1268 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§ 63.966 Reporting requirements.

Owners and operators that use a

closed-vent system and a control device

in accordance with the provisions of

§ 63.962 shall prepare and submit to the

Administrator the reports required for

closed-vent systems and control devices

in accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.693.

Subpart VV—National Emission

Standards for Oil-Water Separators

and Organic-Water Separators

12. Section 63.1045 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1045 Standards—Pressurized

separator.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) At those times when purging of

inerts from the separator is required,

and the purge stream is routed to a

closed-vent system and control device

designed and operated in accordance

with the applicable requirements of

§ 63.693.

[FR Doc. 01–365 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[NV 032–FON; FRL–6927–7]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Nevada—Reno Planning Area;

Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or

Less (PM–10)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

find that the Reno (Washoe County)

Planning Area (RPA) has not attained

the annual and 24-hour PM–10 national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

by the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandated

attainment date for moderate

nonattainment areas, December 31,

1994. This finding is based on

monitored air quality data for the PM–

10 NAAQS during the years 1992–1994.

As a result of this failure to attain, the

RPA will be reclassified under CAA

section 188(b)(2) by operation of law as

a serious nonattainment area on the

effective date of this rule. The State of

Nevada will be required to submit a

state implementation plan (SIP) revision

addressing the CAA provisions for

serious areas within 18 months of the

reclassification.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on February 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of

the administrative record for this action

at EPA’s Region 9 office during normal

business hours. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air

Division, Planning Office (AIR–2), 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

Electronic Availability

This document is also available as an

electronic file on EPA’s Region 9 Web

Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/

air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

monitoring data questions contact

Manny Aquitania, U.S. EPA, Region 9,

Air Division, Technical Support Office

(AIR–7), 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744–

1299, aquitania.manny@epa.gov. For

other questions contact Doris Lo, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office

(AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744–

1287, lo.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 22, 2000, EPA proposed

to find that the RPA, a moderate PM–

10 nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.329)

did not attain either the 24-hour or

annual PM–10 NAAQS by the required

attainment date of December 31, 1994

and, as a result, would be reclassified as

a serious area. 65 FR 70326. The

proposed finding and resulting

reclassification is based on air quality

data which revealed violations of the

PM–10 NAAQS during 1992–1994. For

more background information see the

November 22, 2000 proposal at 65 FR

70326. Today’s rulemaking provides

EPA’s responses to public comments

and finalizes EPA’s proposed action.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

In response to the November 22, 2000

proposal, EPA received one comment

letter from the Washoe County District

Health Department Air Quality

Management Division (the District). In

general, the District believes that the air

quality in the RPA has improved over

the past decade and that a

reclassification to serious is not

indicative of the air quality

improvement for the area; however, the

District also recognizes that EPA

proposed to reclassify the RPA pursuant

to the Clean Air Act’s statutory

requirements. Below are EPA’s

responses to the District’s comments.

Comment 1: The District is concerned

that after years of improving PM–10

ambient levels and public outreach

efforts promoting their successes, the

proposed action will bring into question

the credibility of both the District and

EPA. Moreover, the District believes that

the reclassification of the area to serious

nonattainment will require considerable

staff resources to be spent on plan

preparation and documentation

requirements.

In addition, the District does not

believe that the serious classification

correctly defines the current PM–10

status of the RPA and that maintaining

the moderate classification, although it

may not be an option provided by the

Clean Air Act, would more correctly

characterize the area.

Response 1: While the PM–10

ambient levels may have improved over

the years, the RPA was violating the

PM–10 standard on its CAA attainment

deadline of December 31, 1994 and is

currently still in violation of the PM–10

standard. The basis for this conclusion

and the data supporting it are discussed

in detail in the proposed rule. See 65 FR

at 70327.

EPA has the responsibility under CAA

sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) to make

findings of failure to attain for areas

which have not attained the NAAQS by

the statutory deadline. Under section

188(b)(2)(A), a moderate PM–10

nonattainment area is reclassified as

serious by operation of law if the

Administrator finds that the area has

failed to attain the NAAQS by the

statutory attainment date.

EPA supports the District’s efforts to

improve the air quality in the Reno area

and understands that the District has

already spent considerable resources in

developing measures that will satisfy

the requirements in CAA section 189(b)

for a serious PM–10 area. EPA

understands that the plan preparation

and document requirements can be

resource-intensive and difficult, but

EPA is encouraged by the District’s

ongoing efforts and believes that the

District’s past efforts (e.g., residential

wood burning and construction dust

control measures) will also help address

the serious area planning requirements.

These ongoing and past efforts should

help the serious area plan preparation

and documentation requirements

proceed with fewer resources and less

difficulty.

Comment 2: The District stated that

the lawsuit and accompanying

arguments levied by the Sierra Club

present the perception that the air

quality in the RPA has continually been

at a level endangering public health.

The District believes this is a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1269

misconception and stresses that they

have adopted and are enforcing strict

regulations pertaining to residential

wood burning and construction dust

control, historically two of the largest

PM–10 contributors. The District

reiterates that the ambient air quality in

Washoe County has improved

dramatically in the past ten years.

Response 2: EPA agrees that the air

quality in the Reno area has improved

over the past 10 years. Unfortunately,

the area is still in violation of the

NAAQS for PM–10 due to a violation

recorded in 1999. See ‘‘Table of Sites

Violating PM–10 NAAQS in Reno

Planning Area, 1997–1999’’ in the

docket for the proposed rule. As stated

in the response to comment 1, EPA

supports the District in its efforts to

improve the air quality in the Reno area

and understands that the District has

already spent considerable resources in

developing measures that will satisfy

the CAA requirements for a serious PM–

10 area.

Comment 3: The District states that

the RPA attained the annual standard

for PM–10 in 1995.

Response 3: As discussed in the

proposed rule at 65 FR 70327,

attainment for the PM–10 NAAQS is

achieved when there are 3 consecutive

years of clean data. In 1995, the highest

annual arithmetic mean for the RPA was

47 μg/m3 found at the Reno-Galetti Way

moniter (below the annual PM–10

NAAQS of 50 μg/m3). While the RPA

did not violate the annual PM–10

NAAQS in 1995 (i.e., had clean data),

the RPA still had not attained the

annual standard for PM–10 in 1995 due

to the annual PM–10 levels in 1993 and

1994. The clean data pointed out by the

District are encouraging to EPA,

however, the violations recorded in

1999 make an attainment finding

impossible at this time.

Comment 4: The District states that

the Truckee Meadows Basin did not

experience any 24-hour PM–10

violations for 5 years (1994 through

1998). The District states that the RPA

measured a violation of the 24-hour

standard one day in 1993 and one day

six years later in 1999. The District

states that the measured 24-hour

violations were based on the national

every six-day monitoring schedule. For

both 1993 and 1999, the District also

collected continuous PM–10 data that

indicate the RPA did not violate the 24-

hour standard during those years. The

District claims that if those continuous

monitoring instruments were either

certified as a federal reference method

or if the data were subjected to federal

quality assurance procedures by the

District, the Truckee Meadows Basin

would not, by federal definition,

currently be in violation of the standard.

Response 4: In its proposal, EPA

explains how the number of violations

are determined from monitored

exceedance information. In general, for

monitors that collect air quality samples

less than every day, a recorded

exceedance will in effect be prorated, or

adjusted, so that the number of expected

exceedances for that year will account

for the days not sampled. 65 FR 70327.

Once this adjustment is made, the

number of violations in 1993 and 1999

would be greater than one in each of

those years.

The operating agency can avoid the

adjustment process for incomplete data

by initiating and maintaining everyday

sampling for four (4) calendar quarters.

40 CFR part 50, appendix K. However,

the continuous PM–10 data collected by

the District using a Federal Equivalent

Monitor (FEM) during the 1993 and

1999 violation years cannot be

considered because quality assurance

procedures prescribed in 40 CFR part

58, Appendix A and ‘‘Quality Assurance

Handbook for Air Pollution

Measurement Systems,’’ EPA, August

1998 were not followed.

Comment 5: The District states that

the PM10 violation days in 1993 and

1999 were characterized by stagnant air

conditions with low carbon monoxide

levels. Thus, the District has determined

that fugitive dust and residential wood

combustion were not the cause, but that

re-entrained road dust from wintertime

sanding/de-icing operations was the

cause of the 24-hour PM–10 violations

during 1993 and 1999. The District

recognizes the important effect of reentrained road dust on the area’s air

quality and is committed to enhancing

its efforts to prevent and mitigate this

source. The District believes that

Washoe County is currently meeting the

NAAQS for PM–10 and, with the

additional work it plans, the area can

maintain attainment for PM–10.

Response 5: EPA believes the District

has made a reasonable assessment of the

cause of the PM–10 violations in 1993

and 1999 and the Agency expects to see

measures to address this issue in its

serious area PM–10 plan for the RPA. As

stated previously, based on air quality

data, EPA does not agree that the RPA

is currently meeting the NAAQS for

PM–10; however, EPA believes that the

District has a good understanding of the

controls needed to attain and maintain

the PM–10 NAAQS.

III. SIP Requirements for Serious Areas

PM–10 nonattainment areas

reclassified as serious under section

188(b)(2) of the CAA are required to

submit, within 18 months of the area’s

reclassification, SIP revisions providing

for the implementation of best available

control measures (BACM) no later than

four years from the date of

reclassification. The SIP also must

contain, among other things, a

demonstration that the implementation

of BACM will provide for attainment of

the PM–10 NAAQS no later than

December 31, 2001. CAA sections

189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e) authorize EPA

to grant an extension of that deadline if

certain conditions are met. EPA has

provided specific guidance on

developing serious area PM–10 SIP

revisions in an addendum to the

General Preamble to title I of the Clean

Air Act. See 59 FR 41998 (August 16,

1994).

IV. Summary of Final Action

As stated above, EPA is finalizing its

proposed action to find that the RPA

failed to attain the PM–10 NAAQS by

the December 31, 1994 CAA deadline

for moderate areas and, as a result, the

RPA will be reclassified as a serious

PM–10 nonattainment area on the

effective date of this final rule.

V. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Under section 188(b)(2) of the CAA,

findings of failure to attain are based

solely upon air quality considerations

and the subsequent nonattainment area

reclassification must occur by operation

of law in light of those air quality

conditions. These actions do not, inand-of themselves, impose any new

requirements on any sectors of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications that, in turn, are

triggered by air quality values, findings

of failure to attain and reclassifications

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities.

Accordingly, the Administrator

certifies that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Similarly, because the finding of

failure to attain is a factual

determination based on air quality

considerations and the resulting

reclassification must occur by operation

of law and, do not impose any federal

1270 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

intergovermental mandate, these actions

do not contain any unfunded mandate

or significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). For the same

reason, this action also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, as specified by Executive

Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10,

1998). Also for the same reasons, this

finding of failure to attain and resulting

reclassification will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. Finally, for the

same reason that this finding of failure

to attain is a factual determination based

on air quality considerations and the

resulting reclassification must occur by

operation of law, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this finding of failure

to attain, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This finding of

failure to attain does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by March 9, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter.

Dated: December 22, 2000.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. In § 81.329, the table for Nevada–

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘Washoe County’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.329 Nevada.

* * * * *

NEVADA—PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Washoe County

Reno Planning Area ................................................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment ....... 2/7/01 Serious

Hydrographic area 87.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–467 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U