers. Also boating, water-skiing, scuba diving, and swimming are available on the Hood
Canal. The Skokomish Tribe actually is composed of Twana Indians and has traditionally subsisted
on hunting, fishing, and gathering activities.
Today, many Skokomish work in the region's logging and fishing industries although
restrictions have been put in place to address overharvesting of both resources on the reservation.
Besides the Tribal government, the Tribe operates several businesses on the reservation, including a
fish hatchery, and a fish processing plant. Both the fish hatchery and processing plant generate
considerable revenues and Tribal employment. The Skokomish also gain significant revenues from
timber harvesting, leasing forested land to outside timber interests, and through Tribal members
employed by off-reservation timber industry. Currently, the Tribe is considering the development of
a Christmas tree production and harvesting venture, a prefabricated log cabin enterprise, and a
wood products industry to diversify its economy.
There is no facility identified on this reservation as subject to the proposed air quality rules.
2.31 * Snoqualmie
The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally recognized in October 1999. The Snoqualmie
have no land at this time, but have declared the Snoqualmie Valley as a possible reservation site.
They maintain an office in Fall City, Washington, and are in the process of establishing their Tribal
government offices (DOI website, 2000).
2.32 Spokane
The 155,000-acre Spokane Reservation is located in northeastern Washington State and
has natural boundaries on the south and west. The southern and western boundaries are marked
by the Spokane and Columbia Rivers and the Grand Coulee Dam Recreation Area. The
reservation land is fairly heavily timbered. There are three bands of Spokane Indians: Upper,
Middle, and Lower. The Spokane Indians are part of the Salishan linguistic family, which is a
2-34
-------
language the Sppkane shared with the neighboring Flathead, Coeur d'Alene, and Kalispel Tribes.
Traditionally, the Spokane subsisted heavily on fishing for sahnon besides gathering and storing
plant and root crops.
The largest source of revenue and employment for the Tribe comes from the sale of limber.
Annually the average cut is 12 to 15 million board feet, and total timber sales are about $3 million.
Combined profits are approximately $150,000 each year for both Tribal enterprises, the Spokane
Indian Reservation Timber Products Enterprise and Spokane Wood Products. The Tribe has
created a successful fish hatchery for stocking the Spokane River and Tribal lakes with Kokanee
salmon and rainbow trout. Despite the forestry and fisheries activities, the Tribal government
remains the biggest employer on the reservation. However, only three out of 112 employees are
Tribal members. The Tribe is shifting its economy from natural resources to tourism. The. 150-slip
marina, the RV park, and the Two Rivers Casino are part of the Tribe's recreational area as well as
outdoor activities on the surrounding lakes and rivers.
This reservation includes three identified facilities, including landfills and a wood preserving
plant, that are potentially affected by the proposed air quality rules. Table 2-28 provides the names
of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest.
Table 2-29 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility. • •
Table 2-28. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Spokane Tribal Lands
Facility Name
Two-Digit
SIC Code NAICS Code'
Spokane Indian Reservation Landfill —
Wellpinit
Spokane Indian Reservation Landfill —
West End Community
4953
4953
56
56
Refuse Systems
Refuse Systems
Spokane Indian Reservation Tribal Pole
Enterprises :
2491
31-33
Wood Preserving
a Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2-35
-------
Table 2-29. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Spokane Tribal Lands
Facility
49.124
49.125
49.126
Section*
49.129
49.130
49.138
49.139
Spokane Indian Reservation
Landfill—Wellpinit
Spokane Indian Reservation •
Landfill (West End Community
Spokane Indian Reservation
Tribal Pole Enterprises11
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
' Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
2.33 Squaxin Island Reservation
Squaxin Island is an island located about 10 miles north of Olympia, Washington, and 9
miles east of Shelton. The main Tribal community is in the Kamilche area near Shelton. The
landscape features wooded uplands, gently sloping hills, and tide lands. Like other Tribes of the
Pacific Northwest, the Squaxin Island Tribes followed a subsistence pattern dependent on the
waters of Puget Sound and the forests in the mainland.
The Tribe operates a floating sea farm project, an oyster company, a caf6, and a grocery
store. Raising coho salmon is the primary focus of the floating sea farm project. The oyster
company has rearing, processing, marketing, and retailing branches. Aquaculture projects are very
important to the Tribe's economy to provide not only current job opportunities but to provide new
areas of economic development on the reservation. Thus, future plans for this Tribe focus on fish
pen/aquaculture development.
2-36
-------
The only facility identified on this reservation as potentially affected by the proposed air
quality rules is a food processing plant. Table 2-30 provides the name of the facility, the
, corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industry of interest. Table 2-31 summarizes the
, rules believed to apply to each facility.
f .
Table 2-30. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Squaxin Island Tribal Lands
Facility Name
Two-Digit
SIC Code NAICS Code*
SIC Industry Description
Hartenstene Oyster Company
2091
31
Seafood Canning
Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
Table 2-31. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Squaxin Island Tribal Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Hartenstene Oyster Company
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2.34 Stillaquamish
There is no information in the Tiller's Guide available for this Tribe.
No facility has been identified as subject to the proposed air quality rules on this
reservation.
2-37
-------
2.35 Suquamish (Port Madison Reservation)
The Port Madison Reservation spans more than 7,400 acres of rolling, timbered land on the
Kitsap Peninsula, which extends into Puget Sound. The reservation comprises two separate sites:
' the northeastern piece of the reservation is anchored by the rural waterfront village of Indianola and
the historic waterfront village of Suquamish occupies the southwestern portion. The Suquamish
spoke their native language, Puget Sound Salish (or Lushootseed), but English rapidly replaced it
after contact with white people. The Suquamish Tribe has lived on hunting and fishing in the Puget
Sound area for thousands of years.
Today, the Tribe maintains an off-reservation hatchery, the Suquamish Bingo Hall, and a
Tribal Center and Museum. The hatchery releases more than 5 million fish into Puget Sound each
year. Commercial fishing and the shellfish industry in this area generate the Tribe's major
nongovernmental source of income. The Suquamish bingo operation provides not only employment
and training, but also marketing experience for Tribal members. In addition, the Suquamish
reservation is located in the heart of a tourism and recreation area that contains a State park, the
Suquamish Tribal Museum, and annual Tribal celebrations.
This reservation has seven identified facilities that are potentially affected by the proposed
air quality rules. The affected facilities include gas stations, auto body shops, and a cabinet maker.
Table 2-32 provides the names of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the
industries of interest. Table 2-33 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
2.36 Swinomish
The Swinomish Reservation covers 7,169 acres of Fidalgo Island in northwestern
Washington State. This reservation sits on the east end of Puget Sound, west of the Cascade
Range, and about 80 miles north of Seattle. The Swinomish Tribe is composed, of aboriginal
Swinomish, Kikiallus, Lower Skagit, and Samish Tribal members who speak related Salish
languages. The Swinomish traditionally subsisted on' fishing, hunting, and gathering.
Today, the Tribe.gains significant revenues through leasing its land. The Tribal government
directly and indirectly employs a number of Tribal members through its administrative and operation
sectors. Currently, both the seafood enterprise and the gambling operation produce more than $8
million hi revenues each year.- Timber is another source of Tribal income. To protect their land, the
2-38
-------
Table 2-32. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Suquamish (Port Madison) Tribal
Lands
Facility Name
BP Gas Station
Concrete Recycling Facility
Del's Auto
Kevin P. McDonald Cabinet
Maker
Shell Gas Station
Suquamish Auto Body
Suquamish Village Square
(Texaco)
SIC Code
5541
NA
7532
2464
5541
7532
5541
Two-Digit
NAICS Code'
44-45
56
81
31-33
44-45
81
44-45
SIC Industry Description
Gasoline Service Stations
NA
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Wood Kitchen Cabinets
Gasoline Service Stations
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Gasoline Service Stations
NA = Not available
Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
Swinomish are opposed to clear-cutting and overharvesting, and they are also maintaining an active
reforestation program.
Four facilities have been identified on this reservation as potentially subject to the proposed
air quality rules: a log yard, a boat yard, a gravel pit, and a food-processing plant. Table 2-34
provides the names of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of
interest. Table 2-35 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
2.37 Tulalip Reservation
The 11,500-acre Tulalip Reservation lies west of the city of Marysville, Washington, about
40 miles north of Seattle and directly on the Puget Sound.3 The Tulalip Tribes include the
Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Skykomish Tribes, along with their allied nations. The Tulalip used to
harvest salmon and lease the reservation lands to outside interests. The Tribe gained revenues from
Although Tiller's Guide lists this reservation with 11,500 acres, EPA records indicate that this reservation is
22,490 acres.
2-39 '
-------
Table 2-33. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Suquamish (Port Madison) Tribal
Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
BP Gas Station
Concrete recycling facility
Del's Autob
Kevin P. McDonald Cabinet
Maker11
Shell Gas Station
Suquamish Auto Body
Suquamish Village Square
(Texaco)
,/
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the.proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
both activities to start its own businesses and to become more independent of government contracts
and grants.
Today, the Tribe has a number of businesses on the reservation, including construction-
related firms, a fish hatchery, Tulalip Casino, and Tulalip Bingo. The major source of Tribal income
and local employment is from the construction sector and gaming facilities. The Tribe also is
considering seeding Tulalip Bay with clam and oyster beds that Tribal members can harvest for
themselves or for the commercial sector. A 300-acre business park is being planned; it might offer
additional local employment. .
2-40
-------
Table 2-34. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Swinomish Tribal Lands
===^=
Facility Name
Two-Digit
SIC Code NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
Dunlop Log Yard 5099
Lonetree Seafood, Inc. 2091
Skagit Bay Boatyard 4459
Svendsen Mill Company Gravel 1442
Pit
42 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and
Wood Panels
31-33 Canned and Cured Fish and Seafood
48-49 Water Transportation Services, NEC
21 Construction Sand and Gravel
8 Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected bv
these proposed rules. J
Table 2-35. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Swinomish Tribal Lands
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138
49.139
s
Dunlop Log Yard
Lonetree Seafood, Inc. / /
Skagit Bay Boatyard
Svendsen Mill Company Gravel
Pit
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
This reservation has seven identified facilities that are potentially affected by the proposed
air quality rules. The affected facilities include a landfill, a gravel pit, and gas stations. Table 2-36
provides the names of the facilities, the corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of
interest. Table 2-37 summarizes the rules believed to apply to each facility.
2-41
-------
Table 2-36. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Tulalip Tribal Lands
Facility Name
Artisan Finishing Systems Inc.
Big Flats Landfill
Donna's Truck Stop
Easterbrook's Unocal 76 Service
Station
Sea Cast, Inc.
Unocol 76 Service
Unocol 76 Gravel Pit
SIC Code
3479
4953
5541
5541
NA
5541
1442
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
31-33
56
44-45
44-45
31-33
44-45
21
SIC Industry Description
Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, NEC
Refuse Systems
Gasoline Service Stations
Gasoline Service Stations
NA
Gasoline Service Stations
Construction Sand and Gravel
NA = Not available
* Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2.38 Umatilla
The Umatilla Reservation covers 172,140 acres in northeastern Oregon and is adjacent to
the city of Pendleton. In the early 1700s, the Tribes relied on salmon and other fish as their primary
food source. After the introduction of the horse, they became more mobile and used their lush
grasslands mainly as range for their horses. Today, Tribal members lease much of the reservation's
tillable land for farming. About 55,000 acres of Tribally affiliated lands are fanned, primarily in dry-
land wheat and green peas. Estimated annual revenues are about $45 million, hi addition, the
reservation contains over 83,000 acres of forest reserves.
Besides Tribal government, the Tribes operate a bingo facility, the Wild Horse Gaming
Resort, the Indian Lake Campground, and the Oregon Trail Interpretive Facility in Baker City. The
Wild Horse Gaming Resort is an especially large source of revenue, generating about $13 million in
revenues annually. On the reservation, there are several active rock quarries and reservation-based
2-42
-------
Table 2-37. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Tulalip Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Artisan Finishing Systems Inc.
Big Flats Landfill6
Donna's Truck Stop
Easterbrook's Unocal 76 Service
Station
Sea Cast, Inc.
Unocal 76 Service
Unocal Gravel Pit
a Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive particulate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the.rules will apply.
construction contractors. The Tribes have also leased the McNary Dam townsite to a
manufacturer of mobile homes. The Tribes have a number of tourism-based economic
development projects in the works as weU, including a hotel, a golf course, and an RV park.
This reservation includes six identified facilities that are potentially affected by the proposed
air quality rules. The affected facilities include a grain elevator, a transfer station for a landfill, a
casino, and concrete batch plants. Table 2-38 provides the names or types of the facilities, the
corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest. Table 2-39 summarizes the
rules believed to apply to each facility.
The Umatilla Reservation has requested that Additional Rules 49.132, 49.133,49.134, and
49.136 be applied to their lands. Based on data from the Tribal fire safety program, the Tribe's air
specialist estimates that there would be 50 open burning permit applications, 100 agricultural
burning permit applications, and 10 forestry burning applications per year under these rules.
2-43
-------
Table 2-38. Potentially Affected Faculties Located on Umatilla Tribal Lands
Facility Name or Type
Arrowhead Truck Plaza
(fee land)
Grain Elevator
Pendelton Ready Mix plant
(fee land)
Pioneer Asphalt aka Pioneer
Construction
Transfer Station
Wildhorse Resort and Casino
SIC Code
7538,5541
5153
3273
2951
4953
7999
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
81
42
31-33
31-33
56
71
SIC Industry Description
General Automotive Repair Shops,
Gasoline Service Stations
Grain and Field Beans
Ready-Mixed Concrete
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Refuse Systems
Amusement and Recreation Services, NEC
* Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
Table 2-39. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Umatilla Tribal Lands
Section"
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Arrowhead Truck Plaza (fee land)
Grain Elevator
Pendelton Ready Mix Plant (fee
land)
Pioneer Asphalt aka Pioneer
Construction
Transfer Station
Wildhorse Resort and Casino6
/
S
•/
S
* Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Particulate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
b EPA Region 10 believes that this facility may potentially have an air pollution source that would have to
comply with the proposed air quality rules, but it is currently unknown which, if any, of the rules will apply.
2-44
-------
2.39 Upper Skagit Reservation
The Upper Skagit Reservation is divided into two large noncontiguous segments: Helmock
^ Road Reservation, the primary reservation, and Bow Hill Road. The main sources of Tribal
: revenues come from Federal grants. There are also some profits from Tribal businesses. The
r Upper Skagit Tribe operates several businesses, including a gaming facility, a woodcraft
- manufacturing facility and the Timberline Services Enterprise.
A lumber mill is the only identified facility that is potentially affected by the proposed air
quality rules.- Table 2-40 provides the type of the facility, the corresponding SIC and NAICS
, codes, and the industry of interest. Table 2-41 summarizes the rules believed to apply to this
facility.
Table 2-40. Potentially Affected Facility Located on Upper Skagit Tribal Lands
Facility Name
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
SIC Industry Description
Wood Products Manufacturing
Facility
24
31-33
Lumber and Wood Products
a Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
Table 2-41. Rules Applying to Facility Located on Upper Skagit Tribal Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Wood Products Manufacturing
Facility
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive particulate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2-45
-------
2.40 Warm Springs
. The Warms Springs Reservation lies in north-central Oregon on the eastern slope of the
Cascade Range, about 100 miles southeast of Portland. The reservation spans 643,570 acres and
is bounded on the east and south by rivers and lakes. It features excellent fishing, hiking, camping,
and mountain climbing. The Confederated Tribes of this reservation include three different Tribes:
Sahaptin-speaking Warm Springs Tribe, the Upper Chinook-speaking Wascos, and the Northern
Paiute. Traditionally, these Tribes followed a subsistence pattern of hunting, gathering, and
particularly fishing. Today, forestry, logging, and sawmill activities at Warm Springs bring in over
$18 million annually, hi addition to revenue from agricultural activities.
Besides Tribal government, the reservation houses Warm Springs Forest Product Industries
(wood processing), the Warm Springs Clothing Company (locally designed and produced native
fashions), Warm Springs Apparel Industries, and Warm Springs Composite Products (producing
wood-substitute products). These businesses jointly generate significant revenues and Tribal
employment. The Tribes also plan to build a gaming facility next to the main lodge at their Kah-
Nee-Ta Resort complex.
Five facilities are identified on the reservation as potentially affected by the proposed air
quality rules. The affected facilities include a rock crushing plant, a print shop, a landfill, a lumber
mill, and a gypsum plant. Table 2-42 provides the names or types of the facilities, the
corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest. Table 2-43 summarizes the
rules believed to apply to each facility.
2.41 Yakama Reservation
The Yakama Reservation spans 1,372,000 acres along the eastern slopes of the Cascade
Mountains hi south-central Washington State. About 90,000 acres are Federal trust lands. Most
of the Yakama spoke Ten-tumpt, a northwestern Sahaptin dialect of the Sahaptian language, and
lived on fishing and gathering. Today, the Yakama operate fisheries for ceremonial, subsistence,
and commercial purposes. In addition to fisheries, the Tribe manages 309,000 acres of reservation
timber, the largest stand of commercial saw log timber of any Indian reservation.
2-46
-------
Table 2-42. Potentially Affected Fadlities Located on Warm Springs Tribal Lands
Facility Name
Print Shop
Warm Springs Composite Products
Warm Springs Crushing and
Construction
Warm Springs Forest Products
Industries
Warm Springs Landfill
=^ ___
SIC Code
2741
3275
1429
2421,2432
4953
Two-Digit
NAICSCode"
51
31-33
21
31-33
56
SIC Industry Description
Miscellaneous Publishing
Gypsum Products
Crushed and Broken Stone, NEC
Sawmills and Planing Mills,
General
fO1 *e SIC C°des affcctod **
Table 2-43. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Warm Springs Tribal Lands
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Print Shop
Warm Springs Composite
Products
Warm Springs Crushing and
Construction
Warm Springs Forest Products'
Industries
Warm Springs Landfill
a Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive paniculate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2-47
-------
The Yakama Indian Nation actively seeks industrial development projects to generate job
opportunities for Tribal members and boost its economy. The Tribal Land Enterprise is developing
27,000 acres of Tribal land for agricultural, industrial, and recreational use. The Wapato Industrial
Park houses a Tribally owned furniture manufacturing plant and other businesses. The Tribe is
researching and planning to open a forest product processing facility, a hydroelectric power plant, a
bingo hall, and a grocery store on the reservation.
The reservation includes 61 facilities subject to the proposed air quality rules. The affected
.facilities include fuel delivery service, an asphalt mix/batch plant, farms, dry cleaners, auto body
shops, food processing plants, and lumber mills. Table 2-44 provides the names of the facilities, the
corresponding SIC and NAICS codes, and the industries of interest. Table 2-45 summarizes the
rules believed to apply to each facility.
2-48
-------
Table 2-44. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Yakama Tribal Lands
Facility Name
SIC Code
Two-Digit
NAICS Code"
Industry
7-Eleven#25128 5812,5541 72
A-l Body Shop ; 7532 81
Action Craft Boat Builders 3732 31-33
American Auto Paints 7532 81
Batali Ranch, Inc. 2899 32
Bennett's Lower Valley 7532 81
Collision
Bleyhl Farm Service, Inc. 5191 42
Bos/Meshke Still 2899 32
Brulotte Farms 0139 11
Caribou Ranches 2899 32
Chandler DisTributing 5172 42
Company
Columbia Asphalt' 2951 31-33
Concrete West Inc. 2951 32
Crop Production Service NA 11
Dale's Chevron 5541 44-45
Del Monte Plant 129 20 31-33
Del Monte Plant #122 2033 31-33
Don's Body Shop 7532 81
Far Western Farms, Inc. 2899 11
Ferguson Brothers 2899 11
Ford's Texaco City Center 5541 44-45
Graham and Morris 2951 • 31-33
Hein Ranches, Inc. 2899 31-32
Henry Lomers Mint Distillery 2899 31-32
Hugo's Body Shop 7532 81
Husch&Husch 2899 31-32
Eating and Drinking Places, Gasoline
Service Stations
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Boat Building and Repairing
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Farm Supplies
Field Crqps, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Wholesalers, Except Bulk Stations and
Terminals
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block
Manufacturer
NA
Gasoline Service Stations
Food and Kindred Products
Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves,
Jams, and Jellies
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops^ Except Cash Grains, NEC
Gasoline Service Stations
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
NA
(continued)
2-49
-------
Table 2-44. Potentially Affected Facilities Located on Yakama Tribal Lands (continued)
Facility Name
, J&S Body Shop
Jeld-Wen Fibre of
SIC Code
7532
NA
Two-Digit
NAICS Code'
81
31-33
Industry
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
NA
Jeld-Wen Fibre of
Washington
Jeld-Wen of White Swan
Jim Frank Farms, Inc.
JJJ Auto Body — Jim's Auto
Body
Kites Korner
Kims Modern Cleaners
Knight Ranch*
Labbeemint, Inc.
Master Auto Painting
Naumes Concentrate
North End Auto Body
PACE International
PACE International Parker
WA
Paul Bouchey Ranches, Inc.
' Providence Toppenish
Hospital
R and R Halvorson
R.D. Frank Farms
S.P. Farms
Save-MorlGAGas
Serve Urn Self
Silgan Containers Corporation
Smitty's Conoco
St. Hilaire, Jim
StfotherLR Company
Thalheimer, Al
NA
2431
2899
7532
5812, 5541
7216
2899
2899
. 7532
2037
7532
2875
2875
2899
8062
2899
2899
2899
' 5541
5541
3411
5541
2899
0723
2899
31-33
31-33
31-32
81
72
81
31-32
31-32
81
31-33
81
31-33
. 31-33
31-32
62
31-32
31-32
31-32
44-45
44-45
31-33
44-45
31-32
11
31-32
NA
Millwork
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Eating and Drinking Places, Gasoline
Service Stations
Dry Cleaning Plants, Except Rug
Cleaning
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and
Vegetables
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair
Shops and Paint Shops
Fertilizers, Mixing Only
Fertilizers, Mixing Only
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Gasoline Service Stations
Gasoline Service Stations
Metal Cans
Gasoline Service Stations
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Crop Preparation Services For Market,
except Cotton Ginning
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
(continued)
2-50
-------
Table 2-44. Potentially Affected Faculties Located on Yakama Tribal Lands (continued)
Facility Name
The Campbell Farm
Top Cleaners
Toppenish Review
Trading Post
Wapato Independent
Wapato Jackpot #01-061
Washington Beef Producers,
Inc.
Waste Management of Yakima
Yakama Forest Products
SIC Code
2899
7216
2711
5541
2711
5541
2011
NA
2426
Two-Digit
NAICS Code'
31-32
81
51
44-45
51
44-45
31-33
22
31-33
Industry
Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
Garment Pressing, and Agents for
Laundries and Dry Cleaners
Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing
and Printing
Gasoline Service Stations
Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing
and Printing
Gasoline Service Stations
Meat Packing Plants
NA
Hardwood Dimension and Flooring
Mills
NA = Not available
a Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed mapping of SIC codes to NAICS codes for the SIC codes affected by
these proposed rules.
2-51
-------
Table 2-45. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Yakama Tribal Lands
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
7-Eleven #25128
A-l Body Shop
Action Craft Boat Builders
American Auto Paints
Batali Ranch, Inc. S
Bennett's Lower Valley Collision
Bleyhl Farm Service, Inc.
Bos/Meshke Still /
Brulotte Farms /
Caribou Ranches /
Chandler Distributing Company
Columbia Asphalt
Concrete West Inc.
Crop Production Service
Dale's Chevron
Del Monte Plant 129
Del Monte Plant #122 /
Don's Body Shop
Far Western Farms, Inc. v'
Ferguson Brothers /
Ford's Texaco City Center
Graham and Morris
Hein Ranches, Inc. /"
Henry Lomefs Mint Distillery S
Hugo's Body Shop
Husch & Husch /"
J&S Body Shop
Jeld-Wen Fibre of Washington /"
Jeld-Wen of White Swan /
Jim Frank Farms, Inc. /
JJJ Auto Body—Jim's Auto Body
Kites Korner
Kims Modern Cleaners
Knight Ranch •"
Labbeemint, Inc. S
Master Auto Painting
S
V
S
S
/
S
s
-------
Table 2-45. Rules Applying to Facilities Located on Yakama Tribal Lands (continued)
Section*
Facility
49.124 49.125 49.126 49.129 49.130 49.138 49.139
Naumes Concentrate /
North End Auto Body
PACE International S
PACE International Parker WA S
Paul Bouchey Ranches, Inc. S
Providence Toppenish Hospital
R and R Halvorson S
R.D. Frank Farms /
S.P. Farms /
Save-Mor IGA Gas
Serve Um Self
Silgan Containers Corporation
Smitty's Conoco
St. Hilaire, Jim S
Strother LR Company /
Thalheimer, Al S
The Campbell Farm /
Top Cleaners ;
Toppenish Review
Trading Post
Wapato Independent
Wapato Jackpot #01-061
Washington Beef Producers,' /
Inc.
Waste Management of Yakima
Yakama Forest Products /"
/
/
S
S
s
s
S
s
I
S
S
S
S
S
Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.125, Paniculate matter
Section 49.126, Fugitive particulate matter
Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions
Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits
2-53
-------
-------
SECTIONS
PROFILES OF AFFECTED INDUSTRIES
During the initial review of the Region 10 database, the Agency identified over 40 types of
industries that are potentially affected by the proposed rule. Approximately 80 percent of the
entities were included in nine two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code groups (ten
two-digit NAICS codes). Using data from the 1997 economic census (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2000), the Encyclopedia of American Industries (Heil and Peck, 1998), the U.S. Industry and
Trade Outlook 2000 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000), and other government publications,
the Agency developed very brief summary economic profiles of these nine sectors in Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington.
3.1 Utilities (SIC 49/NAICS 221,562,486)
Ten establishments in the Region 10 database were identified as providing solid waste
treatment services such as landfilling, recycling and composting, and incineration. There were
approximately 2,000 landfills across the United States in 1998, and most sites have over 10 years
of remaining life (Novak, 2000). Recycling has grown over the past two decades although there
are 30 States with less than 50 percent of communities served by recycling programs. There were
approximately 131 incinerators operating in the United States during 1998, but this number has
declined over time because it is typically more costly than landfilling and recycling.
One facility in the database generates electricity using a hydroelectric dam. There is also a
utility that distributes natural gas through a pipeline in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain
Region. Williams Interstate Natural Gas System, which consists of five interstate natural gas
pipelines, is owned by the Williams Companies. These five systems deliver approximately 16
percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States (Williams Gas Pipeline, 2000). One
additional facility in the database also distributes natural gas in this region.
As shown in Table 3-1, the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for
approximately 2.5 percent of national industry shipments in 1997, or $12 billion. In addition, the
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Selected Industry Statistics for Utilities (NAICS 221,562,486): 1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
• Establishments
(#)
34,192
276
566
696
Employees
(#)
1,032,691
4,400
11,377"
16,214
Annual Payroll ($103)
$48,154,168
$187,879
$540,174"
$723,751
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
($103)
$477,895,924
$1,404,299
$5,106,577"
$5,452,005
* Data for NAICS 486 are withheld by the U.S. Census Bureau to avoid disclosing data on individual
companies.
Source: U.Si Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact'Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
utility industry employed over 31,000 workers with an annual payroll of $ 1.5 billion in these three
States. Additional data on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on
sales was 7.9 percent (7.7 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3.2 Wood Product Manufacturing (SIC 24/NAICS 321)
The wood product manufacturing industry comprises establishments engaged in logging;
operating sawmills and planing mills; and manufacturing structural wood panels, wooden containers,
and other wood products. The database includes 26 facilities located on Tribal lands. Most wood
products manufactured in the United States are produced for domestic consumers, and the strength
of this market depends on the housing market (Tworak, 2000). In 1997, the wood product
industry's total value of shipments was $89.2 billion (see Table 3-2). Oregon accounted for
approximately 9 percent of these shipments ($8,4 billion), followed by Washington ($4.4 billion),
and Idaho ($2.0 billion). Export growth has depended on the strength of Asian economies,
especially Japan. Industry analysts expressed uncertainty about improved access in other foreign
markets and conclude that the outlook for exports continues to remain bleak (Tworak, 2000).
Data on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales was 4.1
percent (3.0 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3-2
-------
Table 3-2. Selected Industry Statistics for Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321):
1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Establishments
(#)
17,411
206
600
589
Employees
(#)
574,426
9,288
38,088
22,196
Annual Payroll ($103)
$14,401,357
$262,352
$1,132,361
$647,891
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
($103)
$89,211,563
$2,010,498
$8,432,222
$4,415,151
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
3.3 Agricultural Production—Crops (SIC 01/NAICS 111) ,^
These establishments are primarily farms and ranches producing cash grains, field crops, or
ornamental plants and nursery products. The database includes 21 establishments on Tribal lands.3
Idaho is typically associated with its number one crop, potatoes, because it produces approximately
30 percent of the nation's crop. However, the State also produces other crops such as grains and
hays. Oregon's major field crops include hay (45.5 percent of value of production), winter wheat
(18.2 percent), potatoes (17.5 percent), and peppermint (6 percent). For the State of Washington,
field crops account for 35 percent of the State's value of agriculture. Major crops include wheat
and potatoes.2
Of the nearly 2 million farms located hi the United States in 1997, 85,000 (4.4 percent)
were located in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. As shown in Table 3-3, these States accounted
for approximately 5.6 percent of the market value of farm products sold in 1997, or $11.1 billion.
The average product revenue per farm in the United States was $102,970. Idaho's and
Washington's average product revenues significantly exceeded the national average ($149,945 and
$164,342, respectively), while Oregon's average product revenue was below the national average
'Many of these farms and ranches are classified in 2899 because they also operate mint distilleries.
2State-level data were provided by the U.S. National Agriculture Statistic Service (NASS) (2000a,b,c).
3-3
-------
Table 3-3. Selected Industry Statistics for Agricultural Production (NAICS 111): 1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Farms
(#)
1,911,859
22,314
34,030
29,011
Market Value of Products Sold
($10«)
$196,864
$3,345
$2,969
$4,768
Average
($/Farm)
$102,970 ,
$149,945
$87,252
$164,342
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
($87,252). Data on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales
was 4.9 percent (3.5 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3.4 Mining (except oil and gas) (SIC 14/NAICS 212)
Construction sand and gravel are major raw materials for the construction industry. The
western region of the United States leads the nation in production of construction sand and gravel
(481 million tons in 1998), with Washington State listed as one of the top 10 producers (Bolen,
1998). The database includes 18 establishments located on Tribal lands. Foreign trade in
construction sand and gravel is insignificant because of the high cost of transportation. It is
essentially limited to local transactions across boundaries (i.e., Canada). The U.S. Geological
Survey (US"GS) reports the average unit price for construction sand and gravel in 1998 was $4.57
per metric ton.
As shown in Table 3-4, the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for
approximately 2.1 percent of national industry shipments in 1997, or $1.1 billion. In addition, the
industry employed over 7,000 workers with an annual payroll of $271.2 million in these three
States. Data on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales was
7.2 percent (6.6 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3-4
-------
Table 3-4. Selected Industry Statistics for Mining (except oil and gas) (NAICS 212):
1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Establishments
(#)
7,3'48
95
113
121
Employees
(#)
229,319
2,765
1,645
2,617
Annual Payroll ($103)
$9,421,600
$107,584
$58,111
$105,512
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
($103)
$51,252,625
• $418,197
$211,507
$444,031
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
3.5 Gasoline Stations (SIC 55/NAICS 447)
Since 1982, the number of stations has steadily declined as major oil companies closed
smaller "mom and pop" style stations (Summers and Nelson, 1998). By the 1990s, over two-
thirds of service stations were branded stations associated with major oil companies. Managers of
these branded stations may own or rent the station, and they purchase gasoline from parent
companies resulting in price and supply reliability advantages. Independent operators, typically
purchase surplus gasoline (i.e., total supply less that sold to branded stations) from a variety of
companies. The 1990s also saw an increase in the number of other services provided by gasoline
stations such as convenience stores, carwashes, or service bays (Summers and Nelson, 1998).
Another advance made in the past decade is the increasing number of gas pumps with in-pump
point of sale (POS) machines that allow customers to purchase gas with credit or debit cards
without interacting with a cashier.
The database includes 16 gasoline stations located on Tribal lands. As shown in Table 3-5,
the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for approximately 3.6 percent of national
industry shipments in 1997, or $7 billion. In addition, the industry employed over 34,300 worker's
with an annual payroll of $427.6 million in these States. Data on industry-wide profitability in 1997
show the average (median) return on sales was 2.0 percent (1.4 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet,
1997).
3-5
-------
Table 3-S. Selected Industry Statistics for Gasoline Stations (NAICS 447): 1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Establishments
(#)
126,889
696
1,219
2,056
Employees
(#)
922,062
5,837
12,282
16,185
Annual Payroll ($103)
$11,482,092
$65,703
$151,448
$210,473
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
($103)
$198,165,786
$1,086,046
$2,331,328
$3,757,320
' Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
3.6 Food Manufacturing (SIC 20/NAICS 311)
This industry includes establishments such as meat packaging plants, canning fruits and
vegetables, sugar cane refining, and preparing or canning fish and seafood. The database includes
13 facilities located on Tribal lands. Meat packing plants are primarily engaged in slaughtering
animals such as cattle or hogs for use in on-site canning, cooking, curing, and freezing. Demand for
these products has fluctuated with changes in consumer eating habits and health concerns; the
number of beef companies declined by 22 percent between 1982 and 1992 (Ratcliffe and Barnett,
1998).
Canned food processors are the primary market for farmers, and their primary competitors
are the fresh and frozen food industries. They enjoy a strong export market—canned fruits and
vegetables are among the top five industries in foreign trade (Ratcliffe and McNulty, 1998). Sugar
cane refiners have experienced strong domestic competition as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
and artificial sweemers have taken increasingly large shares of the market. Fifty percent of the 21
refineries in existence in 1980 closed between 1980 and 1990 (Stein and Paulson, 1998).
Finally, the fish and seafood canning industry has suffered declines in per capita
consumption across all products. Industry experts cite increased competition from other food
products such as fast food. Tuna fish remains the top-selling product in the canned and cured fish
and seafood industry (Bellenir and McNulty, 1998).
3-6
-------
As shown in Table 3-6, the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for
approximately 4.1 percent of national industry shipments in 1997, or $17.3 billion. In addition, the
industry employed over 73,800 workers with an annual payroll of $1.9 billion in these States. Data
on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales was 2.9 percent
(2.1 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
Table 3-6. Selected Industry Statistics for Food Manufacturing (NAICS 311): 1997
Establishments
Location (#)
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
26,361
154
440
734
Employees
(#) Annual Payroll ($103)
1,471,050
16,238
21,567
36,066
$38,532,086
$372,867
$546,661
$947,376
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
mo3)
$423,978,723
$3,977,685
$4,662,101
$8,692,715
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. ,
3.7 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (SIC 29/NAICS 324)
Most asphalt is obtained as a by-product of the distillation of petroleum. It is used in a
variety of construction projects such as roads, parking lots, and other surfaces and offers two
distinct advantages over concrete—cost and flexibility. As evidence of its value, over 94 percent of
the 2.7 million miles of paved road are surfaced with asphalt (Mote and Glover, 1998). The
database includes 13 establishments located on Tribal lands.
As shown hi Table 3-7, the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for
approximately 3.3 percent of national industry shipments in 1997, or $5.7 billion. In addition, the
industry employed 2,900 workers with an annual payroll of $148 million hi these three States. Data
on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales was 2.8 percent
(2.7 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3-7
-------
Table 3-7. Selected Industry Statistics for Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
(NAICS 324): 1997
Location
'United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Establishments
(#)
2,155
5
22
31
Employees
(#)
107,878
100 to 249
769
2,185
Annual Payroll ($103)
$5,554,842
D
$32,534
$115,743
Shioments/Sales/Receipts
C$103)
$176,217,259
D
$346,384
$5,393,828
D = U.S. Census Bureau withheld information to avoid disclosing data on individual companies.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
3.8 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods (SIC 51/NAICS 422)
Establishments classified in this industry are engaged in a wide variety of wholesale
operations such as grocery stores, petroleum product wholesalers, and distributors of farm supplies.
The database includes 14 facilities located on Tribal lands. Grocery wholesalers and distributors
purchase grocery items directly from manufacturers or other distributors and resell them to grocery
or convenience stores. Diminished sales growth occurred during the 1990s as the result of new
warehouse clubs such as Sam's Club and vertically integrated retailers such as Kroger Company
and Safeway Incorporated (Heil and Peck, 1998). Wholesale distributors of petroleum and
petroleum products distribute items such as butane gas, fuel oil, liquified petroleum gas (LPG),
gasoline, kerosene, lubricating oils and grease, and naptha. Farm supply wholesalers distribute
items such as animal feed, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, and seed. These suppliers
are also typically small firms with 10 or fewer employees. The industry has been identified as a
mature market with minimal or declining growth throughout the last decade (Cohen and Urbiel,
1998),
As shown hi Table 3-8, the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for
approximately 3.5 percent of national industry shipments in 1997, or $66.2 billion. In addition, the
industry employed over-95,700 workers with an annual payroll of $2.95 billion in these three
States. Data on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales was
2.8 percent (1.5 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3-8
-------
Table 3-8. Selected Industry Statistics for Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods
(NAICS422): 1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Establishments
(#)
162,841
828
1,934
3,609
Employees
(#)
2,398,296
11,954
31,886
51,815
Annual PayroU ($103)
$81,678,408
$268,554
$974,792
$1,710,582
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
($103)
$1,879,940,402
$4,802,803
$25,476,559
$35,931,547
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
3.9 Repair and Maintenance (SIC 75/NAICS 811)
Establishments classified in this industry are all automotive repair shops providing services
such as body repair and painting or refinishing. The database includes 14 facilities located on Tribal
lands. The facilities typically include body shops and on-site painting facilities; most have fewer
than five employees. Changes in paint technology and materials in car manufacturing have been two
important developments in the industry over the last 20 years. Investments in new paint materials
and specialized paint applications were required for small shops to remain competitive (Cook and
Nelson, 1998).
As shown in Table 3-9, the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington accounted for
approximately 3.9 percent of national shipments in this industry in 1997, or $4.1 billion. The
industry employed over 50,000 workers with an annual payroll of $1.2 billion in these three States.
Data on industry-wide profitability in 1997 show the average (median) return on sales was 4.5
percent (3.1 percent) (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997).
3-9
-------
Table 3-9. Selected Industry Statistics for Repair and Maintenance (NAICS 811): 1997
Location
United States
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Establishments
(#)
235,466
1,228
3,162
5,182
Employees
(#)
1,276,389
5,979
16,554
27,517
Annual Payroll ($103)
$29,875,211
$108,620
$382,015
$678,052
Shipments/Sales/Receipts
($103)
$105,153,886
$413,925
$1,334,365
$2,351,045
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder. Washington, DC:
[online]. .
3-10
-------
SECTION 4
INFORMATION COLLECTION COSTS
The Agency identified 166 facilities located on Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington that will be affected by the proposed rules and estimated the costs for these
respondents to comply with the required provisions of the rules. An additional 21 facilities may
have air pollution sources that would require them to comply with the rule, but these facilities were
not assigned costs, because it is unknown whether air pollution sources falling under the proposed
rules are located at these facilities.1 In addition to the identified sources located on reservations,
general building contractors and fire protection services also operate on reservations and must
comply with these regulations. Ten proposed basic rules apply to air pollution sources on Indian
reservations in Region 10, although not all of the rules have costs associated with them. Costs were
estimated for eight of these rules, as described in Appendix A. In addition to the basic rules that
apply to all of these reservations, six additional rules also apply only on reservations where EPA, in
consultation with the Tribes, has determined they are appropriate. Costs were estimated for these
additional rules as well, based on the reservations for which EPA has proposed one or more of the
additional rules. This section describes the methodology used to generate cost estimates and
summarizes the total costs associated with the regulation.
For the purposes of generating cost estimates for each of the proposed rules, EPA assumed
that mere will be no capital costs incurred under any of these rules. EPA makes this assumption
because the unique nature of this rule - sources are believed to be complying in the absence of the
rule because they thought they were subject to State and local (S/L) rules - makes it difficult to
establish a counterfactual baseline showing what sources would be doing had they realized they
were not subject to those rules. In working with the State, local, and Tribal authorities, as well as
the businesses and other entities affected by these rules, EPA has learned that S/L authorities have
For example, casinos located on Indian reservations may use diesel generators for backup power, but it is not
known which (if any) of the casinos have diesel generators and which do not.
4-1
-------
generally implemented their air quality programs throughout their designated land areas, including
reservation lands. This is true even though EPA is on record that, pursuant to the CAA, the S/L
requirements do not extend onto Indian reservations absent explicit Congressional authority.
Hence, industries on reservations have historically been regulated by S/Ls as though they were
subject to the S/L jurisdiction and these industries have made efforts to comply with the S/L rules.
In most cases^ sources located on Indian reservations have complied with S/L rules, and
most industrial sources have installed or upgraded pollution controls to comply with S/L rules. EPA
is not aware of any facilities on Region 10 Indian reservations that have defended S/L enforcement
actions on the grounds that the S/L lacks authority on Indian reservations. The net result is that
EPA expects that most sources affected by the proposed air quality rules already have sufficient
control equipment to enable them to attain arid maintain compliance with the rales.
In addition, EPA has not estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to comply
with these rules because EPA would need, at a minimum, extensive data on the type of controls in
place at each facility as well as facility output. At the time of this analysis, such data are only
available for one of the rules for a small subset of affected firms. EPA believes that O&M costs
should be considered, but insufficient data were available to estimate them. O&M cost estimates
based on information gathered from comments on the proposal will be included in the analysis for
the final rule.
4.1 Labor Costs for Basic Rules
The loaded (e.g., including benefits and overhead) wage rates used for respondents are
consistent with those used in the Part 71 Operating Permits rule (OMB#2060-0336). These wage
rates are based on 1996 wage data from the Bureau of the Census adjusted to 1999 using the
Employment Cost Index (ECI) for white collar occupations. The Agency extrapolated from 1996
to 1999 by taking the average increase in ECI for 1994,1995, and 1996 and applying that average
to each year from 1997 to 1999. The estimated annual salaries for the labor categories are
$36,537.38 for technical support, $34,786.75 for managerial activities, and $22,080.55 for
administrative support staff. It Was assumed that in addition to the costs of the technical support
time, about 1/11 of a managerial staff member's time (based on a manager supervising a staff of ten (
technical staff and one administrative support staff person) and 1/8 of an administrative support staff
person's time would be devoted to supporting the technical staff member. Summing the technical
4-2
-------
support salary and the portions of managerial and administrative support time devoted to supporting
that person yields $42,459.57. Benefits of 26 percent of wages were added as well as general
overhead of 23.5 percent of wages and benefits. Overall, this yields an estimate of $67,226.24 per
technical FTE. Dividing by 2,080 hours per year provides our estimate of $32.32 per hour used in
this report.
Labor costs are divided into "one-time" costs and recurring costs. One-time labor costs
are essentially costs that are incurred initially as start-up costs (e.g., time spent gaining familiarity
with applicable rules, labor required to complete and file registration forms), but are not incurred
again during the period of analysis. These start-up costs were annualized over a 3-year period
using a discount rate of 7 percent. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (1995) guidance on
economic analyses recommends that analysts use the opportunity cost of capital for discounting in
economic analyses of regulations. The discount rate reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, as
specified by OMB Circular A-94, is estimated to be 7 percent. This represents the average rate of
return on low-yielding capital investments, such as housing, and the returns on high-yielding
investments, such as corporate capital. The costs are annualized over 3 years for consistency with
the ICR, which is required to look at costs over a 3-year period.
For the purposes of this analysis, all one-time costs were assumed to occur at the beginning
of the first year. :This assumption likely overstates the costs because some of these one-time costs
are likely to be incurred after the beginning of the first year and the net present value of these costs
should then be used for annualization. However, because the actual distribution of costs is
unknown, the costs were not discounted to avoid understating the costs to affected entities.
Recurring labor costs are those that will be incurred each year under the rules (e.g., labor costs
associated with preparing quarterly updates, labor required for registration modifications). The
number of labor hours associated with each basic rule is briefly summarized below.
4.1.1 Visible Emissions (49.124)
Under this rule, it was assumed that each of the 53 affected facilities will spend 1 hour
reading the rule. EPA Region 10 believes that EPA staff will perform most of the necessary opacity
readings. Based on EPA Region 10 experience and initial consultation with sources, we are
assuming that only two of the affected facilities will voluntarily train an employee to perform opacity
readings using EPA Method 9 during the first 3 years following implementation. First-time
4-3 •
-------
certification is estimated to take 3 days of training (24 hours), while recertification is expected to
take 2 days (16 hours) every 6 months. Travel time is estimated to be 0.5 day to and from the
training facility for a total of 1 day (8 hours) each time someone attends training. The labor hours
'and labor costs associated with this rule are presented in Table 4-1 and are divided between those
two facilities mat are assumed to train a visible emissions reader (VE reader) and the remaining
facilities that do not train a VE reader.
Table 4-1. Labor Costs per Facility for the Visible Emissions Rule (49.124) (1999$)
Labor Hours
Train VE Reader
No VE Reader
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
2
51
53
One-
Time
33
1
117
One-Time
(per Year)
11
0.3
39
Recurring
(per Year)
48
0
96
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$1,067
$32
$3,781
Annualized
One-Time
$406
$12
•$1,441
Recurring
$1,551
$0
$3,103
Total
Annualized
$1,958
$12
$4,544
4.1.2 Particulate Matter (49.125)
It was assumed that each of the 50 affected facilities will spend 1 hour reading the rale.
Based on experience and initial consultation with sources, EPA Region 10 assumed that up to six
facilities will need to test one source using EPA Method 5 during the first 3 years following
implementation. Completing a source test was assumed to require 12 hours to contact source test
firms and review bids, 6 hours to supervise the tests, and 2 hours to review the final report for a
total of 20 hours. The labor hours and labor costs associated with this rale are presented in
Table 4-2 and are divided into facilities that will perform source tests and those that will not.
4.1.3 Fugitive Particulate Matter (49.126)
For this rule, it was assumed that each of the 56 affected facilities would spend 0.5 hour
reading the rule and 6 hours preparing a PM Control Plan. These facilities were divided into two
tiers based on the likely number of fugitive PM sources to compute the estimated recurring costs of
completing quarterly updates-to the plan, as necessary. "Simple" facilities (those with one source or
4-4
-------
Table 4-2. Labor Costs per Facility for the Particulate Matter Rule (49.125) (1999$)
Labor Hours
Perform Source
Test
No Source Test
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
6
44
50
One-
Time
21
1
170
One-Time
(per Year)
7
0.3
56.7
Recurring
(per Year)
0
0
0
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$679
$32
$5,494
Annualized
One-Time
$259
$12
$2,094
Recurring
$0
$0:
$0
Total
Annualized
$259
, $12
$2,094
multiple common sources) were assumed to require 1 hour per quarter for updates, while
"moderately complex" facilities (those with multiple different sources) were assumed to require 2
hours per quarter for updates. There were five facilities characterized as simple and 51
characterized as moderately complex. ,
In addition to affected facilities located on Region 10 reservations, construction and
demolition contractors working on reservations will be required to prepare a PM Control Plan for
each project on Tribal lands. It was assumed that each PM Control Plan will take 8 hours to
complete. In addition to the PM Control Plan, contractors must conduct weekly surveys of PM
sources for the duration of the construction project. It was assumed that each construction project
will last for 12 weeks. Based on experience and initial Tribal consultations, it was .assumed that
there will be approximately one project per reservation per year subject to this rule. Thus, it is
expected that approximately 39 projects per year conducted on reservations in Region 10 will be
subject to this rule. We chose a five year period for records retention to be consistent with other
EPA regulations that apply to sources on reservations. Part 71 and nearly all of the EPA
regulations promulgated since the 1990 CAA Amendments require records to be retained for five
years (see 40 CFR Part 71, Part 63, and new standards in Part 60). The labor hours and labor
costs associated with this rule are presented in Table 4-3 and are divided into simple facilities,
moderately complex facilities, and construction/demolition contractors.
4-5
-------
Table 4-3. Labor Costs per Respondent for the Fugitive Participate Matter Rule (49.126)
(1999$)
Simple
Moderately
Complex
Construction/
Demolition
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
5
51
39
95
One-
Time
6.5
6.5
0
364
Labor Hours
One-Time
(per Year)
2.2
2.2
0
121.3
Recurring
(per Year)
4
8
20
1,208
labor Cost
One-
Time
$210
$210
$0
$11,764
Annualized
One-Time
$80
$80
$0
$4,483
Recurring
$129
$259
$646
$39,043
Total
Annualized
$209
$339
$646
$43,525
4.1.4 Sulfur Dioxide (49.129)
The costs estimated for this rule are based on the assumption that one facility will need to ;
test one source using EPA Method 6 in the first 3 years after implementation. Costs were included
for all 37 affected sources to spend 1 hour reviewing the rule. For the one facility that will conduct
a source test, it was assumed that completing a source test will require 12 hours to contact source
test firms and review bids, 6 hours to supervise the tests, and 2 hours to review the final report for a
total of 20 hours, just .as for the 49.125 source test. The labor hours and labor costs associated
with this rule are presented in Table 4-4 for the facility that will perform source tests and the
remainder that will not.
4.1.5 Sulfur Content of Fuels (49.130)
The assumptions used in estimating the one-time costs of this rule are that each of the 45
affected facilities will spend 1 hour reading the rule and labor for contacting fuel distributors to
request fuel sulfur content documentation will.require 0.5 hour. Based on EPA Region 10 \
experience and initial consultations with sources, it was assumed that the fuel currently used on
reservations already satisfies the fuel content requirement of the rule. Thus, sources will not have to
switch to a different fuel distributor and will not incur increased fuel costs, ha addition to the one-
time costs of reading the rule and requesting documentation, labor associated with recurrent
4-6
-------
Table 4-4. Labor Costs per Facility for the Sulfur Dioxide Rule (49.129) (1999$)
Labor Hours
Perform Source
Test
No Source
Test
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
1
36
37
One-
Time
21
1
57
One-Time
(per Year)
7
0.3
19.0
Recurring
(per Year)
0
0
0
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$679
$32
$1,842
Annualized
One-Time
$259
$12
$702
Recurring
$0
$0
$0
Total
Annualized
$259
$12
$702
recordkeeping was also included as 0.25 hour per quarter (assuming fuel received on quarterly
basis), or 1 hour per year per facility. The labor hours and labor costs associated with this rule are
presented in Table 4-5. The costs for each affected facility are the same under this rule.
Table 4-5. Labor Costs per Facility for Sulfur Content of Fuels Rule (49.130) (1999$)
Labor Hours
All Affected
Facilities
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
45
45
One-
Time
1.5
67.5
One-Time
(per Year)
0.5
22.5
Recurring
(per Year)
1
45
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$48
$2,182.
Annualized
One-Time
$18
$831
Recurring
$32
•$1,454
Total
Annualized
$51
$2,286
4.1.6 Open Burning (49.131)
Costs for information collection associated with this rule can only be applied to the
permission requirement for fire protection services. It was assumed that one fire protection service
per reservation per year would apply for a permit to burn a house as part of a training exercise.
The burden associated with this rule was assumed to include a 0.5 hour one-time cost for each fire
4-7
-------
protection service to read the rule. For the first year of implementation, a one-time burden of 1
hour per reservation is estimated for the initial contact to the Regional Administrator (to gain
familiarity with the information needs of the Regional Administrator). In addition to these one-time
costs, it was estimated that there would be a recurring labor burden of 1 hour per year per
reservation for contacting the Regional Administrator and gathering information to support the
request. The labor hours and labor costs associated with this rule are presented in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6. Labor Costs per Respondent for the Open Burning Rule (49.131) (1999$)
Labor Hours
Fire Protection
Services
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
39
39
One-
Time
1.5
58.5
'One-Time
(per Year)
0.5
19.5
Recurring
(per Year)
1
39
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$48
$1,891
Annualized
One-Time
$18
$720
Recurring
$32
$1,260
Total
Annualized
$51
$1,981
4.1.7 Registration of Air Pollution Sources/Reporting of Emissions (49.138)
It was assumed that each of the 166 affected facilities affected by this rule would spend 1
hour reading the rule. The affected facilities were then divided into three tiers: simple (e.g., facilities
with only one source), moderately complex (e.g., multiple sources, more complex processes), and
complex sources (e.g., most complex processes). However, the complex- sources were all the Title
V permit sources. These sources can use the data they prepare for Tide V compliance in the
registration program, and are not expected to incur additional costs. Tide V sources are affected
by this rule but would already have collected all of the information needed to comply with this rule
under the Part 71 requirements. There were 58 facilities placed in the simple category, 97 facilities
placed in the moderately complex category, and 11 Title V facilities. For affected facilities in the
simple tier, EPA Region 10 estimated that 8 hours will be needed to prepare the initial registration.
For moderately complex sources, it was estimated that 40 hours would be required to prepare the
initial registration. There is no need for monitoring to prove compliance under this rule because
4-8
-------
there are no emission limits as part of the registration rule. Facilities are just reporting oiLactivities,
they are not certifying environmental performance as part of registration.
tf . ,
Recurring costs of this rule include labor to prepare administrative modifications to the
- registration. It was assumed that 6 percent of the affected sources per year would spend 2 hours
4= each preparing these modifications. In addition, each year another 6 percent of the facilities are
r- estimated to prepare minor modifications to the registration (based on the ICR for Part 71
Operating Permits). Labor required to prepare minor modifications to the registration is estimated
* to be 8 hours for moderately complex facilities and 2 hours for simple facilities. The labor hours
and labor costs associated with the rule are presented in Table 4-7 and are divided into simple,
moderately complex, and Title V sources and further broken down into facilities that will make
... minor modifications to their registration forms in future years. In addition, some facilities are
expected to make administrative modifications each year. It was assumed that 10 facilities per year
would make administrative modifications requiring 2 hours per facility. The costs of making
administrative modifications were not assigned to particular tiers in this table. Annual re-registration
is required under this rule because 40 CFR Part 51 requires implementation plans to have
provisions that require sources to report emissions and for States to submit that emissions
information to EPA annually. Since States do not have jurisdiction for reservations, and Tribes do
not yet have their own implementation plans, we are only proposing to fulfill this existing
requirement for annual emissions information.
4.1.8 Operating Permits for Non-Title V Sources (49.139)
For this rule, it was assumed that all 29 affected facilities will require 1 labor hour to read
the rule. EPA Region 10 estimated that 15 facilities will apply for permits in the first 3 years of
implementation. It was assumed that the application will require 20 hours to prepare for each
facility, because most of the necessary information will have been gathered during registration under
. rule 49.138. The labor hours and labor costs associated with this rule are presented in Table 4-8
^ for affected facilities that apply for a permit and affected facilities that do not apply for a permit.
4.2 Nonlabor Costs for Basic Rules
Although the majority of activities estimated under this set of rules involve only labor hours,
three of the rules require estimation of nonlabor costs for a subset of the affected facilities. These
4-9
-------
Table 4-7. Labor Costs per Facility for the Registration Rule (49.138) (1999$)
Simple
No
Modifications
Minor
Modifications
Moderately
Complex
No
Modifications
Minor
Modifications
Title V
Administrative
Modifications*
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
54
4
91
6
11
10
166
One-
Time
9
9
41
41
1
0
4,510
Labor Hours
One-Time
(per Year)
3.0
3.0
13.7
13.7
0
0
1,503.3
Recurring
(per Year)
0
2
0
8
0
2
76
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$291
$291
$1,325
$1,325
$32
$0
$145,763
Annualized
One-Time
$111
$111
$505
$505
$12
$0
. $55,543
t
Recurring
$0
$65
$0
$259
$0
$65
$2,456
Total
Annualize
d
$111
$175
$505
$763
$12
$65
$58,000
* Administrative modifications could be made by simple facilities, moderately complex facilities, or Title V facilities, but
there is no obvious way to assign these costs to particular categories. These costs could be incurred by any facility in
addition to the costs specific to the category they are in.
rules are the visible emissions rule (49.124), the particulate matter rule (49.125), and the sulfur
dioxide rule (49.129). The nonlabor costs for these rules are summarized below.
4.2.1 Visible Emissions (49.124)
The nonlabor costs for this rule apply only to those two facilities expected to send an
employee to VE reader certification class. These costs include a first-time EPA Method 9
certification training cost of $250 per facility. Recertification training was estimated to cost $150
per facility every six months. Travel cost (air fare and per diem) was estimated to equal
4-10
-------
Table 4-8. Labor Costs per Facility for the Operating Permits Rule (49.139) (1999$) ?
->>
Apply for
^ Permit
No Permit
• Application
Total All -
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
15
14
29
One-
Time
21
1
329
Labor Hours
One-Time
(per Year)
7.0
0.3
109.7
Recurring
(per Year)
0
0
0
Labor Cost
One-
Time
$679
$32
$10,633
Annualized
One-Time
$259
$12
$4,052
Recurring
$0
$0
$0
Total
Annualized
$259
$12
$4,052
approximately $750 for the longer first-time certification and $600ifor recertification. The nonlabor
costs associated with this rule are summarized in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. Nonlabor Costs per Facility for the Visible Emissions Rule (49.124) (1999$)
Nonlabor Cost
Train VE Reader
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
2
2
One-Time
$1,000
$2,000
Annualized
One-Time
$381
$762
Recurring
$1,500
$3,000 -'
Total
Annualized
$1,881
$3,762
4.2.2 Particulate Matter (49.125)
For the six facilities expected to perform a source test under this rule during the first 3 years
following implementation, the cost per EPA Method 5 source test is estimated to be $5,000.2 The
- nonlabor costs associated with this rule are summarized in Table 4-10.
is cost estimate is based on information from two businesses in Region 10 that perform these source tests.
4-11
-------
Table 4-10. Nonlabor Costs per Facility for the Particulate Matter Rule (49.125) (1999$)
Nonlabor Cost
Number of
Respondents
One-Time
Annualized
One-Time
Recurring
Total
Annualized
Perform Source Test
$5,000
$1,905
$0
$1,905
Total All
Respondents
$30,000
$11,432
$0
$11,432
4.2.3 Sulfur Dioxide (49.129)
One facility is expected to perform a source test under this rule during the first 3 years
following implementation. For this facility, the nonlabor costs are estimated to be $5,000.3 The
nordabor costs associated with this rule are summarized in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11. Nonlabor Costs per Facility for the Sulfur Dioxide Rule (49.129) (1999$)
•- Nonlabor Cost
Perform Source Test
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
1
1
One-Time
$5,000
$5,000
Annualized
One-Time
$1,905
$1,905
Recurring
$0
$0
Total
Annualized
$1,905
$1,905
4.3 Costs for Additional Rules
These rules only apply for reservations where EPA, in consultation with the Tribes, has
determined that they are appropriate. Cost estimates for the additional rules only account for costs
on those reservations for which EPA has proposed additional rules. All of the costs associated with
these rules are labor costs.
This cost estimate is based on information from two businesses in Region 10 that perform these source tests.
4-12
-------
4.3.1 Woodwaste Burners (49.127)
EPA has determined, in consultation with the affected Tribes, that this rule is appropriate.
for the Colville and Nez Perce reservations. There are no woodwaste burners known to be
operating on either of these reservations. Therefore, there are no costs associated with switching to
alternative means of woodwaste disposal. However, five facilities have been identified that would
be subject to this rule and would have to dismantle their woodwaste burners (which are located on
their sites, although not currently in use). Region 10 estimates that each of the affected facilities
would spend 0.5 hours reading the rule, 0.5 hours preparing a burner dismantling plan, 2 hours
dismantling the burner, and 0.5 hours submitting a notice of activity completion for a total of 3.5
hours per affected facility. The labor hours and labor costs associated with this rule are presented
in Table 4-12.
Table 4-12. Labor Costs per Facility for the Woodwaste Burners Rule (49.127) (1999$)
One- One-Time Recurring One-
Time Labor Labor Time Annualized Recurring Total
Number of Labor Hours per Hours per Labor One-Time Labor Annualized
Respondents Hours Year Year Cost Labor Cost Cost Labor Cost
All Affected
Entities
Total All
Respondents
5
5
3.5
17.5
1.2
5.8
0
0
$113
$566
• $43
$216
$0
$0
- $43 ,
$216
4.3.2 Rules for Open Burning Permits (49.132)
EPA has determined, in consultation with the affected Tribes, that this rule is appropriate
for the Nez Perce and Umatilla reservations. Respondents include any citizen on these two
reservations who wishes to conduct an open burn. However, the subset of the population likely to
conduct an open burn would be citizens on these two reservations with sufficient land holdings to
accumulate large volumes of vegetative debris. Tribal air specialists and EPA Region 10 identified
a total of 293 entities as affected by this rule that are expected to apply for permits over a 3-year
period. It is assumed that 195 of them will apply for permits annually (some apply each year,
others only once or twice over 3 years). It was assumed that all affected entities spend 0.5 hours
4-13
-------
reading the rule initially, and that they spend 1 hour gathering and submitting information required to
obtain a burning permit in years when they apply for a permit. The labor hours and labor costs
associated with this rule are presented in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13. Labor Costs per Facility for the Open Burning Permits Rules (49.132) (1999$)
Apply for
Pcnnit
No Permit
Application
Total All
Respondents
Number of
Respondents
195
98
293
One-
Time
Labor
Hours
0.5
0.5
146.5
One-Time
Labor
Hours per
Year
0.2
0.2
48.8
Recurring
Labor
Hours per
Year
1
0
195
One-
Time
Labor
Cost
$16
$16
$4,735
Annualized
One-Time
Labor Cost
$6
$6
$1,804
Recurring
Labor
Cost
$32
$0
$6,302
Total
Annualized
Labor Cost
$38
$6
$8,107
4.3.3 Rules for Agricultural Burning Permits (49.133)
. EPA has determined, in consultation with the affected Tribes, that this rule is appropriate
for the Nez Perce and Umatilla reservations. The number of respondents estimated for this rule is
the population of farmers likely to burn crops annually. EPA Region 10 estimates that these
reservations include a total of 340 affected farmers. It was assumed that each respondent will
spend 0.5 hours reading the rule and will then spend 1 hour annually gathering and submitting
information required to obtain a burning permit. The labor hours and labor costs associated with
this rule are presented in Table 4-14.
4.3.4 Rules for Forestry Burning Permits (49.134)
EPA has determined, in consultation with the affected Tribes, that this rule is appropriate
for the Nez Perce and Umatilla reservations. For this rule, it was estimated that the respondents
are the total population of forested landowners located on the reservations requesting this rule. This
population is estimated by EPA Region 10 and air specialists from the two tribes to be about 90
landowners. Harvesting for a given area is assumed to occur only once every 50 to 60 years.
Therefore, many of these landowners will not conduct a burn every year. Therefore, it was
4-14
-------
Table 4-14. Labor Costs per Facility for the Agricultural Burning Permits Rules (49.133)
(1999$)
Apply for
Permit
Total All
Respondent
s
Number of
Respondents
340
340
,
One-
Time
Labor
Hours
0.5
170
One-Time
Labor
Hours per
Year
0.2
56.7
Recurring
Labor
Hours per
Year
1
340
One-
Time
Labor
Cost
, $16
$5,494
Annualized
One-Time
Labor .Cost
$6
$2,094
Recurring
Labor
Cost
$32
$10,989
Total
Annualized
Labor Cost
$38
. $13,082
estimated that 30 respondents will conduct a burn each year. It was assumed that each of the
affected landowners will spend 0.5 hours reading the rule, and 1 hours gathering and submitting
information required to obtain a burning permit, in each year that they conduct a forestry burn. The
labor hours and labor costs associated with this rule are presented in Table 4-15.
Table 4-15. Labor Costs per Facility for the Forestry Burning Permits Rules (49.134)
(1999$)
Apply for
Permit
No Permit
Application
Total All
Respondent
s
Number of
Respondents
30
60
90
One-
Time
Labor
Hours
0.5
0.5
45
One-Time
Labor
Hours per
Year
0.2
0.2
15.0
Recurring
Labor
Hours per
Year
1
0
30
One-
Time
Labor
Cost
$16
$16
$1,454
Annualized
One-Time
Labor Cost
'$6
• $6
$554
Recurring
Labor
Cost
$32
$0
$970
Total
Annualized
Labor Cost
$38
$6
$1,524
4-15
-------
4.4 Total Costs
The total annual cost associated with these rules for identified affected facilities is estimated
to equal $157,211. The total costs estimated for each rule are summarized in Table 4-16.
4-16
-------
I
ON
T-l
¥
I
'•<
I
"8
'1
U
I
SD
•4
«
fSgu
1
4-17
-------
-------
SECTION 5
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed rules to control air pollution sources on Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington will affect a variety of industries in these regions. Implementation of the proposed
rules will increase the costs of production at affected facilities. However, the increased costs as a
result of these rules are estimated to be insignificant. As described in Section 4, these costs vary
across facilities depending on the specific rules that apply to each individual facility. This section
presents background information on typical economic modeling approaches, a description of the
methodology used for analyzing the economic impacts of this rule, and the economic impact
estimates of the proposed regulation.
5.1 Overview of Economic Modeling Approaches
Two fundamentally different approaches can be used to conduct an EIA:
• behavioral: analysis of economic responses to compliance requirements, usually in a
market setting, and
• nonbehavioral: engineering and financial analysis of compliance costs.
In both cases, "engineering" estimates of the costs of compliance for actual or model plants in the
regulated industry are the driving factor. Under the nonbehavioral approach, also known as full
cost absorption, the impacts of the regulation are simply assumed to fall on the entities owning the
facilities faced with the compliance responsibilities. Analysis consists of gauging the severity of
impacts using measures like cost-to-sales ratios (CSRs) and accounting measures of profit and loss.
Alternatively, the behavioral approach explicitly recognizes that owners of the affected facilities are
economic agents that can, and presumably will, make adjustments such as changing production
rates or altering input mixes that will generally affect the market environment in which they operate.
In essence, this approach models the expected reallocation of society's resources in response to a
regulation. Both of these approaches are described in further detail below.
5-1
-------
5.1.1 Behavioral Approach
The behavioral impact of a regulation arises when the costs incurred by the affected
facilities to comply with the regulation increase those facilities' production costs, which leads to
changes in decisions regarding individual facility output and to effects on the market price and
quantity. Managers of existing facilities face operating decisions regarding whether to operate at all
and, if so, the optimal rate of output. As production costs and/or output prices change, the optimal
level of output for each facility changes as well. Each facility is typically characterized by aa
upward-sloping supply function, as shown in Figure 5-1. In this case, the supply function is that
portion of the marginal cost curve bounded by zero and the technical capacity at the facility. The
facility owner is willing to supply output according to this schedule as long as the market price is
sufficiently high to cover average variable costs. If the market price falls below the average variable
costs, then the firm's best response is to cease production because total revenue does not cover the
total variable costs of production and the firm will lose more money by continuing to operate than
' by shutting down.
$/q
q/year
Figure 5-i. Supply Curves for Facilities
5-2
-------
The individual facility-level supply decisions are aggregated to develop the market supply
curve. As shown in Figure 5-2(a), under perfect competition market prices and quantities are
determined by the intersection of market supply and demand curves. The initial baseline scenario
consists of a market price and quantity (P,Q) that are determined by the downward-sloping market
^ demand curve (DM) and the upward-sloping market supply curve (SM) that reflects the sum of the
^ individual supply curves of affected and unaffected facilities.
Now consider the effects of regulatory costs. These fall into one of two categories:
avoidable variable and avoidable nonvariable. These costs are characterized as avoidable because
a firm can choose to cease operation of the facility and thus avoid incurring the costs of compliance.
The variable costs are those that vary with facility output, while the nonvariable costs do not change
,: directly with output. Incorporating regulatory costs involves shifting the supply curve upward for
each affected facility by the per-unit variable regulatory cost. As a result of the upward shift in the
; supply curve for each affected facility, the market supply curve for each affected market will shift
upward to reflect the increased costs of production at the affected facilities as shown in Figure 5-
2(b). At the new equilibrium with regulation, the market price increases from P to P' and market
output declines from Q to Q'. This reduction in market output is the net result of reductions in
output at directly affected facilities and increases in output at indirectly affected facilities. Indirectly
affected facilities will not face an upward shift in their product supply curves, so their response to.
higher output prices is to increase production. Foreign suppliers, which do not incur higher -
, production costs because of the regulations, will respond in the same manner as these unaffected
producers.
In this type of model, each firm is assumed to make adjustments in an effort to respond to
the regulation in a profit-maximizing fashion. This may lead, for example, to changes in output that,
when aggregated across all producers, lead to changes in the market-clearing price arid feedback
on the firms to alter their decisions. These adjustments are typically characterized as a simultaneous
interaction of producers, consumers, and markets. Thus, to evaluate the facility-market outcomes,
the analysis goes beyond the initial effect of the regulation to project the net effects after the
market(s) has adjusted.
5-3
-------
Facilities
Directly Affected
S:
= P
Facilities
Indirectly Affected
DM
Market
a) Baseline Equilibrium
P'
P
i i
i i
I I
q' q
, Facilities
Directly Affected
i i
I i
i i
i i
P'
P
r.::zb
q q'
Facilities
Indirectly Affected
J I
Q' Q
Market
b) With-Regulation Equilibrium
Figure 5-2. Market Equilibrium Without and With Regulation
5-4
-------
5.1.2 Nonbehavioral Approach
With the nonbehavioral approach, the impacts of the regulation are simply assumed to fall
on the entities owning the facilities faced with the compliance responsibilities. This type of approach
• does not take behavioral adjustments by producers and consumers into account and does not allow
71 for changes in market price, implicitly assuming that firms cannot or will not adjust to changes in
* production costs. This assumption is generally unwarranted by observation, although in cases
where the variable regulatory costs are very small, the expected changes in price and quantity may
be negligible* justifying the use of a nonbehavioral model in those cases. The primary advantages of
this approach are its simplicity and its relatively limited data requirements.
Analysis is performed using a "sales test," which computes the annualized regulatory costs
as a percentage of sales for each company. These calculations aresalso referred to as CSR. To
analyze the impacts of the proposed regulation using CSRs, the only data required are annual
compliance costs for each affected facility (or government entity), information Unking each facility to
its parent company (if applicable), and estimated revenues for each affected facility and parent
company. The total compliance costs at the company level are then divided by company revenue
to obtain the CSR. Impacts at the facility level can also be measured by dividing facility compliance
costs by facility sales to examine cases where the impact on the company is small, but the impact on
an individual facility owned by that company may be considerably larger.
In addition to computing CSR values, the companies' expected profit margins with
regulation are also calculated under this approach, assuming that revenues would remain unchanged
and costs would be fully absorbed by the affected companies. The profit margin with regulation is
calculated by subtracting the CSR for a given company from its profit margin prior to regulation. If
profit margins fall below zero, a firm may consider shutting down all operations in the long run.
Note that, because the profit margins considered here are for the entire firm, the costs of regulation
may result in the closure of affected facilities even if the parent firm remains in business.
The nonbehavioral method generally overstates the cost of the regulation to affected
facilities to some degree because it ignores the ability of affected firms to partially pass the costs on
to consumers in the form of higher prices. Thus, CSRs are generally viewed as upper bounds on
the cost impacts of the regulation on industry, and the after-regulation profit measures based on
5-5
-------
CSRs tend to provide the worst-case scenario for the directly affected firms and the best-case
scenario for affected consumers.
5.1.3 Selected Modeling Approach for-Region 10 Tribal Air Rules Analysis
Traditionally, the behavioral economic model approach is employed for economic analyses
when feasible given data and other resource constraints because of the conceptual advantages of
this approach. However, because of the very small costs associated with these rules, the fact that
the estimated costs do not vary directly with facility output (and hence do not affect marginal cost),
and the extremely limited data availability for the sources affected by this rule, EPA analyzed the
economic impacts of the Region 10 Tribal Air Rules using a nonbehavioral approach.
Because the costs associated with the Region 10 Tribal Air Rules are very small, price or
quantity in the affected markets will probably not be significantly affected. Limiting the impact
further, the costs that are applied to these facilities do not generally vary with output because they
primarily include the costs of obtaining permits and performing stack tests, for example, which are
costs that are independent of output. Therefore, the variable costs that would shift the supply
curves in the short run are only a small portion of the total costs associated with the rule. In
addition, implementing a behavioral model requires much more detailed information than for a
nonbehavioral model. Rather than requiring only an estimate of company revenue, the analyst must
have market prices for each separate market and output for each facility. Information identifying
the market in which each facility competes is necessary as well to .define the relevant markets. Data
on total market quantities are required to measure the impact on market price and quantity as a
result of regulation (the nonbehavioral model assumes that there is no change in market price or
quantity). In addition, information on how to assign costs to each individual market out of total
facility output is also needed. Typically, market models also include data on imports and exports to
more accurately analyze the impacts on foreign trade and to capture the impact of trade on
domestic market prices.
The difficulty in applying a behavioral model in this case is that there is very little information
on market prices and individual facility output levels. For many air pollution sources, defining the
product they produce and the market in which they operate is difficult. Because most of the
facilities located on Indian reservations in Region 10 are quite small, there is no publically available
information for the majority of facilities that would allow a more detailed characterization. In
5-6
-------
addition, because sources on Indian reservations in Region 10 compete in a large number of
different product markets, a behavioral model would be a very complex method of analysis given
the relatively small cost of this rule. '
Another issue for a market model of the Region 10 Tribal Air Rules is the characterization
ST- "
of the markets in which the affected sources operate. If the source facilities compete in a
competitive national market, they will be affected more than if they compete only regionally in the
reservation and surrounding area where they are located because they will be unable to increase
prices very much to recover some of their costs due to competition. On the other hand, consumers
of these products will be less affected if the facilities are part of a national market for the same
reason. To fully and accurately characterize the affected sources using a market model, EPA
would need data on market concentration (number of sellers competing in the relevant market),
substitutes for the affected products, and whether the source facilities sell only in Indian
reservations.
Because data necessary for a standard market model are unavailable and the costs
associated with these rules are small, using a nonbehavioral model is appropriate in this case. This
model will provide an upper bound on the costs to be incurred by the affected facilities and parent
companies and provide data necessary to examine the economic impacts of the proposed rule.
5.2 Economic Impact Methodology
The operational model used in applying the nonbehavioral model discussed above to
analyze the economic impact of these rules first involves finding the CSR by taking the regulatory
costs at the company or government level and dividing them by the total revenue of that company
or government to get a measure of how high the compliance costs of the rule are relative to total
revenues, as in Eq. (5.1).
Cost-to-Sales Ratio = Annual Company Compliance Costs
Company Revenues
(5.1)
5-7
-------
After calculating the CSR, the next step in the analysis is to compare profit ratios before
and after regulation for affected companies to check if any have become negative as a result of the
regulation. The CSR yields information about companies' ability to institute the required changes
while continuing to operate. If a company's profit margin is initially positive but becomes negative
after regulation, then implementing the regulation may directly result in that company shutting down.
For government entities, this calculation gives some indication of the impact on the government
budget and provides information about the reduced services and/or increased tax burden that may
be necessary to comply with the regulation. However, the data required to make these calculations
are often unavailable from public sources, especially for very small sources like most of those
•located on Region 10 Indian reservations. Therefore, EPA developed several computations to |
estimate facility-, company-, and industry-wide impacts of the proposed rules. • These computations
include the development of ;
j « facility-specific regulatory costs,
« facility-level revenues, and • • «.
« CSRs under a worst-case scenario for each facility.
This section describes these measures in more detail.
5.2.1 Facility-Level Control Costs
These costs are explained in Section 4 of this report by facility type for each rule. As
discussed hi Section 4, the engineering analysis identified 166 stationary facilities located on
reservations that will be affected by the proposed rules.1 Li addition, EPA assumed that 39 general
contractors and 39 fire protection services will be affected each year. Affected Title V facilities
tend to be relatively large compared with other facilities located on the reservations and are
considered more likely to send VE readers to certification class under the visible emissions rule
(49.124) and to perform source tests under the particulate matter rule (49.125) and the sulfur
dioxide rule (49,129). For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed that the only facilities that
will ever incur the costs of VE certification or source tests are the-Titie V facilities. Because it is not
additional 23 facilities were identified as potentially affected, but it is unknown whether these facilities
definitely have air pollution sources that would fall under the rules. Thus, these facilities were not assigned
any costs for this analysis.
.5-8
-------
known which individual Title V facilities will perform source tests or train VE readers, the facility-
level control costs applied for this analysis are the costs under the worst-case scenario for each
facility. In other words, CSRs are calculated for all Title V sources affected by a given rule
assuming that they are going to perform all tests, acquire all training, and make all annual
modifications, for example, associated with that rule. This assumption will overstate the impacts for
some facilities because only a fraction of Title V sources are expected to actually incur these costs.
°~ .
However, performing the analysis in this way allows EPA to examine the facility-level impact in a
very conservative manner to ensure that the impact on an individual facility will not be understated.
The CSR for each facility was also calculated under the worst-case scenario for non-Title V
facilities. This group was assumed not to incur the costs of source tests or training VE readers, but
costs were calculated for each facility in the case where they had to perform annual modifications
under the registration rule (49.137), for example. Once again, calculating CSRs with this method
will overstate the total impacts if the facility-level worst-case scenario costs are summed and will
overstate the impacts on individual facilities that do not actually incur the maximum costs.
5.2.2 Facility-Level Revenue
If company revenue is not available directly from one of the many publically available
company databases (e.g., Hoover's, ReferenceUSA, Dun & Bradstreet), then it can be estimated
using one of several different techniques. One way to estimate revenue is to multiply the market
price for each product that the company produces by company output of that product. However,
that data are not readily available for the majority of sources affected by these rules. Another
option is to use data on average output per employee for each SIC or NAICS code and multiply
this value for the company's SIC or NAICS code by the number of employees at each company.
This technique is easier to apply and potentially more accurate if the company operates in very few
SIC or NAICS codes and has only a small number of facilities. Fortunately, companies without
publically available information on revenues tend to be small and often operate very few facilities in
a single Industry. This is likely to be true for the facilities on the Region 10 reservations. However,
very few facilities have available data on the number of employees, making applying this method
infeasible.
Therefore, EPA used the following methodology to estimate revenue for all of the facilities
identified as being affected by the Region 10 Tribal Air Rules. For those facilities and companies
5-9
-------
that had publically available information (approximately 20 percent), EPA used that information to
estimate their revenue. For the remainder, the Agency developed a method for estimating facility
revenue based on the average revenue per facility for the two-digit NAICS code corresponding to
.each facility.2 Where available, this calculation was performed using county-level1 data to generate
average revenue per facility. If the county-level information was not available for a particular
NAICS code, then the corresponding State-level information was used instead. These values were
used to develop revenue estimates as follows:
VOS:1.
(5.2)
where
TRjjk = total revenue estimate for facility i operating in NAICS code j and located in
county k (or State k if county data unavailable),
= the value of shipments for NAICS code j in county k (or State k if county data
unavailable), and
= the total number of establishments for NAICS code j in county k (or State k if
county data unavailable).
E
jk
NAICS codes were assigned to all of the identified affected facilities, so a revenue estimate
was available for each facility. Using Census data for average facilities may overstate revenues for
facilities located on reservations if they tend to be below average size, but county-level data were
used where available in an attempt to accurately reflect the facilities in the area of the reservation.
5.2.3 Facility- and Company-Level Cost-to-Sales Ratios
To assess the potential economic impact of the rule on facilities, EPA calculated CSRs by
dividing estimated facility control costs by estimated facility revenues. To examine company-level
CSR, the following calculation was performed:
Data at the two-digit NAICS code level were used because that is the most disaggregated level at which the
Department of Commerce provides this data.
5-10
-------
E qm
sales
100
(5.3)
whereTCim is the sum of the annual regulatory costs for all n facilities owned by company m and
salesm is the estimated total revenue for company m.
5.3 Economic Impact Analysis
This study used a nonbehavioral CSR model to estimate the economic impacts of the
Region 10 Tribal Air Rules on affected entities. This section describes the economic impacts of the
proposed regulation. Because the analysis assumed full-cost absorption by producers in
nonbehavioral models, no distribution of costs between consumers and producers is estimated.
Instead, all costs are assumed to fall on the affected producers. In addition, because there are no
behavioral adjustments in this model, the economic impact estimates are the same as the estimated
ICR costs, $157,211.
Table 5-1 summarizes the model results by reservation for all affected facilities. All of the
costs included are based on worst-case scenario costs for each facility on each reservation. They
summarize the maximum cost that the facilities on each reservation would incur as a result of the
regulation by adding the costs that each facility is expected to incur under its worst-case scenario.
The costs provided for each reservation are upper bound costs for the facilities on that reservation.
Therefore, the sum of these worst-case scenario costs across reservations is more than the total
costs associated with all of the proposed rules. Eighteen reservations had identified facilities
affected by these rules, and an additional four reservations had facilities that could potentially be
affected. The total cost of the rule varies greatly among the affected reservations. Among the 18
reservations with estimated costs, those costs range from $77 to $63,180. The largest average
cost per affected facility for any reservation is $1,996, yielding the largest average CSR for any
reservation of 0.12 percent on the Nez Perce reservation. Only one identified facility is estimated
to have a CSR greater than 1 percent of sales.
5-11
-------
Table 5-1 does not include the costs to entities other than the identified facilities, such as fire
protection services. However, the cost to other affected entities are very small. Costs to
respondents other than the identified facilities with air pollution sources are less than $60 apiece for
all rules except 49.126 where construction and demolition contractors are estimated to have annual
costs of $646. These costs are expected to have negligible impact.
After the CSRs were calculated, they were then compared with profit ratios for the affected
parent companies to check whether the regulation will cause profit ratios to become negative,
implying that the company will shut down operations. Baseline company profit margins were
collected from secondary source data where available, but profit ratios were not available for the
majority of individual companies affected by these rules. Therefore, median industry profit margins
(Dun & Bradstreet return on sales) were used to approximate company profit margins for all
companies without available data. These profit margins are provided in Table 5-2. With-regulation
profit margins were computed by subtracting the CSR from the baseline profit margin.
Based on the very small CSRs for the affected facilities and the median profit margins for
the industries in which these facilities operate of between 1.4 and 7.5 percent, it is unlikely that any
facilities will shut down as a result of this regulation. No facilities are estimated to have negative
profit margins due to the proposed rules.
In summary, the economic impacts of these rules were examined using a full-cost
absorption model because of the small costs associated with the air quality rules. Even under a full-
cost absorption model assuming a worst-case scenario for each facility, the facility-level impacts are
still 'quite small. No changes in price or quantity were estimated because it was assumed that
producers would bear all of the costs of this rule without changing their level of output.
5-12
-------
«
I
1
Cfl
9i
I
rt
I
§
•1
O)
£
Pi
£
1
a
s
O)
J
r03
ta
VI
*3 •S
S oS -_
15S
ll^
I g®
£ o
|€
p.ppp ppppoppp 8.8.8. .-SoSSoS _
o o o o oooooo'oo o'oooooodo'c
Pr-c
co 06" t-T vo"
0)00000
s
ppppp-n
vo to
O\ VD »—< O CO OS \o tri
>OOO — tNOSVD—* ~*
C^VO_VOrJ;CNpMVO
o\
S
o
y—t
V*
~ VJ •—' -H^ -«W C^ O\ O
r\ C3 OO *—I *—( C3 i—I I/-J
-fOOOVOC^C^OOfN
3 V3- ^J -6^ &r vo *e . 6*
5 *° JS
t^ t"~ OO oo" ON" '^
00 00 g - •* 00 00
covo— i
3 2 S
s" s" s" s? s"
p - to"
o oC vo
iO OO VM i—( i—(
•a
m
x «
.8
8 2 1
6 a a
2
-a oo
M C
j3 U
5-13
-------
Table 5-2. Profitability Measures for Potentially Affected Industries; 1997
Two-Digit SIC
01
07
13
14
20
24
27
28
29
32
-33
34
37
42
44
49
50
51
55
58
72
75
76
79
80
82
Median Return on Sales (%)
3.5
3.4
4.6
6.6
2.1
3.0
. 3.8
3.6
2.7
3.6 '
3.6
3.6
3.5
2.1
4.0 .
7.5
2.2
1-.5
1.4
2.9
4.3
3.1
3.7
3.0 '
3.8
4.0
Source: Dun &Bradstreet. .1997. Industry Norms & Key Business Ratios. Desktop Edition 1996-97. Murray
Hill, NJ: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
5-14
-------
SECTION 6
SMALL ENTITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACT DETERMINATIONS
The regulatory costs imposed on facilities to comply with the proposed air pollution rules
will have a direct impact on owners of the affected facilities, although the impact estimated for these
rules is very small. .Firms or individuals that own the affected facilities are legal business entities that
have the capacity to conduct business transactions and make business decisions that affect the
facility. The legal and financial responsibility for compliance with a regulatory action ultimately rests
with these owners, who must bear the financial consequences of their decisions. Environmental
regulations, such as the proposed rules for Indian country in Region 10, affect both large and small
entities (businesses or governments), but small entities may have special problems in complying with
such regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires that special consideration be given
to small entities affected by federal regulation. Specifically, the RFA requires determining whether a
regulation will significantly affect a substantial number of small entities or cause a disproportionate
burden on small entities in comparison with large companies. If the regulation will result in
significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities, EPA must examine alternatives that may
reduce adverse economic effects on significantly affected entities. In 1996; the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) was passed, which further amended the RFA by
expanding judicial review of agencies' compliance with the RFA and by expanding small entity
review of EPA rulemaking.
This analysis assesses the potential impacts of the proposed regulation on small entities. To
make this assessment, the costs of the regulation were, to the extent possible, mapped to firm-level
data, and CSRs were estimated for each identified firm. Then, the analysis addressed whether a
substantial number of small firms have a large annual regulatory cost relative to their annual sales.
For this particular rule, most affected facilities are classified as small businesses, which is
representative of facilities located on Indian reservations and trust lands in the Pacific Northwest.
6-1
-------
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that each federal agency examine the effect
of its regulations on minority and low-income populations and address disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects. Thus, this section examines the effect of the Region
10 Tribal Air Rules on minority and low-income populations.
6.1 Identification of Small Entities
The SBA criteria typically use company employment as a size standard. Data on company
employment for these firms are limited; therefore, the Agency used a conservative assumption and
classified companies without employment data as small after reviewing estimated sales data. This
assumption potentially overstates the number of small businesses affected by the rule. Based on
these criteria, 125 of the identified companies are classified as small. These companies own 134
facilities, or 72 percent, of all potentially affected facilities. EPA identified 10 large companies that
own 13 facilities, or 7 percent of the total. The remaining 21 percent of facilities are either
government facilities (including Tribally owned facilities) or they have unidentified parent companies.
Based on review of the Region 10 database, the Agency identified 20 facilities as potentially
owned by governmental jurisdictions (see Table 6-1). However, two of these facilities are
operated by State governments of States with populations exceeding 50,000. Therefore these
facilities are not considered to be owned by small governments. For this analysis, the remaining 18
facilities are assumed to be owned by small governmental jurisdictions.
EPA was not able to identify owning companies/governmental jurisdictions for 20 facilities
(see-Table 6-2). Given the distribution of identified companies and estimated facility sales data, it is
likely that small firms own these facilities.
6-2
-------
Table 6-1. Potentially Affected Facilities Owned by Governmental Jurisdictions
Facility Name
Gravel Pit, Property of State of Idaho
Makah Fisheries Company
Makah Forestry Enterprises
Makah Landfill
Nez Perce Forest Products Enterprise
Nez Perce Limestone Enterprises (NPTLE)
Omak Elementary School
Precision Pine Company
Providence Toppenish Hospital
Siletz Indian Smokehouse
Spokane Indian Reservation Landfill — Wellpinit
Spokane Indian Reservation Landfill (West End Community)
Spokane Indian Reservation Tribal Pole Enterprises
Warm Springs Composite Products
Warm Springs Crushing and Construction
Warm Springs Forest Products Industries
Warm Springs Landfill
Waste Management of Yakama
WSDOT Gravel Pit
Yakama Forest Products
Total
TribaUy
Owned
No
Yes
Yes .
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes .
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
15
Assumed
Small Entity
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
18
Reservation
Coeurd'Alene
Makah
Makah
Makah
Nez Perce
Nez Perce
Colville
Colville
Yakama
Siletz
Spokane
Spokane
Spokane
Warm Springs
Warm Springs
Warm Springs
Warm Springs
Yakama
Colville
Yakama
6.2 Screening-Level Analysis
For the purposes of assessing the potential impact of this rule on these small businesses,
EPA calculated the share of annual compliance cost relative to baseline sales for each company.
When a company owns more than one affected facility, the costs for each facility it owns are
summed to develop the numerator of the CSR. For this screening-level analysis, annual costs were
defined as the engineering compliance costs imposed on these companies; thus, they do not reflect
the changes in production that may occur in response to imposing these costs and the resulting
market adjustments. In addition, all costs applied at
6-3
-------
Table 6-2. Potentially Affected Facilities with Unknown Ownership
Facility Name
Fertilizer Handling Plants (1)
Fertilizer Handling Plants (2)
Gravel Pit
Gravel Pit
Gravel Pit
Gravel Pit and Rock Grusher
Casino
Metal Shop '
Oyster and Clam Venture — Propane Boiler
Auto Body Shop
Dry Cleaners
Print Shop
Print Shop
Rock Crusher Plant
Saw Mill
Concrete Recycling Facility
Grain Elevator
Transfer Station
Wood Products Manufacturing Facility
Print Shop
Total
Assumed Small Entity
Yes
Yes '
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
"Yes
Yes ,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
. Yes
Yes
Yes
20
Reservation
Coeur d'Alene
Coeur d'Alene
Colville
Colville
Colville
Colville
Coquille
Kalispel
Lummi
Nez Perce
Nez Perce
Nez Perce
Nez Perce
Quinault
Quinault
Suquamish
Umatilla
Umatilla
Upper Skagit
Warm Springs
the facility level were the costs under a worst-case scenario for that facility. As discussed in
Section 5, this means that all costs under these rules that could possibly apply to an individual
facility were assumed to apply. For example, EPA estimates that only one Title V facility will
perform a source test under rule 49.129, but for purposes of the CSR calculation, all Title V
facilities affected by this rule were assumed to incur the costs of a source test. As a result, the
GSRs provide an upper bound of the impact on individual facilities. The CSRs for many facilities
.will be significantly overstated under this worst-case scenario. The results of the initial screening
analysis are discussed below.
6-4
-------
6.2.1 Small Businesses
Under the worst-case scenario, the average total annual compliance cost (TACC) was
projected at roughly $1,000 per small company as compared to the average of $2,700 per large
company (see Table 6-3). The annual compliance costs for small businesses range from <0.01 to
1.15 percent of sales. The average (median) compliance CSRis 0.05 (0.01) percent for the
$ '
identified small businesses with sales data and <0.01 (<0.01) percent for the large businesses with
sales data. As shown, only one small company is projected to be potentially affected at the 1
percent to 3 percent level, and no companies are affected at or above the 3 percent level. Thus,
only one small company is expected to incur costs greater than 1 percent of their sales.
„ 6.2,2 Small Government Impacts
Although 18 facilities are potentially owned by small governmental jurisdictions, the Agency
does not have detailed information on the relationship of these facilities to these jurisdictions. In
addition, revenue for these entities is not readily available from publicly available sources.
Therefore, the Agency examined the facility-level CSRs developed in Section 5 to gauge the
severity of impacts on these entities. EPA concluded that all of these facilities were affected at less
than 0.10 percent of sales, and the average cost per facility under the worst-case scenario is
estimated to be less than $1,400 per year. Thus, the impact at the government level is expected to
be minimal.
6.2,3 Facilities Owned by Unidentified Entities
EPA could not identify owning companies/governmental jurisdictions for 20 facilities. For
these facilities, EPA examined the facility-level CSRs developed in Section 5 to gauge the severity
of impacts on these entities. EPA concluded that all of these facilities were affected at less than
0.15 percent of sales, and the average cost per facility under the worst-case scenario is estimated
to be approximately $700 per year. Because these CSRs are so small at a facility level and could
only get smaller if. a parent company were identified, the impact on companies owning these
facilities is expected to be very small.
In addition to the industrial facilities identified on the reservations, EPA assumed that a
general contractor would perform one construction/demolition project on each reservation annually
and one open burning permission request by fire protection services for each reservation annually
6-5
-------
•19
CO
Cm
CO
5
03
b
CO
vo
I
wa
1 3 I
.« &
w t3
03 O
§• u
a
<4H
pe
E2
4>
I
co
os
os
C-; O
O O
«0 rt T-I O
CO CO
O O
O O
O O O O
p cs
O OS
O Os
rs
^
«
I1
o
u
oo
O
I
I
<4-<
V ^
S -8
& 2
8
8
o
O
"3
en
.^§888
if
a
1
1
CO
<=> O 8
\/ w T/ O
»n i—(
o p
C5 O
^ O
6-6
-------
for training. No companies are identified for either general contractors or fire protection services,
so EPA assumed that all are small companies. The costs incurred by these groups are so small that
the impact is expected to be insignificant. The estimated annual costs incurred by general
contractors involved in one project per year on Indian reservations is estimated as $646 for
compliance with the fugitive particulate matter rule (49.126). Based on data from the Bureau of the
Census for NAICS code 233, the average revenue per establishment for a general contractor in
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is approximately $1,441,500.' Therefore, the average CSR for
general contractors is only about 0.04 percent. For fire protection services, the costs are estimated
to be $51 annually. Most fire protection services on reservations in Region 10 are likely provided
by small governments. Regardless of the size of government, these costs are negligible.
Government revenues would have to be less than $5,100 per year in order for the CSR to be
above 1 percent, which is extremely unlikely. ^
In addition to the costs of the basic rules that apply to each reservation, costs will also be
associated with compliance under the additional rules for reservations that request them. The
burden of the additional rules is not expected to fall on the identified air pollution sources on the
reservations, but rather on other individuals. However, the costs of the additional rules to
respondents are extremely small. For Rule 49.127, it was estimated that the annualized cost to a
typical facility that must disassemble a woodwaste burner is about $43. For each of the additional
burning permit rules (49.132,49.133, and 49.134), the estimated cost per respondent per year is
$38. Revenues for respondents would have to be below $4,300 for 49.127 and below $3,800 for
49.132, 49.133, and 49.134 for the CSR to be above 1 percent of sales, which is extremely
unlikely.
6.2.4 Assessment
The results presented here confirm that the potential negative impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities are negligible. Data on industry profitability show profit margins for all potentially
affected industries exceeding 1 percent (Dun & Bradstreet, 1997) as shown in Table 5-2. The
analysis indicates that only one small company is projected to be affected at or above the 1 percent
level. Because this company operates in an industry with a median profit margin of 3.0 percent, not
This average is based on an unweighted average of the value of shipments for NAICS 233 per establishment in
Oregon and Washington. The corresponding data for Idaho were withheld.
6-7
-------
even this most affected company is expected to have a negative profit margin as a result of the
rules. In addition, comparisons of annual facility-level costs and revenues show no adverse impacts
on facilities potentially owned by small governments or facilities Owned by unidentified entities.
.Therefore, the Agency certifies that the rule will not impose a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.
6.3 Environmental Justice Statement
Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations—requires each agency to address and identify
"....disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations...." (Section 1.1).
The Agency concludes that no negative environmental equity issues are associated with the
Region 10 Tribal Air Rules. These rules are designed to protect human health and air quality
resources hi Indian country in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Although there are non-Indians
living and/or working on some of the reservations, the populations primarily affected by these rules
are minorities because the majority of people living on most affected reservations are American
Indians. These reservations tend to have very low per capita incomes relative to the U.S. average
with large percentages of the population below the poverty line, so the populations living where
these rules apply tend to be low income in addition to minorities. However, the proposed rules will
not impose any negative environmental impacts on these people. Instead, the proposed rules are
specifically targeted to areas where a disproportionate percentage of the health and environmental
benefits will flow to disadvantaged people. Therefore, there is no environmental justice concern in
this case because the proposed regulation will improve human health and environmental conditions
of a disadvantaged population in Region 10.
6-8
-------
REFERENCES
BeUenir,K.,andM.McNulty. 1998. "Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods." In Encyclopedia
of American Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds). Detroit, MI: Gale
Research.
Bolen, W. 1998. "Sand and Gravel, Construction." In Minerals Yearbook, Reston, VA: U.S.
Geological Survey.
.
Cohen, K., and M. Urbiel. 1998. "Farm Supplies." In Encyclopedia of American Industries,
2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds). Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. 2000. "Warm Springs Power Enterprises."
<±ttp://www.warmsprings.corn/community/ent/power.htrn>. As obtained on October 6,
2000.
Cook, A., and R. Nelson. 1998. "Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair Shops and Paint Shops."
In Encyclopedia of American Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds).
Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Dun & Bradstreet. 1997. Industry Norms & Key Business Ratios: Desk-Top Edition 1996-97.
Murray Hill, NJ: Dun & Bradstreet.
Heil, Scott, and Terrance Peck (eds). 1998. Encyclopedia of American Industries, 2nd Ed.
Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Hoover's Online. 2000. Electronic database.
Indian Health Service. 1999. "Portland Area IHS."
. As obtained on
September 27, 2000.
R-l
-------
Litman, G., and E. Zeytoun. 2000. "Environmental Technologies and Services: Water and
Wastewater." U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook 2000. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Macnaughtan, Don. 2000. "Bibliography of the Siuslaw and Kuitsh Indians." Eugene, OR.
. As obtained on September 21,2000.
Mote, D., and B. Glover. 1998. "Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks." In Encyclopedia of
American Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds). Detroit, MI: Gale
. Research.
Northwest Tribal Recruitment Project. 1999. "Profiles of Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board (NPAJJHB) Member Tribes." . As
obtained on September 21, 2000.
Novak, A. 2000. "Environmental Technologies and Services: Solid Waste Management." U.S.
Industry and Trade Outlook 2000. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Office of Management and Budget. 1995. "Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Federal Programs." Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and
Establishments. OMB Circular No. A-94, Revised.
Ratcliffe, M., and K. Barnett., 1998. "Meat Packing Plants." In Encyclopedia of American
Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds). Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Ratcliffe, M. and McNulty, M. 1998. "Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves, Jams, and Jellies."
In Encyclopedia of American Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds).
Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Reference US A. 2000. InfoUSA Resource, .
Stein, W., and L. Paulson. 1998. "Cane Sugar Refining." In Encyclopedia of American
Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds). Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Summers, S., and R. Nelson. 1998. "Gasoline Service Stations." In Encyclopedia of American
Industries, 2nd Ed, Scott Heil and Terrance Peck (eds). Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Tesoro Petroleum. 2000. "Refining arid Marketing."
-------
Tworak, C. 2000. "Wood Products." U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook 2000. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996. American Indian Reservations and Indian Trust Areas.
Washington, DC. Also available online at .
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. American Fact Finder.
Washington, DC. [online]. . As obtained in October 2000.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. £7.5. Industry and Trade Outlook 2000. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1995. "Indian Service Population and.
Labor Force Estimates." Washington, DC. . As
obtained on September 5,2000.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000a. "Samish Indian Nation." . As obtained on September 27, 2000.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000b. "Snoqualmie Indian Tribe." . As obtained on November 1, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. OAQPS Economic Analysis Resource
Document. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 website, Office of Tribal Operations. 1999.
. As obtained on August 30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 website, Office of Tribal Operations. 2000.
. As obtained on August 28,
2000.
R-3
-------
U.S. National Agriculture Statistic Service (NASS). 2000a. "State Offices-Idaho."
As obtained on October 5,2000.
U.S. National Agriculture Statistic Service (NASS). 2000b. "State Offices-Oregon."
As obtained on October 5,2000.
U.S. National Agriculture Statistic Service (NASS). 2000c. "State Offices-Washington."
As obtained on October 5,2000.
Williams Gas Pipeline. 2000. "Pipeline Systems." . As obtained on October 6,2000.
R-4
-------
Appendix A
Summary of Tribal Air Rules
-------
-------
r.-
The sources on Indian reservations to be governed by the proposed Federal air quality
rules have already been regulated in a similar way by State and local agencies that have established
commensurate requirements under State law.
Prior to 1990, the Clean Air Act (CAA) was almost completely without any reference to
American Indian Tribes or Indian reservation lands. The only exception to this was a mention in the
PSD provisions, inserted in the 1977 Amendments, enabling Tribes to designate reservations or
portions thereof for PSD purposes. Although EPA had direct implementation responsibilities for
authorities not implemented by approved State and local authorities (S/L), the national Federal
programs established by EPA, such as PSD, NSPS, and NESHAP, have not included the
operating or permitting requirements to regulate numerous existing sources, unless they emit above-
threshold quantities of NESHAP pollutants.
Generally, the CAA establishes requirements for S/Ls to implement the CAA through State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA's national requirements to address National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) have not been promulgated in the detail or specificity found in SIPs.
The CAA contained no language regarding Tribal jurisdiction on reservation lands until 1990.
Therefore, the S/Ls have generally implemented their programs throughout their designated land
area, including reservation lands. Hence industries on reservations were historically regulated by
S/Ls as though they were subject to the S/L jurisdiction and made efforts to comply with the S/L
rules. Although EPA has not approved SIPs as extending into Indian reservations under the CAA,
the S/L authorities have administered their programs pursuant to State law. .This situation of State-
only regulation without CAA jurisdiction was a consequence of the CAA silence regarding Tribes
and me lack of any EPA regulatory requirement.
In most cases, sources located on Indian reservations have complied with S/L rules, and
most industrial sources had to install or upgrade air pollution control equipment. The compliance
with S/L requirements can be attributed to the fact that most States believe their authority is not
limited on reservations, and many of the sources are owned or operated by non-Indians who
believe they are subject to State law. Because sources on reservations believed that they were
subject to S/L rules, these sources installed pollution controls to comply with S/L rules. EPA is not
aware of any sources on Indian reservations of Idaho, Oregon, or Washington that have defended
S/L enforcement actions by claiming the S/L lacks authority on Indian reservations.
A-l
-------
Even today, some S/Ls in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington persist in permitting and
collecting fees from on-reservation sources. This is true even though, since the 1990 CAA
amendments, EPA is clearly on record that, absent explicit Congressional authorization, the S/L
requirements approved by EPA under the CAA do not extend into Indian reservations.
' The S/L behaviors as well as those of industry are changing slowly. S/Ls and industry on
reservation land increasingly recognize Federal and Tribal jurisdiction and EPA's responsibility for
air quality protection on Indian reservations. These rules would help to completely effect this
change so that Tribal jurisdiction and EPA responsibility are widely recognized and accepted
throughout Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Indian reservations. For example, until industrial
operating standards are put in place, EPA has few "applicable" requirements that can be included in
CAA Title V permits issued under 40 CFR part 71.
The net effect of the above discussion is that EPA expects that most sources affected by the
air rules already have sufficient control equipment to enable them to attain and maintain compliance
, with the rules.
This appendix contains summary descriptions of all of the air quality regulations being
proposed for Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. These rules have been
divided into five categories. The first category includes rules with no regulatory effect. The second
category consists of basic rules for which ICR costs have been estimated. The third category
contains basic rules for which ICR costs have not been calculated. The fourth category includes
additional rules fo which ICR costs have been estimated. Finally, the fifth category includes
additional rules for which ICR costs have not been estimated. The additional rules will be
proposed for a reservation only if the Tribe's authorized representative requests that these rules
apply to their reservation. As of December 2000, three Tribes have made requests for at least one
of the additional rules.
A.1 Rules with No Regulatory Effect
A.I.I Section 49.122, Delegation of authority to a tribe
This section would provide a mechanism for delegating to a Tribe, for administration, all or
a portion of the FIP rules that apply within a reservation. It sets out the process a Tribe must follow
to request delegation, how that delegation will be accomplished, and how the public and regulated
sources will be informed of the delegation. The Regional Administrator will not delegate authority
A-2
-------
to a Tribe for areas for which EPA believes the Indian reservation status is in question. This section
would not affect the requirements established under the TAR for Tribal applications to administer
EPA-approved Tribal CAA programs or requirements for delegation of other EPA air programs
such as Part 71 operating permits or PSD permits under 40 CFR 52.21.
? A.1.2 Section 49.123, General provisions
This section includes definitions of the terms used in these rules as well as general provisions
" regarding requirements for emission testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, the use of
'- credible evidence in compliance certifications and for establishing violations, and the incorporation
by reference of the American Society for Testing and Materials Methods referenced in this
rulemaking
* A.2 Basic Rules for which ICR Costs have been Prepared
A.2.1 Section 49.124, Visible emissions
Section 49.124 would restrict visible emissions from air pollution sources to 20% opacity,
averaged over 6 consecutive minutes, as measured by EPA Method 9. This rule would not apply
to certain sources, such as: open burning; agricultural activities; non-commercial smoke houses;
: sweat houses or lodges; smudge pots; furnaces and boilers used exclusively to heat residential
buildings with four or fewer units; fugitive dust from public roads owned or maintained by any
Federal, Tribal, State or local government; and emissions from fuel combustion in mobile sources.
The visible emissions from an oil-fired boiler or solid fuel-fired boiler that continuously measures
opacity with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) may exceed the 20% opacity limit
during start-up, soot blowing, and grate cleaning for a single period of up to 15 minutes in any 8
; consecutive hours, but must not exceed 60% opacity at any time.
All of the State and local air agency rules that EPA reviewed contain a 20% opacity limit.
Most of these visible emissions rules allow a 3-minute exception over a 60-minute period.
'• However, EPA decided to use the method with an average opacity over a 6-minute interval to be
consistent with the" only Federally promulgated opacity measurement method, which is EPA
Method 9, found at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. This method is used to determine compliance
with Federal New Source Performance Standards for numerous categories of industrial sources.
This rule does not require any person to conduct Method 9 opacity readings or to install a COMS
A-3
-------
unless specifically required by the Regional Administrator in an information request pursuant to
section 114 of the Act, a permit to construct, or permit to operate.
A.2.2 Section 49,125, Particulate matter
Particulate matter emissions from combustion (except for wood-fired boilers) and process
sources would be limited to an average of 0.23 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.1 grains per
dry standard cubic foot), corrected to 7% oxygen (for combustion sources), during any 3-hour \
period. Particulate matter emissions from wood-fired boilers would be limited to an average of
0.46 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.2 grains per dry standard cubic foot), corrected to 7%
oxygen, during any 3-hour period! Woodwaste burners, furnaces, and boilers used exclusively for
•space heating with a rated heat input capacity of less than 400,000 British thermal units (Btu) per
hour, non-commercial smoke houses, sweat houses or lodges, and mobile sources would be
exempt from this rule. -
For combustion sources and wood-fired boilers, the paniculate matter limit in this rule is the
same as the limit in most of the State and local agency air rules that EPA reviewed. For process
sources, many State and local air agencies employ process weight rate tables in their rules to limit
particulate matter. EPA is proposing to use a concentration limit rather than a process weight rate
table for this rule to be consistent with the EPA method for measuring particulate matter, which is
EPA Method 5, found at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. The particulate matter limit for process
sources in this rule equals the control of all but one of the concentration-based rules that EPA
reviewed. This rule does not require any person to conduct a Method 5 source test unless
specifically required by the Regional Administrator in an information request pursuant to section
114 of the Act, a permit to construct, or permit to operate.
A.2.3 Section 49.126, Fugitive particulate matter
The owner or operator of any source of fugitive particulate matter emissions would be
required to take all reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate matter emissions and to
maintain and operate the source to minimize these emissions. A person subject to this rule would
be required to periodically survey the air pollution source to determine if there are sources of
fugitive .particulate matter emissions, determine and document in a written plan the reasonable
precautions that would be taken to prevent fugitive particulate matter emissions, and then implement
the plan. This rule would not apply to activities associated with single-family residences or
A-4
-------
residential buildings with four or fewer dwelling units, agricultural activities, or public roads owned
or maintained by any Federal, Tribal, State, or local government.
All but one of the State and local air agency rules that EPA reviewed have rules for
controlling fugitive particulate matter. All of these rules contain reasonable precautions provisions
similar to the ones in § 49.126. A few rules control fugitive emissions beyond reasonable
. precautions, but these rules are primarily for nonattainment areas so EPA believes they are not
appropriate here because the reservations at issue are generally not designated nonattainment for
PM10.
A.2.4 Section 49.129, Sulfur dioxide
This rule would restrict sulfur dioxide emissions from combustion and process sources to no
more than an average of 500 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis, and corrected to 1%
oxygen (for combustion sources), during any 3-hour period. Furnaces and boilers used
exclusively for space heating with a rated heat input capacity of less than 400,000 Btu per hour and
mobile sources would be exempt from this rule.
This rule is appropriate to protect air quality from the potential for significant deterioration
caused by the release of sulfur dioxide, which is regulated by a NAAQS under section 109 of the
CAA. This section would limit the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from certain
air pollution sources in order to control ground-level concentrations of sulfur dioxide. All of the
concentration-based rules that EPA reviewed have one of two sulfur dioxide concentration limits:
500 ppm averaged over a 3-hour period or 1,000 ppm average over a 1-hour period. EPA is
proposing to use the 500 ppm, 3-hour average limit because it does a better job of accounting for
the short-term variability in process emissions and in the sulfur content of fuels. The reference
methods for determining compliance with the SO2 limits are EPA Methods 6, 6A, 6B, and 6C as
specified in the applicability section of each Method. These methods are found at 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A. This rule does not require any person to conduct Method 6, 6A, 6B, or 6C source
tests or to install a continuous emissions monitoring system (GEMS) unless specifically required by
the Regional Administrator in an information request pursuant to section 114 of the Act, a permit to
construct, or permit to operate.
A-5
-------
A.2.5 Section 49.130, Sulfur content of fuels
This section would apply to any person who sells, distributes, uses, or makes available for
use, any fuel oil, coal, solid fuel, or gaseous fuel on Indian reservations. This rule restricts the sulfur
content of the previously listed types of fuels. Fuels used exclusively for mobile sources, such as
automotive or marine diesel fuel, would be exempt from this rule. A person subject to this rule
would be required to demonstrate compliance through recordkeeping and/or continuous monitoring
or sampling. Owners or occupants of a single-family residence and the owners or managers of a
residential building with four or fewer units are not subject to the sulfur content recordkeeping
requirements if the furnace fuel is purchased from a licensed fuel distributor.
This section is appropriate to protect air quality from the potential for significant
deterioration caused by the release of sulfur dioxide, which is regulated by a NAAQS under section
109 of the CAA. Fuel combustion sources can emit sulfur dioxide... This section would limit the
amount of sulfur in fuels to control the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted to the atmosphere and
minimize ground-level concentrations of sulfur dioxide.
The majority of the State and local air agency rules that EPA reviewed contain the same
level of control that EPA is proposing for the sulfur content in each type of fuel.
A.2.6 Section 49.131, Open burning
This rule would prohibit certain materials from being open burned, such as: garbage, dead
animals, junked motor vehicles, tires or rubber materials, plastics, asphalt or composition roofing.
tar, tarpaper, petroleum products, paints, paper or cardboard other than what is necessary to start
a fire, lumber or timbers treated with preservatives, construction debris or demolition waste,
pesticides, herbicides, hazardous wastes, or any material other than natural vegetation that normally
emits dense smoke or noxious fumes when burned (see rule for a complete list). The following
situations would be exempt from certain provisions of this rule: fires set for cultural or traditional
purposes, including fires within structures such as sweat houses or lodges; fires set for recreational
purposes, provided that no prohibited materials are burned; the burning of combustible household
waste in burn barrels at single-family residences or residential buildings with four or fewer dwelling
units; with permission from, the Regional Administrator, open outdoor fires used by qualified
" personnel to train firefighters in the methods of fire suppression and fire fighting techniques,
provided that training fires are not allowed to smolder after the training session has terminated; with
A-6
-------
permission from the Regional Administrator, one open outdoor fire each year to dispose of
fireworks and associated packaging materials; and open burning for the disposal of diseased
animals or infested material by order of a public health official. All open burning, except for cultural
and traditional purposes, would be prohibited under the following circumstances: The Regional
Administrator declares a burn ban due to deteriorating air quality; the National Weather Service
issues an air stagnation advisory; or the Regional Administrator declares an air pollution alert, air
A pollution warning, or air pollution emergency. This section also describes the practices a person
subject to this rule must follow in conducting an open burn.
This section is appropriate to protect air quality from the potential for significant
deterioration caused by the release of particulate matter, which is regulated by a NAAQS under
section 109 of the CAA. This rule would limit the amount of particulate matter emitted to the
atmosphere. All of the State and local air agency rales that EPA examined have an open burning
: rale with procedures, conditions, prohibitions and exemptions similar to those in the rale that EPA is
proposing.
A.2.7 Section 49.138, Registration of air pollution sources and reporting of emissions
Any person who owns or operates an air pollution source except those exempted below
would be required to register the source with EPA. A person subject to this rale must register the
air pollution source by no later than one year after the effective date of these rales. A new air
pollution source must register within 90 days after beginning operation. Sources must re-register
each year and provide updates on any changes since the previous registration. The following
sources are exempt from this rule: mobile sources; single family residences, and residential buildings
with four or fewer units; air conditioning units used for human comfort that are not subject to
- applicable requirements under Title VI of the CAA and do not exhaust air pollutants into the
atmosphere from any manufacturing or industrial process; ventilating units used for human comfort
that do not exhaust air pollutants into the atmosphere from any manufacturing or industrial process;
n furnaces and boilers used exclusively for space heating with a rated heat input capacity of less than
, 400,000 Btu per hour; cooking of food, except for retail and wholesale businesses that both cook
;. and sell cooked food; consumer use of office equipment and products; janitorial services and
consumer use of janitorial products; maintenance and repair activities, except for air pollution
sources engaged in the business of maintaining and repairing equipment, such as automobile repair
A-7
-------
shops or appliance repair shops; agricultural activities and forestry activities, including agricultural
burning and forestry burning; and open burning.
This requirement is appropriate as it would enable EPA to develop and maintain accurate
records of air pollution sources and their.emissions on reservation lands. Maintaining an accurate
inventory of sources and emissions would help EPA protect air quality from potential significant
deterioration that can occur if many sources within a particular area increase their air pollutant
emissions. While the emission increase at each facility may be de minimis, the cumulative effect of
the increases may be significant. The registration program would enable EPA to track trends and
identify potential problems before they arise.
Many State and local air agencies have a registration program or a permitting program to
collect information similar to that requked by the registration program in this section.
A.2.8. Section 49.139, Rule for non-Title V operating permits x
This section would create a permitting program to provide for the establishment of
** . '
Federally-enforceable requirements for air pollution sources on Indian reservations. This rule
would apply in the folio whig three situations: 1) the owner or operator of any source wishes to
obtain a Federally-enforceable limitation on the source's actual emissions or potential to emit and
submits an application to the Regional Administrator requesting such limitation; 2) the Regional
Administrator determines that additional Federally-enforceable requirements for a source are
necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal or, if applicable, Tribal Implementation Plan; or 3)
the Regional Administrator determines that additional Federally-enforceable requirements for a
source are necessary to ensure.the attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS or PSD increment.
A source that would otherwise require a Part 71 Federal operating permit may instead obtain an
operating permit under this section that limits its potential to emit to below major source thresholds
so that the source is not subject to Part 71. The Regional Administrator would write the operating
permit and follow the consultation and public comment procedures described in this rule.
This rule would provide air pollution sources on reservations with air quality control '
requirements and regulatory alternatives similar to those available to sources located off-
reservation. The rule also would enable the Regional Administrator to require further air emission
reductions if necessary to attain or maintain the NAAQS or PSD increment.
A-8
-------
All State and local air agencies have a permitting mechanism to control emissions and to
allow a source to limit its potential to emit so that it is not subject to Title V or other requirements
for major stationary sources with procedures, conditions, prohibitions, and exemptions similar to
those in the rule that EPA is proposing.
A.3 Basic Rules for which ICR Costs have not been Prepared and Rationale
A.3.1 Section 49.135, Emissions detrimental to human health and welfare
These are two alternatives to regulate emissions that are detrimental, and EPA would
promulgate one of the rules for each reservation. For both §§ 49.135 and 49.136, an owner or
operator of an air pollution source would not be allowed to cause or allow the emission of any air
pollutants, in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration, that the Regional
Administrator determines is, or would likely be, injurious to human health and welfare, animal or
plant life, or property. The alternative rule § 49.136 would includethe same requirements as §
49.135, and also authorize controls when the Regional Administrator determines an emission does,
or is likely to, unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property or damage unique Tribal
cultural or traditional resources. (Additional information on rule 49.136 is provided in A.5). If the
Regional Administrator makes such a determination under § 49.135 or § 49.136, then the Regional
Administrator may require the source to install air pollution controls or to take reasonable
precautions to reduce or prevent the emissions.
A.3.2 Section 49.137, Air pollution episodes
Under § 49.137, the Regional Administrator could issue warnings about air quality that
would apply to any person who owns or operates an air pollution source on Indian reservations.
An air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency could be declared by the
Regional Administrator whenever it is determined that the accumulation of air pollutants in any place
is attaining, or has attained, levels that could lead to a threat to human health. These
announcements would be broadcast on local television and radio stations in the affected area and
posted on their websites. Announcements will also be posted on the EPA Region 10 website and,
where possible, on the websites of Tribes within the affected area. These announcements will
indicate that air pollution levels exist that could potentially be harmful to human health, describe
actions that people can take to reduce exposure, request voluntary actions to reduce emissions
A-9
-------
from sources of air pollutants, and indicate that a ban on open burning is in effect. Voluntary or
mandatory curtailment of emissions could be declared by the Regional Administrator.
Most State and local air agencies have rules for air pollution episodes with procedures and
conditions similar to those in the rule that EPA is proposing. Section 110(a)(2)(G) of die Clean Air
Act and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H of EPA's regulations require agencies to have pre-planned
procedures to follow in the event of an air pollution episode as well as adequate authorities to
require sources to reduce emissions in order to protect public health. Section 49.137 is consistent
with EPA's requirements for State and local agencies as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H
and the model procedures in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix L.
. A.4 Additional Rules For Which ICR Costs Have Been Prepared
EPA plans to propose these rules only on reservations where a Tribe's authorized
representative requests in writing to have these rules apply on theiTreservation. As of December
2000, Region 10 has received requests for additional rules from three tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe
of Idaho has requested all six of the rules below, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation of Oregon have requested four of the six rules (49.132,49.133,49.134, 49.136), and
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington have requested two of the six
rules (49.127,49.128). ICRs have been prepared for four of the six rules based on information
supplied by the affected tribes.
«
A.4.1 Section 49.127, Woodwaste burners
Section 49.127 would phase out the operation of woodwaste burners (commonly known
as wigwam or teepee burners). In the interim, visible emissions from a woodwaste burner would
not be allowed to exceed 20% opacity, averaged over 6 consecutive minutes, as measured by EPA
Method 9, and only wood waste generated onsite could be burned or disposed of in the
woodwaste burner. The owner or operator would be required to submit a plan for shutting down
the woodwaste burner to EPA within 180 days after the effective date of these rules and to shut
down and dismantle the woodwaste burner by no later than 2 years after the effective date of these
rules. Sources could apply to EPA for an extension of the 2-year deadline if there is no reasonably
available alternative method of disposal for the wood waste.
EPA recognizes that on some reservations particulate matter from woodwaste burners can
contribute to air quality deterioration. This section would be promulgated in Part 49 Subpart M on
A-10
-------
reservations only where EPA finds, in consultation with the relevant Tribe, that it is appropriate to
establish this requirement in order to control air pollution. This section is designed to protect air
quality from the potential for significant deterioration caused by the release of particulate matter,
which is regulated by a NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. This rule would limit the amount
of particulate matter emitted to the atmosphere. EPA will base the determination of whether this
rule is appropriate for a particular reservation on a number of factors, including the prevalence of
these sources on the reservation, the significance of the resulting pollution on ah- quality in the area,
•
and the absence of Tribal laws to control the pollution.
Most wbodwaste burners under programs of State and local air agencies have already
been shut down. All but one of the State and local air agency rules that control the woodwaste
burners that still exist have a 20% opacity limit. Most of these rules use an opacity measurement
method with a 3-minute exception over a 60-minute period. However, EPA is proposing use of the
method with an average opacity over a 6-minute interval to be consistent with the only Federally
promulgated opacity measurement method, which is EPA Method 9, found at 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A. This method is used to determine compliance with Federal New Source Performance
Standards for numerous categories of industrial sources. This rule does not require any person to
conduct Method 9 opacity readings unless specifically required by the Regional Administrator in an
information request pursuant to section 114 of the Act, a permit to construct, or permit to operate.
A.4.2 Section 49.132, Open burning permits
Any person who conducts an open burn would be required to: 1) apply for and obtain a
permit for each open burn; 2) have the permit available on site during the open burn; 3) conduct the
open burn in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit; and 4) comply with the
General rule for open burning (§ 49.131) or the EPA-approved Tribal open burning rules in a TIP,
as applicable. The following activities are exempt: fires set for cultural or traditional purposes,
including fires within structures such as sweat houses or lodges; fires for recreational purposes,
provided that no prohibited materials are burned; forestry or silvicultural burning; agricultural
burning; and the burning of combustible household waste in burn barrels at single family residences
or residential buildings with four or fewer dwelling units. The Regional Administrator shall take into
consideration the size, duration, and location of the proposed open burn, the current and projected
air quality conditions, forecasted meteorological conditions, and other scheduled burning activities in
the surrounding area in determining whether to issue the permit.
A-ll
-------
This section is designed to protect air quality from the potential for significant deterioration
caused by the release of particulate matter, which is regulated by a NAAQS under section 109 of
the CAA. EPA is proposing to promulgate this rale only for reservations where EPA finds, in
consultation with the relevant Tribe, that the rale is appropriate. EPA will base the determination of
whether this rale is appropriate for a particular reservation on a number of factors,, including the
prevalence of these activities on the reservation, the significance of the resulting pollution on air
quality in the area and adjacent airsheds, and the absence of Tribal laws to control the pollution.
EPA anticipates that Tribes will seek EPA delegation to implement this rale on their reservation.
Most of the State and local air agency rales that EPA reviewed have a permitting program
for open burning with procedures, conditions, prohibitions and exemptions similar to those in the
rale that EPA is proposing.
A.4.3 Section 49.133, Agricultural burning permits
Any person who conducts an agricultural burn would be required to: 1) apply for and
obtain a permit for each agricultural burn; 2) have the permit available on site during the agricultural
burn; 3) conduct the burn in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit; and 4) comply
with the General rale for open burning (§ 49.131) or the EPA-approved Tribal open burning rales
in a TIP, as applicable.
This section is designed to protect air quality from the potential for significant deterioration
caused by the release of particulate matter, which is regulated by a NAAQS under section 109 of ,
the CAA. This rule would limit the amount of particulate matter emitted to the atmosphere from
unregulated agricultural burning activities. EPA is proposing to promulgate this rale only for
reservations where EPA finds, in consultation with the relevant Tribe, that the rale is appropriate.
EPA will base the determination of whether this rale is appropriate for a particular reservation on a '
number of factors, including the prevalence of agricultural burning activities on the reservation, the
significance of the resulting pollution on air quality in the area and adjacent airsheds, and the
absence of Tribal laws to control the pollution. EPA anticipates that Tribes will seek EPA
delegation to implement this rale on their reservation.
Two of the States, three local air agencies, and one Tribe in Region 10 have established a
permitting program for agricultural burning with procedures, conditions, prohibitions, and
exemptions similar to those in the rule that EPA is proposing.
A-12
-------
A.4.4 Section 49.134, Forestry burning permits
Any person who conducts a forestry burn would be required to: 1) apply for and obtain a
permit for each forestry burn; 2) have the permit available on site during the forestry burn; 3)
conduct the burn in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit; and 4) comply with the
General rule for open burning (§ 49.131) or the EPA-approved Tribal open burning rules in a TIP,
as applicable.
This section is designed to protect air quality from the potential for significant deterioration
caused by the release of particulate matter, which is regulated by a NAAQS under section 109 of
the CAA. This rule would limit the amount of particulate matter emitted to the atmosphere from
unregulated forestry burning activities. EPA is proposing to promulgate this rule only for
reservations where EPA finds, in consultation with the relevant Tribe, that the rule is appropriate.
EPA will base the determination of whether this rule is appropriate for a particular reservation on a
number of factors, including the prevalence of forestry burning activities on the reservation, the
significance of the resulting pollution on air quality in the area and adjacent airsheds, and the
absence of Tribal laws to control the pollution. This rule would protect air quality on those
reservations where forestry burning can contribute to air quality deterioration. EPA anticipates that
Tribes will seek EPA delegation to implement this rule on their reservation.
Three of the States in Region 10 have established a permitting program for forestry burning
with procedures, conditions, prohibitions, and exemptions similar to those in the rule that EPA is
proposing.
•> ,
A.5 Additional Rules For Which ICR Costs Have Not Been Prepared and Rationale
A.5.1 Section 49.128, Particulate matter emissions from wood products industry sources
Section 49.128 would apply to any person who owns or operates any of the following
wood products industry sources: veneer manufacturing operations, plywood manufacturing
operations, particleboard manufacturing operations, or hardboard manufacturing operations. This
section would impose limits on the amount of particulate matter that could be emitted from such
sources, in addition to the particulate matter limits for combustion and process sources in § 49.125.
The reference method for determining compliance with the particulate matter limits is EPA Method
202, found at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M: This rule does not require any person to conduct a
A-13
-------
Method 202 source test unless specifically required by the Regional Administrator in an information
request pursuant to section 114 of the Act, a permit to construct, or permit to operate.
In Part 49 Subpart M, EPA is proposing this requirement on reservations where EPA finds,
in consultation with the relevant Tribe, that it is appropriate to establish this requirement in order to
control air pollution. This section is appropriate to protect air quality from the potential for
significant deterioration caused by the release of paniculate matter, which is regulated by a
NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. This rule would limit the amount of paniculate matter
emitted to the atmosphere from those specific wood products industry sources. EPA will base this
determination on a number of factors, including the prevalence of these sources on the reservation,
the significance of the resulting pollution on air quality in the area, and the absence of Tribal laws to
control the pollution.
One State has both State-wide rules and area-specific rules to control paniculate matter
emissions from the wood products industry. The limits that EPA is proposing in this rule closely
resembles the area-specific rules for that State.
4.5.2 Section 49.136, Emissions Detrimental to Persons or Property, cultural and
traditional resources
Section 49.136 would provide additional protection of unique Tribal resources, and would
be promulgated on reservations only where EPA finds, in consultation with the relevant Tribe, that
the rule is appropriate. EPA will base this determination on a number of factors, including the
prevalence of activities on the reservation which can impact unique Tribal cultural or traditional
resources, the significance of the resulting pollution on those resources, and the absence of Tribal
laws to control the pollution. EPA anticipates that Tribes will seek EPA delegation to implement
this rule on their reservation.
' Most State and local air agency rules incorporate similar provisions prohibiting emissions
detrimental to persons or property.
A-14
-------
Appendix B
The ILS. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code
Matched to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) Code
-------
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code
sic
Code
SIC Code Description
NAICS
Code
NAICS Description
0119 Cash Grains, NEC
Dry Pea and Bean Farms 11113
Oilseed, Except Soybean, Farms 11112
Popcorn Farms 11115
Combination Oilseed and Grain Farms 111191
Odier Farms 111199
Dry Pea and Bean Farming
Oilseed (except Soybean) Farming
.Corn Farming (pt)
Oilseed and Grain Combination Farming
All Other Grain Farming
0139 Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC
HayFarms 11194
Peanut Farming 111992
Sweet Potatoes and Yam Farms 111219
Other Field Crop Farms 111998
Hay Fanning
Peanut Farming
Other Vegetable (except Potato) and
Melon Fanning (pt)
All Odier Miscellaneous Crop Farming
0181
0241
0252
0723
Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery
Products
Floriculture Fanning
Nursery Farming
Dairy Farms
Dairy Heifer Replacement Farms
Dairy Farms
Chicken Eggs
Crop Preparation Services For Market,
111422
111421
112111
11212
11231
Floriculture Production
Nursery and Tree Production (pt)
Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming (pt)
Dairy Cattle and Milk Production
Chicken Egg Production
except Cotton Ginning
0913
0921
1094
1311
1422
Other
Custom Grain Grinding
Shellfish
Fish Hatcheries and Preserves
Finfish Hatcheries
Shellfish Hatcheries
Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Crushed and Broken Limestone
115114
311119
114112
112511
112512
212291
211111
212312
Postharvest Crop Activities (except
Cotton Ginning)
Other Animal Food Manufacturing (pt)
Shellfish Fishing
Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries (pt)
Shellfish Farming (pt)
Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ore Mining
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Extraction
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining
and Quarrying
(continued)
B-l
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
. 1429
1442
1611
1761
1799
2011
2033 •
2037
2062
2091
2092
2411
2421
2426
SIC Code Description
Crushed and Broken Stone, NEC
Construction Sand and Gravel
Highway and Street Construction, Except
Elevated Highways
Rooting, Siding, and Sheet Metal Work
Special Trade Contractors, NEC
Paint and Wallpaper Stripping and
Wallpaper Removal Contractors
Tinted Glass Work
Asbestos Abatement and Lead Paint
Removal Contractors
All Other Special Trade Contractors
Meat Packing Plants
Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves, Jams,
and Jellies
Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables
Cane Sugar Refining
Canned and Cured Fish and Seafood
Prepared Fresh or Frozen Fish and Seafoods
Logging
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General
Lumber Manufacturing from Purchased
'Lumber, Softwood Cut Stock, Wood Lath
and Planing Mill Products
Sawmills
Softwood Flooring
Kiln Drying
Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills
Hardwood Flooring
Wood Furniture Frames
NAICS
Code
212319
212321
23411
23561
23521
23592
23591
23599
311611
311421
311411
311312
311711
311712
11331
321912
321113
321918
321999
321918
337215
NAICS Description
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining
and Quarrying (pt)
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
Highway and Street Construction (pt)
Roofing, Siding, and Sheet Metal
Contractors
Painting and Wall Covering Contractors
(pt)
Glass and Glazing Contractors (pt)
Remediation Services (pt)
All Other Special Trade Contractors
Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering (pt)
Fruit and Vegetable Canning (pt)
Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable
Manufacturing
Cane Sugar Refining
Seafood Canning (pt)
Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing (pt)
. Logging
Cut Stock, Resawirig Lumber, and Planing
(pt)
Sawmills (pt)
Other Millwork (including Flooring) (pt)
All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product
Manufacturing (pt)
Other Millwork (including Flooring) (pt)
Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker
Manufacturing (pt)
(continued)
B-2
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
2426
(cont)
2429
2431
2434
2436
2491
2711
2741
2819
SIC Code Description
Hardwood Dimension Lumber Made From
Logs and Bolts
Other Hardwood Dimension Except
Flooring .
Special Product Sawmills, NEC
Shingle Mills, Shakes
Stave Manufacturing from Purchased
Cumber
Cooperage Stock
Excelsior and Cooperage Headings
Millwork
Wood Windows and Doors
Except Wood Windows and Doors
Wood Kitchen Cabinets
Softwood Veneer and Plywood
Wood Preserving
Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing and
Printing
Miscellaneous Publishing
Database Publishing
Shopping News
Technical Manuals and Books
Sheet Music Publishers
Miscellaneous Publishing, Except
Database, Shopping News, Technical
Manuals and Books, and Sheet Music
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, NEC
Recovering Sulfur from Natural Gas
Activated Carbon and Charcoal
NAICS
Code
321113
321912
321113
321912
32192
321999
321911
321918
337110
321212
321114
51111
51114
51112
51113
51223
511199
211112
325998
NAICS Description
Sawmills (pt)
Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and Planing
(pt)
Sawmills (pt)
Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and Planing
(pt)
Wood Container and Pallet
Manufacturing (pt)
All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product
Manufacturing (pt)
Wood Window and Door Manufacturing
Other Millwork (including Flooring) (pt)
Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop
Manufacturing (pt)
Softwood Veneer and Plywood
Manufacturing
Wood Preservation
Newspaper Publishers
Database and Directory Publishers (pt)
Periodical Publishers (pt)
Book Publishers (pt)
Music Publishers (pt)
All Other Publishers
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (pt)
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
Product and Preparation Manufacturing
(pt)
(continued)
B-3
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
2819
(cent)
2875
2899
SIC Code Description
Alumina
Inorganic Dyes
Other
Fertilizers, Mixing Only
Chemicals.and Chemical Preparations, Not
NAICS
Code
331311
325131
325188
325314
NAICS Description
Alumina Refining
Inorganic Dye and Pigment
Manufacturing (pt)
All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical
Manufacturing (pt)
Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
Elsewhere Classified
2911
2951
3253
3272
3273
3275
3411
3446
3452
3479
Frit
Table Salt
Fatty Acids
Other
Petroleum Refining
Asphalt Paving Mixtures and Blocks
Ceramic Wall & Floor Tile
Concrete Products, Except Block and Brick
Dry Mixture Concrete
'Concrete Pipes
Other Concrete Products
Ready-Mixed Concrete
Gypsum Products
Metal Cans
Architectural and Ornamental Metal Work
Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets, and Washers
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services,
32551
311942
325199
325998
32411
324121
327122
327999
327332
32739
32732
32742
332431
332323
332722
Paint and Coating Manufacturing (pt)
Spice and Extract Manufacturing (pt)
All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing (pt)
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
Product and Preparation Manufacturing
(pt)
Petroleum Refineries
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block
Manufacturing
Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile
Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic
Mineral Product Manufacturing (pt)
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
Gypsum Product Manufacturing (pt)
Metal Can Manufacturing
Ornamental and Architectural Metal
Work Manufacturing (pt)
Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer
Manufacturing (pt)
NEC
Jewelry Engraving and Etching, Costume 339914
Jewelry
Jewelry Engraving and Etching, Precious 339911
Metal
Costume Jewelry and Novelty
Manufacturing (pt)
Jewelry (except Costume) Manufacturing
(pt)
B-4
-------
....•• (continued)
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
SIC Code Description
NAICS
Code
NAICS Description
3479 Silverware and Flatware Engraving and 339912
(cont) Etching »
Other Coating, Engraving and Allied 332812
Services
Silverware and Hollowware
Manufacturing (pt)
Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry
and Silverware), and Allied Services to
Manufacturers
3531 Construction Machinery and Equipment
Railway Track Maintenance Equipment
Winches, Aerial Work Platforms, and
Automotive Wrecker Hoists
Other Construction Machinery and
Equipment
33651 Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (pt)
333923 Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and
Monorail System Manufacturing (pt)
33312 Construction Machinery Manufacturing
3721 Aircraft
Research and Development 54171
Except Research and Development 336411
Research and Development in the
Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
(Pt)
Aircraft Manufacturing (pt)
3732
4221
4222
Boat Building and Repairing
Locomotive Fuel Lubricating or Cooling
Medium Pumps
Other Railroad Equipment
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
333911
33651
49313
49312
Pump and Pumping Equipment
Manufacturing (pt)
Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (pt)
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
(pt)
4499 Water Transportation Services, NEC
Boat and Ship Rental 532411
Lighthouse and Canal Operations 48831
Marine Salvage and Piloting Vessels In 48833
and Out of Harbors
Other 48839
Commercial Air, Rail, and Water
Transportation Equipment Rental and
Leasing (pt)
Port and Harbor Operations (pt)
Navigational Services to Shipping (pt)
Other Support Activities for Water
Transportation (pt)
4911 Electric Services
Hydroelectric Power Generation 221111
Electric Power Generation by Fossil Fuels 221112
Hydroelectric Power Generation (pt)
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation (pt)
(continued)
B-5
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
4911
(cont)
4922
4941
4952
4953
5031
5074
5093
5099
5149
5153
5172
SIC Code Description
Electric Power Generation by Nuclear
Fuels
Other Electric Power Generation
Electric Power Transmission and Control
Electric Power Distribution
Natural Gas Transmission
Water Supply
Sewerage Systems
Refuse Systems
Materials .Recovery Facilities
Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal
Solid Waste Landfills
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood
Panels
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and
Supplies (Hydronics)
Sold Via Retail Method
Sold Via Wholesale Method
Scrap and Waste Materials
Durable Goods, Not Elsewhere Classified
Groceries and Related Products, NEC
Bottling Mineral or Spring Water
Except Bottling Mineral or Spring Water
Grain and Field Beans
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Wholesalers, Except Bulk Stations and
Terminals
NAICS
Code
. 221113
221119
221121
221122
48621
22131
22132
56292
562211
562212
562213
562219
42131
44419
42172
42193
42199
312112
42249
42251
42272
NAICS Description
Nuclear Electric Power Generation (pt)
Other Electric Power Generation (pt)
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and
Control (pt)
Electric Power Distribution (pt)
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas
(Pt)
Water Supply and Irrigation Systems (pt)
Sewage Treatment Facilities
Materials Recovery Facilities
Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal
Solid Waste Landfill
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood
Panel Wholesalers
Other Building Material Dealers (pt)
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and
Supplies (Hydronics) Wholesalers
Recyclable Material Wholesalers
Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods
Wholesalers (pt)
Bottled Water Manufacturing (pt)
Other Grocery and Related Products
Wholesalers
Grain and Field Bean Wholesalers
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and
Terminals)
(continued)
B-6
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
sic
Code
SIC Code Description
NAICS
Code
NAICS Description
5191 Farm Supplies
Lawn and Garden Supplies Sold Via Retail 44422
Method
Except Lawn and Garden Supplies Sold 42291
Via Retail Method
Nursery and Garden Centers (pt)—Retail
Farm Supplies Wholesalers
5199 Nondurable Goods, NEC
Advertising Specialties Goods
Distributors
Except Advertising Specialty
54189 Other Services Related to Advertising
(pt)
42299 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods
Wholesalers
5411 Grocery Stores
Convenience Stores with Gas " 44711
Supermarkets and Grocery Stores with 44511
Little General Merchandise
Supermarkets and Grocery Stores with 45291
Substantial General Merchandise
Convenience Stores without Gas 44512
Gasoline Stations with Convenience
Stores (pt)
Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except
Convenience) Stores
Warehouse Clubs and Superstores (pt)
Convenience Stores
5541
5812
5992
6515
7212
Gasoline Service Stations
With Convenience Store
Except with Convenience Stores
Eating and Drinking Places
Full Service Restaurants
Limited Service Restaurants
Cafeterias
Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
Food Service Contractors
Caterers
Dinner Theaters
Florists
Operators of Residential Mobile Home Sites
Garment Pressing, and Agents for
Laundries and Dry Cleaners
44711
44719
72211
722211
722212
722213
72231
72232
71111
453110
53119
81232
Gasoline Stations with Convenience Store
(pt)
Other Gasoline Stations
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service' Restaurants
Cafeterias
Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
(Pt)
Food Service Contractors
Caterers
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters
(Pt)
Florists
Lessors of Other Real Estate Propertvfot)
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services
(except Coin-Operated) (pt)
(continued)
B-7
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
SIC Code Description
NAICS
Code
NAICS Description
7215 Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaning 81231
Coin-Operated Laundries and, Dry
Cleaners
7216 Dry Cleaning Plants, Except Rug Cleaning 81232
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services
(except Coin-Operated) (pt)
7532 Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair Shops
and Paint Shops
811121 Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior
Repair and Maintenance
7538 General Automotive Repair Shops
811111 General Automotive Repair
7692 Welding Repair
81131 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and
Equipment (except Automotive and
. Electronic) Repair and Maintenance (pt)
7999 Amusement and Recreation Services, NEC
Ticket Agencies 561599
Aerial Tramways, Scenic and Amusement 48799
Circus Companies and Traveling Carnival 71119
Shows
Professional Athletes 711219
Skiing Facilities 71392
Nonmembership Recreation Facilities 71394
Casinos, except Casino Hotels 71321
Lottery, Bingo, Bookie and Other Gaming 71329
Operations
Caverns and Miscellaneous Commercial 71219
Parks
Sports Instruction 61162
Nonathletic Recreational Instruction 611699
State Fairs, Agriculture Fairs, and County 71131
Fairs with Facilities
State Fairs, Agriculture Fairs, and County 71132
Fairs without Facilities
Sports Equipment Rental 532292
Scenic Transport Operations, Land 48711
All Other Travel Arrangement and
Reservation Services (pt)
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation,
Other (pt)
Other Performing Arts Companies (pt)
Other Spectator Sports (pt)
Skiing Facilities
Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
(Pt)
Casinos (except Casino Hotels)
Other Gambling Industries (pt)
Nature Parks and Other Similar
Institutions (pt)
Sports and Recreation Instruction
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and
Instruction (pt)
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and
Similar Events with Facilities (pt)
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and
Similar Events without Facilities (pt)
Recreational Goods Rental
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation,
Land (pt)
(continued)
B-8
-------
Table B-l. The U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code matched to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (continued)
SIC
Code
7999
(cont)
SIC Code Description
Charter Fishing
Amusement and Recreation Services,
NEC (except circuses, professional
NAICS
Code
48721
71399
NAICS Description
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation,
Water (pt)
All Other Amusement and Recreation
Industries (pt)
athletes, caverns and other commercial
parks, skiing facilities)
8051 Skilled Nursing Care Facilities
8062
8211
9223
9224
9511
9512
9621
Continuing Care Retirement Communities
All Other Skilled Nursing Care Facilities
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
Elementary and Secondary Schools
Correctional Institutions
Fire Protection
Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste
Management
Land, Mineral, Wildlife, and Forest
Conservation
Regulation and Administration of
Transportation Programs
Air Traffic Control
Except Air Traffic Control
623311
62311
62211
61111
92214
92214
92411
92412
488111
92612
Continuing Care Retirement Communities
(pt)
Nursing Care Facilities (pt)
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
(Pt)
Elementary and Secondary Schools
Correctional Institutions
Fire Protection
Administration of Air and Water
Resource and Solid Waste Management
Programs
Administration of Conservation Programs
Air Traffic Control (pt)
Regulation and Administration of
Transportation Programs
B-9
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2
EPA-452/R-02-004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Economic Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans
Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington
7.AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November, 2001
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1 . CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Proposed ah- regulations
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Region 10
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT:
In the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority
to protect air resources throughout the nation, including the air resources on Indian reservations. To meet this
commitment to protect human health and air quality resources, EPA Region 10 is proposing gap-filling rules for
Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The proposed rules will regulate activities, pollutants, and
sources by supplementing the existing Federal regulatory programs. These rules will provide regulatory tools for
use by EPA Region 10 in implementing the CAA on Indian reservations, in addition to the regulations already
established by EPA This document is the economic analysis of those rules..
17- KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
air pollution control regulations,
environmental regulation, economic
impact analysis, Indian reservations
1 9. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
22. PRICE
PA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
------- |