59128 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The monthly rate of basic

educational assistance payable to a

reservist for apprenticeship or other onthe-job training full time that occurs

after September 30, 1999, and before

October 1, 2000, is the rate stated in this

table:

Training period Monthly

rate

First six months of pursuit of training ............................................. $191.25

Second six months of pursuit of

training ...................................... 140.25

Remaining pursuit of training ....... 89.25

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–25488 Filed 10–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA–71–7146a; FRL–6879–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves the Thurston

County, Washington PM–10 area

maintenance plan and redesignation

request from nonattainment to

attainment as revisions to the

Washington State Implementation Plan.

PM–10 air pollution is suspended

particulate matter with a diameter less

than or equal to a nominal ten

micrometers.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on December 4, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by November 3, 2000. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Debra Suzuki, EPA,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

Copies of the State’s request and other

information supporting this action are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, and State of

Washington Department of Ecology, 300

Desmond Drive, PO Box 47600,

Olympia, Washington 98504–7600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Downey, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle, Washington,

(206) 553–0682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action

II. Supplementary Information

1. What is the purpose of this rulemaking?

2. What is a State Implementation Plan?

3. What National Ambient Air Quality

Standards are considered in today’s

rulemaking?

4. What are the characteristics of the

Thurston County airshed?

5. What is the background information for

this action?

6. What criteria did EPA use to review the

Thurston County PM–10 redesignation

request and maintenance plan?

7. How does the State show that the

Thurston County area has attained the

PM–10 National Ambient Air Quality

Standard?

Table 1: Mt View PM–10 Data (24 hr.

average μg/m3)

8. Does the Thurston County

nonattainment area have a fully

approved attainment plan SIP?

9. Are the improvements in air quality

permanent and enforceable?

10. Has the State met all the section 110

and part D planning requirements

applicable to this nonattainment area?

11. How does the State meet section 110

requirements?

12. How does the State meet part D

requirements?

13. How does the State meet the section

172(c) plan provisions requirements?

14. How does the State meet subpart 4

requirements?

15. Has the State submitted a fully

approvable maintenance plan for the

Thurston County PM–10 area?

16. How has the State met the attainment

inventory requirement?

17. How does the State demonstrate

maintenance of the PM–10 standard in

the future?

18. How will the State monitor air quality

to verify continued attainment?

19. What contingency plan will the State

rely upon to correct any future violation

of the NAAQS?

20. How does this action affect

Transportation Conformity?

21. What is the motor vehicle emissions

budget for Thurston County?

22. In summary, what conclusion has EPA

reached and what is it doing in this

action?

III. Final Action

IV. Administrative Review

I. Summary of Action

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) approves the Thurston County

PM–10 area maintenance plan and

redesignation request from

nonattainment to attainment as

revisions to the Washington State

Implementation Plan.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should adverse comments be filed. This

rule will be effective December 4, 2000,

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

November 3, 2000.

If the EPA receives adverse

comments, then EPA will publish a

Federal Register document withdrawing

the final rule and informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period. Parties interested in

commenting should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on December 4, 2000, and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

II. Supplementary Information

1. What Is the Purpose of This

Rulemaking?

Today’s rulemaking announces two

actions being taken by EPA related to air

quality in the State of Washington.

These actions are taken at the request of

the Governor of Washington in response

to Clean Air Act (Act) requirements and

EPA regulations.

First, EPA approves the PM–10

maintenance plan for the Thurston

County nonattainment area and

incorporates this plan into the

Washington State Implementation Plan

(SIP).

Second, EPA redesignates Thurston

County from nonattainment to

attainment for PM–10. This

redesignation is based on validated

monitoring data and projections of

ambient concentrations made in the

maintenance plan’s demonstration. EPA

believes the area will continue to meet

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for PM–10 for at least ten

years beyond this redesignation, as

required by the Act.

2. What Is a State Implementation Plan?

The Clean Air Act requires States to

keep ambient concentrations of specific

air pollutants below certain thresholds

to provide an adequate margin of safety

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59129

for public health and welfare. These

maximum concentrations are

established by EPA and known as the

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards, or NAAQS.

The State’s plan for attaining the

NAAQS are outlined in its State

Implementation Plan, or SIP. The SIP is

a planning document that, when

implemented, is designed to ensure the

attainment of the NAAQS. Each State

currently has a SIP in place, and the Act

requires that SIP revisions be made

periodically.

SIPs include the following: (1)

Inventories of emissions from point,

area, and mobile sources; (2) relevant

statutes and regulations adopted by the

state legislature and executive agencies;

(3) air quality analyses that include

demonstrations that adequate controls

are in place to ensure the area will

attain the NAAQS; and (4) contingency

measures to be implemented if an area

fails to attain or make reasonable

progress toward attainment by the

required date.

The SIP must be presented to the

public in a hearing and approved by the

Governor of the State or appointed

designee prior to submittal to EPA. The

approved SIP serves as the State’s

commitment to actions that will reduce

or eliminate air quality problems. Once

approved by EPA, the SIP becomes part

of the Code of Federal Regulations and

is Federally enforceable. Any

subsequent changes must go through the

formal SIP revision process specified in

the Act.

Washington submitted their original

SIP on January 28, 1972 and it was

subsequently approved by EPA. The

Thurston County PM–10 maintenance

plan and redesignation request was

submitted as a revision to the SIP on

August 16, 1999. This revision is the

subject of today’s action.

3. What National Ambient Air Quality

Standards Are Considered in Today’s

Rulemaking?

As stated previously, National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) are safety thresholds for

certain ambient air pollutants set by

EPA to protect public health and

welfare. Suspended particulate matter is

one of these criteria air pollutants

regulated by EPA by way of these

health-based national standards.

Particulate matter causes adverse

health effects by penetrating deep in the

lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary

system. Children, the elderly, and

people with asthma and heart

conditions are the most vulnerable.

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

revised the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter with a new indicator

that includes only those particles with

an aerodynamic diameter less than or

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–

10). (See 40 CFR 50.6).

The 24-hour primary PM–10 standard

is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/

m3), with no more than one expected

exceedance per year. The annual

primary PM–10 standard is 50 μg/m3

expected annual arithmetic mean. The

secondary PM–10 standards are

identical to the primary standards.

4. What are the characteristics of the

Thurston County airshed?

The Thurston County PM–10 area

consists of the adjoining cities of

Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater,

Washington. Geographically, the area is

characterized by low rolling terrain with

hills rising higher toward its southern

and western boundaries. Land use is

primarily residential and commercial

with several office parks and very little

industry. The surrounding hills trap

pollutants during stable meteorological

conditions that occur frequently in the

late fall and winter.

Residential wood combustion is the

largest source of PM–10 in the

nonattainment area. Re-suspended road

dust is also a significant, but smaller,

source. All other sources are considered

insignificant. The Thurston County PM–

10 attainment plan, approved in 1993,

identifies a 24-hour concentration of

286 μg/m3 as representative of worst

case PM–10 conditions before the use of

any emission controls. For a discussion

of the initial Thurston County PM–10

SIP see 58 FR 40056 (July 27, 1993).

Because the health based standard is set

at 150 μg/m3, this clearly shows that

Thurston County experienced severely

impaired air quality prior to

implementing the control strategy in the

attainment plan. As presented in the

maintenance demonstration, with

implementation of the control strategy,

modeling predicts maximum

concentrations that are below the 24-

hour NAAQS of 150 μg/m3 through the

year 2010.

5. What Is the Background Information

for This Action?

On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383),

EPA identified the Thurston County,

Washington area as a PM–10 ‘‘Group I’’

area of concern, i.e., an area with a 95%

or greater likelihood of violating the

PM–10 NAAQS and requiring

substantial SIP revisions. Subsequent

monitoring data and emission inventory

estimates confirmed that the area

experienced episodes where the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS was exceeded, violating

the health-based standard. The area was

subsequently designated as a moderate

PM–10 nonattainment area upon

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (November 15,

1990).

Title I, section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act

as explained in detail in the General

Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498 (April

16, 1992) hereafter referred to as the

General Preamble), allow the Governor

of a State to request the redesignation of

an area from nonattainment to

attainment. Under a cover letter dated

August 16, 1999, the State submitted a

maintenance plan and redesignation

request for the Thurston County PM–10

nonattainment area.

6. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review

of the Thurston County PM–10

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan?

The criteria used to review the

redesignation request are derived from

the Act, General Preamble, and the

following policy and guidance

memorandum from John Calcagni,

September 4, 1992, Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment. Section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that an area

can be redesignated to attainment if the

following conditions are met:

1. EPA has determined that the

NAAQS have been attained.

2. The applicable implementation

plan has been fully approved by EPA

under section 110(k).

3. EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions.

4. The State has met all applicable

requirements for the area under section

110 and part D.

5. EPA has fully approved a

maintenance plan, including a

contingency plan, for the area under

section 175A.

7. How Does the State Show That the

Thurston County Area Has Attained the

PM–10 National Ambient Air Quality

Standard?

Demonstrating that an area has

attained the PM–10 NAAQS involves

submittal of ambient air quality data

from an ambient air monitoring network

representing peak PM–10

concentrations, which is recorded in the

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS). The area must show that

the average number of expected

exceedances per year is less than or

equal to one. (40 CFR 50.6) To make this

determination, three consecutive years

of complete ambient air quality,

59130 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

collected in accordance with EPA

methodologies, must be used.

There is one PM–10 ambient air

quality monitoring site in Thurston

County. The Olympic Air Pollution

Control Agency (OAPCA) has operated

this monitor, located at the Mt. View

Elementary School, since November

1985.

The Washington State Department of

Ecology submitted ambient air quality

data and supporting documentation

from this monitoring site for the 1985–

1995 period demonstrating that the area

has attained the PM–10 NAAQS. Also,

supplemental data was submitted under

separate cover by the Olympic Air

Pollution Control Authority for 1996–

1999. This air quality data was quality

assured and entered into AIRS. These

data are summarized in the following

table:

TABLE 1: MT. VIEW PM–10 DATA (24

HR. AVERAGE μG/M3)

Year Maximum 2nd highest

1985 .................. 254 242

1986 .................. 193 179

1987 .................. 177 130

1988 .................. 169 120

1989 .................. 128 118

1990 .................. 141 86

1991 .................. 106 99

1992 .................. 102 78

1993 .................. 79 78

1994 .................. 77 63

1995 .................. 76 65

1996 .................. 55 53

1997 .................. 66 58

1998 .................. 54 46

1999 .................. 41 35

As shown above, an exceedance of the

24-hour NAAQS was not recorded at the

Mt. View Elementary School site

between 1989 and 1999. Also, the State

has adequately demonstrated attainment

of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS through

the dispersion modeling and the

attainment of the annual PM–10

NAAQS through emissions inventory

comparison (this is discussed in greater

detail later in this action). Thus, the area

is considered in attainment of the PM–

10 NAAQS, easily meeting the

requirement of three consecutive years

of clean data.

8. Does the Thurston County

Nonattainment Area Have a Fully

Approved Attainment Plan SIP?

Yes. Those States containing initial

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit a SIP by

November 15, 1991, which

implemented reasonably available

control measures (RACM) by December

10, 1993, and demonstrated attainment

of the PM–10 NAAQS by December 31,

1994. The SIP for the area must be fully

approved under section 110(k) of the

Act, and must satisfy all requirements

that apply to the area.

On July 27, 1993, (58 FR 40056), EPA

approved the Thurston County PM–10

nonattainment area SIP originally

submitted by the State on February 17,

1989, and supplemented on November

13, 1991.

9. Are the Improvements in Air Quality

Permanent and Enforceable?

Yes. The State must be able to

reasonably attribute the improvement in

air quality to permanent and enforceable

emission reductions. In making this

showing, the State must demonstrate

that air quality improvements are the

result of actual enforceable emission

reductions. This estimate should

consider emission rates, production

capacities, and other related

information. The analysis should

assume that sources are operating at

permitted levels (or historic peak levels)

unless evidence is presented that such

an assumption is unrealistic.

The attainment plan and the

maintenance plan identify residential

wood combustion as the primary source

of PM–10 emissions in the area, citing

a 1986 aerosol characterization study.

Chemical mass balance analysis of the

filters collected at the Mt. View

Elementary School show that

woodsmoke contributes 80–95% of

ambient PM–10 concentrations on the

high pollution days analyzed. The State

concluded that the most important

control measures for achieving

attainment are those that reduce

emissions from residential wood

combustion.

In response, Thurston County has

implemented a residential wood

burning curtailment program, a public

education program, emission standards

for new woodstoves, and restrictions on

certain fuels since the submittal of the

1989 attainment plan SIP. The

attainment demonstration (discussed in

further detail below) clearly shows that

these controls are responsible for the

attainment of the NAAQS. The

continued implementation of these and

other controls in the maintenance plan

will assure continued attainment of the

NAAQS.

The State shows that the reduction of

136 μg/m3 needed for attainment, or

6841 kg PM–10 emissions per day, is a

result of implementing the federally

enforceable control measures (see the

Technical Support Document

accompanying this Federal Register

document for additional description of

the control measures). Thus, the

emission reductions responsible for

attainment of the NAAQS are

permanent and enforceable.

10. Has the State met all the Section 110

and Part D Planning Requirements

Applicable to This Nonattainment

Area?

Yes. The September 1992 Calcagni

memorandum explains that for

redesignation purposes a State must

meet all of the applicable section 110

and part D planning requirements.

Thus, EPA interprets the Act to mean

that before EPA may approve a

redesignation request, the applicable

programs under section 110 and part D,

that were due prior to the submittal of

a redesignation request, must be

adopted by the State and approved by

EPA into the SIP. How the State has met

these requirements is discussed in detail

below.

11. How Does the State Meet Section

110 Requirements?

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains

general requirements for nonattainment

plans. These requirements include, but

are not limited to, submittal of a SIP that

has been adopted by the State after

reasonable notice and public hearing;

provisions for establishment and

operation of appropriate apparatus,

methods, systems and procedures

necessary to monitor ambient air

quality; implementation of a permit

program; provisions for part C—

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) and part D—New Source Review

(NSR) permit programs; criteria for

stationary source emission control

measures, monitoring, and reporting;

provisions for modeling; and provisions

for public and local agency

participation. See the General Preamble

for further explanation of these

requirements.

For purposes of redesignation, the

Washington SIP was reviewed to ensure

that all requirements under the Act were

satisfied. 40 CFR 52.2473, further

evidences that the Washington SIP was

approved under section 110 of the Act

and found that the SIP satisfied all part

D, Title I requirements (46 FR 45607,

September 14, 1981).

12. How Does the State Meet Part D

Requirements?

Part D consists of general

requirements applicable to all areas

which are designated nonattainment

based on a violation of the NAAQS. The

general requirements are followed by a

series of subparts specific to each

pollutant. All PM–10 nonattainment

areas must meet the applicable general

provisions of subpart 1 and the specific

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59131

PM–10 provisions in subpart 4,

‘‘Additional Provisions for Particulate

Matter Nonattainment Areas.’’ The

following paragraphs discuss these

requirements as they apply to the

Thurston County area.

13. How Does the State Meet the Section

172(c) Plan Provisions Requirements?

Section 172(c) contains general

requirements for nonattainment plans.

A thorough discussion of these

requirements may be found in the

General Preamble. EPA anticipates that

areas will already have met most or all

of these requirements to the extent that

they are not superseded by more

specific part D requirements. The

requirements for reasonable further

progress, identification of certain

emissions increases, and other measures

needed for attainment will not apply to

redesignations because they only have

meaning for areas not attaining the

standard. The requirements for an

emission inventory will be satisfied by

the inventory requirements of the

maintenance plan. The requirements of

the part D New Source Review (NSR)

program will be replaced by the part C

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) program for PM–10 upon the

effective date of this redesignation

action. The Federal PSD regulations

found in 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules

in effect in Washington.

14. How Does the State Meet Subpart 4

Requirements?

The Thurston County area is

classified as a moderate nonattainment

area. Therefore, part D, subpart 4,

section 189(a) requirements apply. The

requirements which came due prior to

the submission of the request to

redesignate the Thurston County area

must be fully approved into the SIP

before redesignating the area to

attainment. These requirements are

discussed below:

(a) Provisions to assure that RACM

shall be implemented by December 10,

1993;

(b) Either a demonstration that the

plan will provide for attainment as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than December 31, 1994, or a

demonstration that attainment by that

date is impracticable;

(c) Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward attainment by December

31, 1994; and

(d) Provisions to assure that the

control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM–10 also

apply to major stationary sources of

PM–10 precursors except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM–10 levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area.

As previously stated, EPA approved

the Thurston County PM–10 SIP, which

met the initial requirements of the 1990

amendments for moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas, on July 27, 1993,

(58 FR 40056). Other provisions were

due at a later date.

States with initial PM–10

nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM–10 by June 30, 1992. States also

were to submit contingency measures by

November 15, 1993, which become

effective without further action by the

State or EPA, upon a determination by

EPA that the area has failed to achieve

RFP or to attain the PM–10 NAAQS by

the applicable statutory deadline. See

sections 172(c)(9) and 189(a) and 57 FR

13543–13544.

The State has presented an adequate

demonstration that it has met the

requirements applicable to the area

under section 110 and part D. EPA

approved Washington State’s NSR

regulations effective June 2, 1995. EPA

approved, as part of the Thurston

County PM–10 attainment plan, a

contingency measure that would ban the

use of uncertified woodstoves in the

Thurston county nonattainment area if

the area failed to attain or maintain the

standard. State law allowed this

regulation to take effect on or after July

1, 1995.

15. Has the State Submitted a Fully

Approvable Maintenance Plan for The

Thurston County PM–10 Area?

Yes. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act

stipulates that for an area to be

redesignated, EPA must fully approve a

maintenance plan which meets the

requirements of section 175A. Section

175A defines the general framework of

a maintenance plan, which must

provide for maintenance of the relevant

NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years

after redesignation. The following is a

list of core provisions required in an

approvable maintenance plan.

(a) Plan revision: the maintenance

plan must provide for the maintenance

of the NAAQS for ten years beyond

redesignation.

(b) Subsequent plan revisions: Eight

years after redesignation, the

maintenance plan must provide for

additional revisions as needed to

maintain the standard for an additional

ten years.

(c) Nonattainment requirements

applicable pending plan approval: all

provisions and controls in place as part

of the nonattainment plan must be

implemented until final redesignation to

attainment.

(d) Contingency provisions: the

maintenance plan must include

contingency control measures which

will go into effect automatically to

correct any future violation of the

NAAQS. These provisions must include

a requirement that the State will

implement all measures contained in

the nonattainment area SIP.

16. How Has the State Met the

Attainment Inventory Requirement?

The State should develop an

attainment emissions inventory to

identify the level of emissions in the

area which is sufficient to attain the

NAAQS. Where the State has made an

adequate demonstration that air quality

has improved as a result of the SIP, the

attainment inventory will generally be

the actual inventory at the time the area

attained the standard. This inventory

should be consistent with EPA’s most

recent guidance on emission inventories

for nonattainment areas available at the

time and should include the emissions

during the time period associated with

the monitoring data showing

attainment.

For the Thurston County maintenance

plan, updated, gridded based year

(1995) and future year (2010) emission

inventories were compiled to show

emission levels consistent with

attainment and continued maintenance

of the PM–10 standard. The previous

inventories for the area prepared for a

base year of 1985 consisted primarily of

emissions from woodsmoke sources.

Updated emission factors and sources of

activity data were used to develop the

revised PM–10 emission inventories.

The inventories were gridded and

temporally allocated for use in air

quality modeling. This is discussed in

further detail below.

The State has adequately developed

an attainment emissions inventory for

1995 that identifies the levels of

emissions of PM–10 in the area that are

consistent with attainment of the

NAAQS.

17. How Does the State Demonstrate

Maintenance of the PM–10 Standard in

the Future?

A State may generally demonstrate

maintenance of the NAAQS by either

showing that future emissions of a

pollutant or its precursors will not

exceed the level of the attainment

inventory, or by modeling to show that

the future mix of sources and emission

rates will not cause a violation of the

NAAQS. Under the Act, PM–10 areas

59132 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

were required to submit modeled

attainment demonstrations to show that

proposed reductions in emissions will

be sufficient to attain the applicable

NAAQS. For these areas, the

maintenance demonstration should be

based upon the same level of modeling.

The State has adequately

demonstrated attainment of the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS through the dispersion

modeling and the annual PM–10

NAAQS through emissions inventory

comparison (i.e., rollback). The

dispersion modeling analysis was based

upon the guidelines established by EPA

for the regulatory application of the

urban airshed model for area wide

sources.

Inputs for this model were developed

using available meteorological,

emissions, air quality, and land use

data. The domain modeled was 30 x 27

grids, 1 km each. These parameters were

chosen based on future and known

emission sources, location of

meteorological sites, and the wind

direction during typical PM–10

episodes. Air quality inputs were based

on hourly tapered element oscillating

microbalance (TEOM) data collected at

the Mt. View Elementary School site

and assumed to represent uniform

concentrations across the domain. The

model used was a base case scenario

that took place on January 2–3, 1995.

Day specific emission rates for point

sources, activity patterns, and

meteorological data were used. The

emission reduction benefits from the

burn ban implemented on that day were

also considered.

After comparing the concentrations

generated by the model for January 2–

3, 1995 with the actual monitored data

collected on those days, the State

concluded that the model adequately

characterized the PM–10 episode. Based

on this success, the model was used to

generate future year concentrations.

The 2010 model was run using the

projected inventory and the inputs from

the 1995 run. Higher concentrations

were simulated for 2010 than for 1995,

but the maximum concentration in any

one grid, 149.9 μg/m3, does not exceed

the 24-hour standard. (Note: despite the

fact that this maximum value is very

near the standard of 150.0 μg/m3, EPA

is confident that the area will maintain

the standard based on the area’s history

and the overall strength of the

maintenance plan.)

When the model was run without the

benefits of the burn ban, the grid cell

over the urban core exceeded the

standard with a concentration of 177.7

μg/m3. Thus, the model demonstrates

that the continued implementation of

the control measures in the attainment

plan are needed to demonstrate

maintenance of the 24-hour standard.

The emissions inventory comparison

between attainment and forecast years

demonstrated continued attainment of

the annual PM–10 standard. The

projected annual average was 25.6 μg/

m3 in 2010, well within the standard of

50.0 μg/m3. This concentration was

based on maximum allowable point

source emissions and is therefore

somewhat conservative.

The State has adequately

demonstrated attainment of the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS through the dispersion

modeling and the annual PM–10

NAAQS through emissions inventory

comparison (i.e., rollback). The

dispersion modeling analysis was based

upon the guidelines established by EPA

for the regulatory application of the

urban airshed model for area wide

sources (EPA, 1991, 1992).

18. How Will the State Monitor Air

Quality to Verify Continued

Attainment?

Once an area has been redesignated,

the State must continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area. The maintenance plan

should contain provisions for continued

operation of air quality monitors that

will provide such verification. In its

submittal, the State commits to continue

to operate and maintain the network of

PM–10 monitoring stations necessary to

verify ongoing compliance with the

PM–10 NAAQS.

19. What Contingency Plan Will the

State Rely Upon To Correct any Future

Violation of the NAAQS?

Section 175A of the Act also requires

that a maintenance plan include

contingency provisions, as necessary, to

promptly address any violation of the

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.

These contingency measures are

distinguished from those generally

required for nonattainment areas under

section 172(c)(9) which are discussed

above. However, if the contingency

measures in a nonattainment SIP have

not been implemented at the time the

area is redesignated to attainment and

the contingency measures included a

requirement that they be implemented

prior to redesignation, then they can be

carried over into the area’s maintenance

plan.

The major contingency measure in the

Thurston County PM–10 attainment

plan, and carried forward in the

maintenance plan, further reduced

residential woodsmoke emissions.

Under this measure, RCW 70.94.477(2),

Olympic Air Pollution Control

Authority can limit wood burning

devices to fireplaces, certified

woodstoves, and pellet stoves in a

specific geographical area.

The State believes that additional

contingency measures beyond tighter

residential wood combustion

regulations are not needed in the

maintenance plan to assure prompt

correction of a violation. However, the

plan cites many additional options the

State could use to control major sources

of PM–10 if needed. These include

additional wood seasoning rules, stove

retrofits, weatherization, utility rate

incentives, stove replacement, stove

licensing, stove and fireplace ban,

woodstove removal, voluntary

curtailment, asphalt shoulders, street

maintenance, sanding reduction, control

of construction entrainment, new

paving, and others. EPA finds the State

plan includes adequate contingency

measures in the maintenance plan to

meet the requirement of 175A.

20. How Does This Action Affect

Transportation Conformity?

Under section 176(c) of the Act,

transportation plans, programs, and

projects in nonattainment or

maintenance areas that are funded or

approved under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal

Transit Act, must conform to the

applicable SIPs. However, a motor

vehicle emission budget was not

included in the 1998 attainment plan

because at the time of the attainment

demonstration, it was believed that

motor vehicle emissions were not a

significant factor for attainment. In the

maintenance plan, motor vehicle

emissions are a much higher percentage

of the total emission inventory.

Therefore, it is more important to

monitor growth of motor vehicle

emissions in the air quality planning

process. The maintenance plan includes

a motor vehicle emissions budget which

results in the need for conformity

determinations for PM–10 on future

Transportation Improvement Plans and

Regional Transportation Plans.

21. What is the Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budget for Thurston County?

Transportation conformity

determinations must be consistent with

the motor vehicle emissions budget of

776.36 tons of PM–10 per year. The

mobile source emissions are a

combination of vehicle exhaust, tire

wear, and road dust.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59133

22. In Summary, What Conclusion has

EPA Reached and What is it Doing in

This Action?

EPA has reviewed the maintenance

plan as a revision to the Washington SIP

and the adequacy of the State’s request

to redesignate the Thurston County PM–

10 nonattainment area to attainment.

EPA finds that the submittal sufficiently

meets the requirements for

redesignation requests. Therefore, the

EPA approves Washington’s

redesignation request for the Thurston

County PM–10 area and approves the

maintenance plan as a revision to the

Washington SIP.

III. Final Action

EPA approves the PM–10

maintenance plan for the Thurston

County, Washington PM–10

nonattainment area and redesignates the

area from nonattainment to attainment

for PM–10.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule 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, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Additionally, redesignation of

an area to attainment under section

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose

any new requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects

the status of a geographical area and

does not impose any regulatory

requirements on sources. Therefore, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

59134 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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). This rule

will be effective December 4, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by November 3, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 December 4,

2000. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: September 12, 2000.

Michael F. Gearheard,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW—Washington

2. Section 52.2470 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(80) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(80) On August 16, 1999, the

Washington State Department of

Ecology submitted a maintenance plan

and redesignation request for the

Thurston County PM–10 nonattainment

area (dated June 11, 1997). EPA

approves the Thurston County,

Washington PM–10 area maintenance

plan and the redesignation to

attainment.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 81.348 [Amended]

2. In § 81.348, the table entitled

‘‘Washington—PM–10’’ is amended by

revising the entry for ‘‘Thurston County,

Cities of Olympia, Tumwater, and

Lacey’’ to read as follows:

* * * * *

WASHINGTON—PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

*******

Thurston County Cities of Olympia,

Tumwater, and Lacey.

December 4, 2000 ..... Attainment .......... .................................... ....................................

*******

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59135

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–25226 Filed 10–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6879–3]

South Carolina: Final Authorization of

State Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: South Carolina has applied to

EPA for Final authorization of the

changes to its hazardous waste program

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has

determined that these changes satisfy all

requirements needed to qualify for Final

authorization, and is authorizing the

State’s changes through this immediate

final action. EPA is publishing this rule

to authorize the changes without a prior

proposal because we believe this action

is not controversial and do not expect

comments that oppose it. Unless we get

written comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment

period, the decision to authorize South

Carolina’s changes to their hazardous

waste program will take effect. If we get

comments that oppose this action, we

will publish a document in the Federal

Register withdrawing this rule before it

takes effect and a separate document in

the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register will serve as a proposal

to authorize the changes.

DATES: This Final authorization will

become effective on December 4, 2000,

unless EPA receives adverse written

comment by November 3, 2000. If EPA

receives such comment, it will publish

a timely withdrawal of this immediate

final rule in the Federal Register and

inform the public that this authorization

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Narindar Kumar, Chief RCRA Programs

Branch, Waste Management Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, GA, 30303–3104;

(404) 562–8440. You can view and copy

South Carolina’s application from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the following

addresses: South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control,

2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South

Carolina 29201, (803) 896–4174; and

EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center,

Library, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,

Georgia 30303; (404) 347–4216.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Narindar Kumar, Chief RCRA Programs

Branch, Waste Management Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, GA, 30303–3104;

(404) 562–8440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

program. As the Federal program

changes, States must change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the

changes. Changes to State programs may

be necessary when Federal or State

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, States must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in

This Rule?

We conclude that South Carolina’s

application to revise its authorized

program meets all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Therefore, we grant South

Carolina Final authorization to operate

its hazardous waste program with the

changes described in the authorization

application. South Carolina has

responsibility for permitting Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

within its borders (except in Indian

Country) and for carrying out the

aspects of the RCRA program described

in its revised program application,

subject to the limitations of the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New

federal requirements and prohibitions

imposed by Federal regulations that

EPA promulgates under the authority of

HSWA take effect in authorized States

before they are authorized for the

requirements. Thus, EPA will

implement those requirements and

prohibitions in South Carolina,

including issuing permits, until the

State is granted authorization to do so.

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s

Authorization Decision?

The effect of this decision is that a

facility in South Carolina subject to

RCRA will now have to comply with the

authorized State requirements instead of

the equivalent federal requirements in

order to comply with RCRA. South

Carolina has enforcement

responsibilities under its state

hazardous waste program for violations

of such program, but EPA retains its

authority under RCRA sections 3007,

3008, 3013, and 7003, which include,

among others, authority to:

• Do inspections, and require

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports

• Enforce RCRA requirements and

suspend or revoke permits

• Take enforcement actions regardless

of whether the State has taken its own

actions

This action does not impose

additional requirements on the

regulated community because the

regulations for which South Carolina is

being authorized by today’s action are

already effective, and are not changed

by today’s action.

D. Why Wasn’t There a Proposed Rule

Before Today’s Rule?

EPA did not publish a proposal before

today’s rule because we view this as a

routine program change and do not

expect comments that oppose this

approval. We are providing an

opportunity for public comment now. In

addition to this rule, in the proposed

rules section of today’s Federal Register

we are publishing a separate document

that proposes to authorize the state

program changes.

E. What Happens if EPA Receives

Comments That Oppose This Action?

If EPA receives comments that oppose

this authorization, we will withdraw

this rule by publishing a document in

the Federal Register before the rule

becomes effective. EPA will base any

further decision on the authorization of

the state program changes on the

proposal mentioned in the previous

paragraph. We will then address all

public comments in a later final rule.

You may not have another opportunity

to comment. If you want to comment on

this authorization, you must do so at

this time.

If we receive comments that oppose

only the authorization of a particular

change to the State hazardous waste

program, we will withdraw that part of

this rule but the authorization of the

program changes that the comments do

not oppose will become effective on the

date specified above. The Federal

Register withdrawal document will

specify which part of the authorization

will become effective, and which part is

being withdrawn.