Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18047

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

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. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. 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 private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

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.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. 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 June 13, 1997.

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 in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: March 25, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart RR—Tennessee

§ 52.2219 [Removed and reserved]

2. Section 52.2219 is removed and

reserved.

3. Section 52.2220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(150) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(150) Revisions to chapters 1200–3–9

‘‘Construction and Operating Permits’’

and 1200–3–18 ‘‘Volatile Organic

Compounds’’ were submitted by the

Tennessee Department of Air Pollution

Control (TDAPC) to EPA on June 3,

1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) State of Tennessee regulation

1200–3–9 ‘‘Construction and Operating

Permits’’, subpart 1200–3–9–

.01(4)(b)(29)(i) effective on August 14,

1996.

(B) State of Tennessee regulation

1200–3–18 ‘‘Volatile Organic

Compounds’’, subparts 1200–3–18–

.24(1)(d), 1200–3–18–.24(3)(c)(2)(i) and

1200–3–18–.86(11)(c) effective August

10, 1996.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 97–9506 Filed 4–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR–14–1–5535; FRL–5807–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the State of Oregon for the purpose of

bringing about the attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10).

The implementation plan was submitted

by the state to satisfy certain Federal

requirements for an approvable

moderate nonattainment area PM–10

SIP for the Klamath Falls, Oregon, PM–

10 nonattainment area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: 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; EPA Oregon

Operations Office, 811 SW Sixth

Avenue, Third Floor, Portland, Oregon

97204; and the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth

Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204–1390.
18048 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1 The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No.

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to

the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The

Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S.

Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to

nonattainment areas generally and Subpart 4

contains provisions specifically applicable to PM–

10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and

Subpart 4 overlap or may conflict. EPA has

attempted to clarify the relationship among these

provisions in the ‘‘General Preamble’’ document

and, as appropriate, in today’s notice and

supporting information.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, EPA,

401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C.

20460, as well as at the above addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air Quality

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

Washington 98101, (206) 553–6510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The area within the Klamath Falls,

Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),

was designated nonattainment for PM–

10 and classified as moderate under

Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA), upon enactment of

the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)

of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991) and 40 CFR 81.338. The air

quality planning requirements for

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas

are set out in Subparts 1 and 4 of Title

I of the Act.2 EPA has issued a ‘‘General

Preamble’’ describing EPA’s preliminary

views on how EPA intends to review

SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under

Title I of the Act, including those state

submittals containing moderate PM–10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)). The General Preamble provides

a detailed discussion of EPA’s

interpretation of the Title I

requirements. In this rulemaking action

for the PM–10 SIP for the Klamath Falls

nonattainment area, EPA’s proposed

action is consistent with its

interpretations, discussed in the General

Preamble, and takes into consideration

the specific factual issues presented in

the SIP. Additional information

supporting EPA’s action on this

particular area is available for

inspection at the addresses indicated

above.

Those states containing initial

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas

(those areas designated nonattainment

under Section 107(d)(4)(B)) were

required to submit, among other things,

the following provisions by November

15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that

Reasonably Available Control Measures

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of Reasonably Available

Control Technology shall be

implemented no later than December

10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including

air quality modeling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994, or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP) toward attainment by

December 31, 1994; and

4. 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. See Sections 172(c),

188, and 189 of the Act.

States with initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas were required to: 1)

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM–10 by June 30, 1992 (see Section

189(a)); and 2) submit contingency

measures by November 15, 1993, which

were to become effective without further

action by the state or EPA, upon a

determination by EPA that the area has

failed to achieve RFP or to attain the

PM–10 NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline (see Section 172(c)(9)

and 57 FR 13543–13544). Oregon has

made submittals in response to both of

the above described requirements. EPA

intends to address that submittal

containing the new source review

permit program in a separate action.

To address the CAAA of 1990, Oregon

submitted a PM–10 nonattainment area

SIP for Klamath Falls, Oregon, on

November 15, 1991. A subsequent

revision to the plan was submitted to

EPA on September 22, 1995. EPA

reviewed the November 15, 1991, and

September 22, 1995, SIP revisions

according to its interpretation of subpart

1 and 4 of Part D of Title I of the Act.

EPA concluded from its review that the

SIP met the applicable requirements of

the Act and EPA, therefore, solicited

public comment on its proposed

approval. See the June 5, 1996, Federal

Register document at 61 FR 28531 and

its accompanying Technical Support

Document (TSD). The June 5, 1996,

document also indicated that anyone

wishing to comment should do so by

July 5, 1996.

On July 12, 1996, in response to the

June 5, 1996, Federal Register

document, EPA received comments

from three parties. It is EPA’s opinion,

however, that the majority of these

comments are beyond the scope of

EPA’s proposed action. Many of the

comments focus on issues associated

with a former Weyerhaeuser Company

facility (currently owned by Collins

Products LLC) located outside the

designated nonattainment area. While

the commenters raise several concerns

with this facility, most of them do not

apply to EPA’s approval of the

nonattainment area plan. As explained

in more detail in the Response to

Comment Document for this action, EPA

is currently working with the State of

Oregon to resolve issues associated with

the facility.

EPA has thoroughly considered the

comments in determining the

appropriate action on the Klamath Falls

PM–10 Control Plan. A summary of

EPA’s review of the comments is

presented in the ‘‘Response to

Comments’’ section below. A more

detailed Response to Comment

Document is available for public review

at the above addresses.

EPA is approving the Klamath Falls

SIP as described in the June 5, 1996,

Federal Register document at 61 FR

28531 and its accompanying (TSD). The

following is a review of those comments

received during the public comment

period.

II. Response to Comments

A. Area Designation

The commenters all stated that the

boundary for the nonattainment area

should be enlarged to include sources

currently external to the Urban Growth

Boundary (UGB). One group of

commenters provided the following:

NAAQS standards were the original

keystone of the CAA. All ‘‘areas’’ 2 containing

a site for which air quality data show a

violation of NAAQS were originally

designated as non-attainment by Congress.

§ 107(d)(4)(B)(2) [sic]. Klamath Falls was

classified as a moderate PM–10 nonattainment area by operation of law.

llllllll

2Congress’ use of the word area does not

mean nonattainment area. The use of the

word ‘‘area’’ must be given its plain meaning.

The definition of ‘‘area’’ is not found in the

act. When referring to non-attainment area,

the act is using the definition found at

§ 171(2). The word area cannot logically
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18049

3State Implementation Plan for PM–10 in

Klamath Falls, October 1991, Section 4.12.3.2.

mean non-attainment area. This would be

circular.

These same commenters contend that

‘‘the urban growth boundary is an

arbitrary land classification

distinction.’’ The comment states: ‘‘The

1986 modeling fails to satisfy 40 CFR

part 51, appendix W. The SIP modeling

should have included a ‘land use

classification procedure or a population

based procedure to determine whether

the character’ of the area was primarily

urban or rural.’’

The first comment implies that

Klamath Falls was designated

nonattainment for PM–10 in accordance

with section 107(d)(4)(B)(ii) of the Clean

Air Act (CAA). This is not entirely

correct. Klamath Falls was designated

nonattainment in accordance with

section 107(d)(4)(B)(i). This section of

the CAA states:

(i) each area identified in 52 Federal

Register 29383 (Aug. 7, 1987) as a Group 1

area (except to the extent that such

identification was modified by the

Administrator before November 15, 1990) is

designated nonattainment for PM–10.

EPA believes it is important to point

out that the Klamath Falls

nonattainment boundaries were

established, as were the boundaries for

all the initial PM–10 nonattainment

areas, through a public notice process

which provided an opportunity for

comment on the appropriateness of the

boundary description. In the August 7,

1987, Federal Register document,

Klamath Falls was identified by EPA as

a PM–10 area of concern and

categorized as a Group 1 area. EPA did

not receive any comments questioning

this action. Subsequently, on October

31, 1990, the area of concern was further

defined as the area within the urban

growth boundary. See 55 FR 45799.

Therefore, upon passage of the Clean

Air Act Amendments on November 15,

1990, the existing Klamath Falls Group

1 area, as defined by the urban growth

boundary, was designated

nonattainment and classified as a

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area by

operation of law. See 56 FR 56694 at

56705–56706, 56820 (Nov. 6, 1991)

(document announcing formal

codification of initial PM–10

nonattainment areas in 40 CFR part 81).

On March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101),

prior to the November 6, 1991, formal

codification document, EPA announced

all the designations and classifications

occurring for PM–10 by operation of law

upon enactment of the Clean Air Act

(the ‘‘initial PM–10 nonattainment

areas’’). In this Federal Register

document EPA provided, among other

things, an opportunity for the public to

comment on EPA’s announcement. EPA

requested public comment on the

announcement in order to facilitate

public participation and avoid errors.

EPA did not receive any comments

disputing the extent and description

(i.e., the boundary) of the Klamath Falls

nonattainment area.

Furthermore, Oregon Administrative

Rule (OAR) 340–31–500(10) contains a

legal description of the Klamath Falls

UGB. This rule is part of the federallyapproved SIP.

EPA is not sure what distinction the

commenter is attempting to draw in the

context of section 107(d) between the

word ‘‘area’’ and the phrase

‘‘nonattainment area.’’ That section

itself defines a nonattainment area as,

among other things, any area that does

not meet, i.e., is violating, the national

ambient air quality standard for any

pollutant. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i). Other

provisions in section 107(d) determine

the process by which particular areas

are officially designated as

nonattainment. Indeed, the definition in

section 171(2) essentially refers back to

the section 107(d) definition.

The comment on the urban vs. rural

land use classification in section 8.2.8 of

EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised) is not relevant either to issues

regarding the determination of the

appropriate boundaries of the

nonattainment area, or the method of

modeling used to demonstrate

attainment. Receptor, not dispersion

modeling, is used to demonstrate

attainment with the NAAQS. Section

8.2.8 was written primarily in the

context of the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration program. It was written to

determine the dispersion coefficient

when modeling a single source and not

for the purpose of determining the

nonattainment boundaries of an area.

B. Weyerhaeuser (Collins Products LLC)

Issues

The primary issues associated with

the Weyerhaeuser facility presented by

a commenter include, but are not

limited to: (1) dispersion modeling

showing significant impacts at the

Peterson School monitoring site, (2)

dispersion modeling showing

exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS

outside of the UGB, and (3) exclusion of

Weyerhaeuser’s PM–10 emissions from

the plan’s emission inventory. Each of

these issues is addressed generally

below and in more detail in the

Response to Comment document.

1. Weyerhaeuser’s Modeled Impacts at

Peterson School

One commenter refers to two

modeling analyses, one conducted in

1992 and one conducted in 1994, which

indicated the facility had a significant

impact at Peterson School and its

emissions contributed to an exceedance

of the NAAQS at an unmonitored

location. Another modeling analysis,

not referenced by the commenter, was

conducted in 1995.

The 1992 and 1994 modeling analyses

performed to assess Weyerhaeuser’s

impact at the Peterson School

monitoring site have been superseded

by a modeling analysis conducted in

1995. The modeling analysis in 1995

was performed to satisfy the SIP

commitment that Weyerhaeuser’s

emissions be dispersion modeled ‘‘to

determine whether emissions from the

Weyerhaeuser facility have a significant

impact (annual average impact of 1

μg/m3, or 24-hour impact of 5 μg/m3) at

the maximum concentration point

within the nonattainment area (Peterson

School monitoring site).’’ 3 The 1995

analysis was also performed to address

deficiencies with the 1992 and 1994

analyses. Therefore, because the 1992

and the 1994 modeling analyses have

been superseded, the comments

received concerning the 1992 and the

1994 modeling analyses performed by

either Weyerhaeuser or by the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) are no longer relevant.

The 1995 analysis, summarized in an

ODEQ August 4, 1995, memorandum,

indicates that, on exceedance days, the

Weyerhaeuser facility does not have a

significant impact at the Peterson

School monitoring site. Included in this

analysis is the facility’s current

permitted allowable emissions,

emission credits, and plant fugitive

emissions. These allowable emissions

are reflected in the facility’s Air

Contaminant Discharge Permit, issued

on November 20, 1995. Through the

state’s operating permit program, this

permit is part of the federally approved

SIP.

This 1995 analysis indicates that the

facility’s current permitted emissions do

not have a significant impact on the

Peterson School site during exceedance

days.

2. Weyerhaeuser’s Modeled Impact at an

Unmonitored Location

One commenter contends:

that there are presently exceedances within

the Klamath area which may preclude

redesignation. § 172(c)(1) provides that an

approvable SIP ‘‘shall provide for the

attainment of the national primary ambient

air quality standards.’’
18050 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

EPA believes that the comment

alludes to a modeled violation of the

NAAQS at a location outside of the

designated nonattainment area

boundary. Specifically, preliminary

dispersion modeling information

indicates that the Weyerhaeuser

Klamath Falls facility is causing a

violation of the NAAQS at an

unmonitored site outside the

nonattainment area. The modeled

violation of the NAAQS outside of the

nonattainment area and the

approvability of the Klamath Falls PM–

10 Control Plan by EPA, are two

separate issues. This rulemaking action

concerns only the latter issue.

Nevertheless, to address the comment

concerning the modeled violation, it is

useful to note that the State of Oregon,

with input from EPA, is currently

working with Collins Products LLC to

mitigate the modeled NAAQS violation.

Further, as discussed in the June 5,

1996, Federal Register document (61 FR

28531) and the TSD for that notice, any

violation of the NAAQS outside of an

existing nonattainment area would be

subject to its own planning

requirements, analysis, and potential

control measures.

3. Exclusion of Emissions

Both the 1991 version and the 1995

revision of the proposed Klamath Falls

PM–10 SIP, to some degree, discuss

Weyerhaeuser’s emissions. As required

by the nonattainment area plan, and as

discussed in the TSD to the June 5,

1996, Federal Register document; the

Response to Comments Document for

this action; and elsewhere in this

document, Weyerhaeuser evaluated its

impact at the Peterson School

monitoring site.

C. Slash Burning Emissions

EPA received comments from two

commenters indicating that PM–10

emissions from slash burning are not

properly quantified. One of the

commenters contends that:

DEQ’s emission inventory for Klamath

County tallies slash burning as the single

largest source of emissions

and, given that, wonders how EPA can

* * * support a plan that considers slash

to be a 0% contributor when DEQ’s own

records show that over 3,000 4 tpy come from

slash.

llllllll

4This figure is from 1987–88 using DEQ’s

emission factor applied to State Forestry

Smoke Management Annual Report data.

As the commenter indicates, these

emission estimates are on a county-wide

basis and as such do not accurately

reflect emissions generated from within

the nonattainment area or the area in

close proximity to the nonattainment

area. For comparison purposes, the

county is 6,135 square miles, whereas

the nonattainment area is only

approximately 70 square miles. In

addition, specific information linking

slash burning days with monitored

exceedance days is not presented.

However, to address the potential

impacts of forestry slash burning, a

voluntary smoke management plan was

developed and implemented. This plan

establishes a Special Protection Zone

(SPZ) around the nonattainment area.

This SPZ restricts prescribed burning

within a 20 miles radius of Klamath

Falls during the winter residential wood

burning season. As previously stated,

exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS

have historically occurred during the

wood burning season. To supplement

the voluntary smoke management plan,

a Memorandum of Understanding was

signed by and between several timber

companies, several national forests, the

Oregon Department of Forestry, and the

Bureau of Land Management. As

discussed in the June 5, 1996, Federal

Register document and its TSD, EPA

believes these steps adequately address

the potential impacts of slash burning

on the nonattainment area.

D. Control Measures

It is one commenter’s position that

* * * reduction in emissions do not

‘result from’ implementation of the

plan. § 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).’’

1. Mandatory Residential Woodburning

Curtailment Program

It is one commenter’s belief that a lack

of exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS

since January 1991, is

* * * not a measure of the success of the

mandatory woodstove curtailment program,

but rather the accumulation of a number of

significant changes that have been occurring.

The most significant changes occurred at

Weyco [Weyerhaeuser] * * *

Because the mandatory curtailment

program (a voluntary program had been

in place for several years) was

implemented November 1, 1991, it is

this commenter’s opinion that the first

complete year where reductions from

the mandatory program would have

occurred is in 1992.

It is EPA’s opinion that the chosen

control strategies, which include the

mandatory curtailment program, have

brought the area into attainment with

the NAAQS. This is discussed in more

detail in the June 5, 1996, Federal

Register document, the TSD to that

document, and the Response to

Comment Document for this document.

Based on ambient monitoring, the last

seven exceedances of the 24-hour

NAAQS occurred in 1991. All of the

exceedances occurred in January of that

year. On October 31, 1991, one day

before the mandatory curtailment

program was implemented, a monitored

value of 136 μg/m3 was recorded. On

November 1, 1991, the mandatory

curtailment program was implemented,

and, during the 1991/1992 woodburning

season, the highest monitored value was

133 μg/m3. During November and

December of 1991, there were no

monitored exceedances of the 24-hour

NAAQS, thus, indicating that emission

reductions were being achieved by the

end of 1991. In mid-1992,

Weyerhaeuser’s five hog fuel boilers

were taken out of service. This is after

completion of a successful woodburning

season (November 1991 through

February 1992) without any

exceedances of the NAAQS. Therefore,

it is not unreasonable for EPA to believe

that improvement in air quality is due

to implementation of the control

measures. As discussed in the TSD to

the June 5, 1996, Federal Register

document, ODEQ has conducted

compliance surveys and documented

the effectiveness of the program.

However, EPA also recognizes that the

Weyerhaeuser facility has reduced its

actual PM–10 emissions and has taken

a reduction in its allowable emissions of

over 600 tons since 1992. The facility is

currently permitted at 111 pounds per

hour, a substantial reduction from its

previous limit.

2. Open Burning

The nonattainment area plan does not

request credit for its open burning

control measures. It is one commenter’s

opinion that this is not appropriate

because significant open burning

emissions existed in the baseline period.

It is the state’s prerogative to request

credit for a specific control measure. In

regard to open burning, the plan does

contain open burning restrictions, but

ODEQ chose not to request emission

reduction credits for the reductions

resulting from the open burning control

measure. Nevertheless, emission

reductions from the plan’s control

measures will be realized and remain

enforceable.

E. Attainment Demonstration Method

ODEQ conducted an attainment

demonstration based upon receptor

modeling proportional roll-back

calculations to estimate the emission

reductions required in 1994 to achieve

the NAAQS. One commenter does not

agree with this method and states: ‘‘The

SIP ignores the results of the dispersion
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18051

model [1992 modeling], uses an

inappropriate rollback model with

faulty emission inputs and attempts to

use a receptor model for validation.’’

The commenter further states the SIP

violates the CAA because two

documents contained in Section 3.2 of

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, were not

used to justify the use of rollback.

The same commenter provided a chart

(Attachment D) relating ‘‘total wood

production at Weyerhaeuser and PM–10

readings at Peterson School’’ and states

that the correlation coefficient (R square

value) is 0.94 using linear regression in

an attempt to demonstrate that

Weyerhaeuser was a dominant

contributor to exceedances at Peterson

School.

As noted elsewhere, the 1992

modeling analysis has been superseded

by a modeling analysis conducted in

1995 and, therefore, the 1992 analysis is

no longer relevant.

As previously stated, the initial

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit a

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) showing that the plan would

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994 (see Section

189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). The General

Preamble sets out EPA’s guidance on the

use of modeling for moderate area

attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR

13539). Alternatively, the state had to

show attainment by December 31, 1994,

or that attainment was impracticable.

Generally, EPA recommends that

attainment be demonstrated according

to the PM–10 SIP Development

Guideline (June 1987), which presents

three methods. Federal regulations

require demonstration of attainment ‘‘by

means of a proportional model or

dispersion model or other procedure

which is shown to be adequate and

appropriate for such purposes’’ (40 CFR

51.112). The preferred method is the use

of both dispersion and receptor

modeling in combination. The

regulation and the guideline also allow

the use of dispersion modeling alone, or

the use of two receptor models in

combination with proportional rollback.

As indicated in the General Preamble,

57 FR at 13539, EPA has developed a

supplemental attainment demonstration

policy for initial PM–10 nonattainment

areas such as Klamath Falls. The

Preamble provides additional flexibility

in meeting the PM–10 attainment

demonstration requirements. An earlier

April 2, 1991, memorandum titled,

‘‘PM–10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance:

Final Staff Work Product,’’ contained

‘‘Attachment 5’’ describing the same

policy. The policy explains that in

certain circumstances a modified

attainment demonstration may be

appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It

may be reasonable to accept a modified

attainment demonstration in cases

where ‘‘time constraints, inadequate

resources, inadequate data bases, lack of

a model for some unique situations, and

other unavoidable circumstances would

leave an area unable to submit an

attainment demonstration’’ by

November 15, 1991. The policy further

explains that its application is reserved

for those initial PM–10 nonattainment

areas that have ‘‘completed the

technical analysis * * * and made a

good-faith effort to submit a final SIP by

their November 15, 1991, due date.’’

During development of the Klamath

Falls initial moderate area PM–10

attainment plan, ODEQ did not use

dispersion modeling to estimate the

design values or in the attainment and

maintenance demonstrations. This was

due to: (1) the lack of adequate

historical meteorological data, (2) the

late receipt in the development process

of spatially resolved emission inventory

data needed for modeling, (3) the fact

that the intense and extremely shallow

inversions and calm winds in the area

(typical wind speeds during

exceedances days are less than one

meter per second) are not conducive to

dispersion modeling (EPA does not have

and has not developed an approved

guideline model for conditions of this

type), and (4) the fact that on winter

days, when worst case air quality

conditions occur, the airshed is heavily

dominated by emissions from

woodstoves, fireplaces, and road

sanding.

The Klamath Falls PM–10 attainment

demonstration is based upon receptor

modeling proportional roll-back

calculations to estimate the emission

reductions required in 1994 to achieve

the NAAQS. Emission inventory

estimates were reconciled with

Chemical Mass Balance (CMB—version

7.0) receptor modeling. Results from

two emission estimation methods—

emission inventory and receptor

modeling—are in agreement that

woodsmoke and soil dust are the major

sources of emissions on exceedance

days. According to the emission

inventory, woodsmoke equals 80% and

soil dust equals 8% of total PM–10

particulate. According to the CMB

analysis, woodsmoke equals 82% and

soil dust equals 10.9% of particulate.

This issue is discussed in more detail in

the TSD for the June 5, 1996, Federal

Register document (see 61 FR 28537).

EPA guidance on CMB modeling

specifies that the apportionment should

account for at least 80% of the measured

aerosol mass. ODEQ’s analysis

accounted for 96% of the mass.

The comment that the two documents

(Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air

Quality Models and Protocol for

Determining the Best Performing Model)

contained in Section 3.2 of 40 CFR part

51, appendix W are not used to justify

the use of roll-back is correct. This is

because the documents are intended to

be used to evaluate the performance of

dispersion models not receptor models.

Because the input data for the graph

presented in Attachment D were not

provided, EPA was not able to verify the

correlation. In addition, the graph

presented in Attachment D, entitled

‘‘ANNUAL PM10 VS WEYCO LUMBER

PRODUCTION’’, shows lumber

production (board feet × 100,000) on the

Y axis, and annual PM–10

concentrations (μg/m3) on the X axis.

The labeling of the X and Y axes appear

to be in error. For example the graph

indicates that, when lumber production

is approximately 70 × 100,000 board

feet, annual PM–10 concentrations

should be approximately 200 μg/m3.

This value appears to be in error

because monitored annual PM–10

concentrations have never been above

73 μg/m3. Furthermore, the graph does

not consider implementation of the

area’s control measures (e.g.,

woodsmoke curtailment, road dust

measures, woodstove changeout), which

significantly reduced emissions over the

same time period covered by the graph,

and the resulting improvement in air

quality due to implementation of the

selected control measures.

Therefore, it is EPA’s opinion that the

graph presented in Attachment D is

inconclusive evidence that

Weyerhaeuser was (is) a dominant

contributor to exceedances at Peterson

School. In conclusion, because ODEQ

followed EPA guidance, used the

approved EPA chemical mass balance

model, and because the CMB results

were verified by the emission inventory,

EPA is satisfied that the source

apportionment provided by ODEQ in

the Klamath Falls SIP is adequate.

EPA believes this conclusion is

strengthened by the fact that, since

implementation of the control strategies

in 1991, the area has not exceeded the

PM–10 NAAQS and has, based on

monitored values, met the CAA

attainment date of December 31, 1994.

F. Contingency Measures

It is one commenter’s opinion that the

SIP’s contingency plan ‘‘is flawed,’’ ‘‘the

contingency section of the CAA has

been violated,’’ and the measures do not

‘‘protect against backsliding.’’ These

comments are made in regard to the
18052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

plan’s contingency measure applicable

to the Weyerhaeuser facility.

EPA disagrees that the contingency

section of the CAA has been violated.

All moderate area SIPs, due November

15, 1991, were required to contain

contingency measures that would be

immediately implemented upon a

determination by EPA that an area failed

to make RFP or to attain the standard by

the applicable attainment date. Besides

a contingency measure applicable to the

Weyerhaeuser facility (see OAR 340–

21–200), the nonattainment area plan

also contains contingency measures

applicable to woodstoves, industrial

sources located inside the

nonattainment area, and numerous road

dust control measures. These measures

were reviewed and discussed in detail

in the TSD for the June 5, 1996, Federal

Register document. The attainment date

for the Klamath Falls nonattainment

area was December 31, 1994. Based on

monitored air quality data, the Klamath

Falls PM–10 nonattainment area has

demonstrated RFP and attained the PM–

10 NAAQS. Air quality monitors located

within the designated nonattainment

area boundary have not recorded an

exceedance of the NAAQS since 1991.

In light of all the above, EPA believes

the Klamath Falls SIP does provide for

‘‘meaningful contingency planning’’ that

meets the requirements of the Act.

III. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA’s review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–13566).

In this action, EPA is approving the plan

revisions submitted to EPA on

November 15, 1991, and September 22,

1995. EPA has determined that the

submittals meet all of the applicable

requirements of the Act due on

November 15, 1991, with respect to

moderate area PM–10 submittals. Also,

EPA is granting the exclusion from PM–

10 control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM–10

precursors. In addition, EPA is

approving the SIP revision submitted on

November 15, 1991, as meeting the

requirement for contingency measures.

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 the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Effective Date

Pursuant to Section 553(d)(3) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA),

this final rule is effective April 14, 1997.

Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows

EPA to waive the requirement that a

rule be published 30 days before the

effective date if EPA determines there is

‘‘good cause’’ and publishes the grounds

for such a finding with the rule. Under

section 553(d)(3), EPA must balance the

necessity for immediate federal

enforceability of these SIP revisions

against principles of fundamental

fairness which require that all affected

persons be afforded a reasonable time to

prepare for the effective date of a new

rule. United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F

2d 1099, 1105 (8th Cir. 1977). The

purpose of the requirement for a rule to

be published 30 days before the

effective date of the rule is to give all

affected persons a reasonable time to

prepare for the effective date of a new

rule. Id.

EPA has determined good cause exists

to make this Federal Register document

effective upon publication. The rules

made federally enforceable by this

Federal Register document have been

enforceable as a matter of state law for

more than five years. In addition, the

PM–10 emission inventory contained in

the Klamath Falls PM–10 Control Plan

must be federally approved before the

Oregon Department of Transportation

can make conformity determinations for

several transportation projects in

Klamath Falls which will benefit the

general public. The imposition of the

30-day delay in the effective date of this

SIP revision would require some of

these projects to be postponed for an

additional 30 days. Therefore, EPA

believes the 30-day publication period

would cause undue burdens to the

public, and to affected governmental

and transportation planning agencies.

Thus, EPA has determined that good

cause exists to make these SIP revisions

immediately effective and that the

principles of fundamental fairness are

met because all known affected persons

have been afforded a reasonable time to

prepare for the effective date of these

SIP revisions. Accordingly, pursuant to

section 553(d)(3) of the APA, this

Oregon SIP revision approval is

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a 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. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. 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 on by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18053

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. 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 June 13, 1997.

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 CAA

section 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2))

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of Oregon

was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(119) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(119) November 15, 1991, and

September 20, 1995, letters from the

Director, Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, to the Region 10

Regional Administrator, EPA,

submitting the PM–10 Klamath Falls,

Oregon, PM–10 Control Plan and

amendments as revisions to its SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) State Implementation Plan for

PM–10 in Klamath Falls, dated October

1991 and revised August 1995; and

Appendix 4: Ordinances and

Commitments, Ordinance No. 6630

(adopted September 16, 1991), and

Ordinance No. 63 (adopted July 31,

1991)—Chapters 170 and 406.

[FR Doc. 97–9508 Filed 4–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

48 CFR Part 1401

RIN 1090–AA60

Department of the Interior Acquisition

Regulation; Regulatory Streamlining

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In the interests of

streamlining processes and improving

relationships with contractors, the

Department of the Interior (DOI) is

issuing this final rule which amends 48

CFR Chapter 14 by revising and

updating the Department of the Interior

Acquisition Regulation (DIAR).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Mary L. McGarvey at (202) 208–3158,

Department of the Interior, Office of

Acquisition and Property Management,

1849 C. Street N.W. (MS5522 MIB),

Washington, D.C. 20240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Under the auspices of the National

Performance Review, a thorough review

of the DIAR was conducted. The review

revealed unnecessary and outdated

regulations, and some excessively

burdensome procedures.

In the interests of streamlining

processes and improving relationships

with contractors, essential portions of

the DIAR are being revised, retained

and/or removed in 48 CFR, where

appropriate. The review identified four

Sections in Subpart 1401.3 to be

removed from 48 CFR. Specifically,

Sections 1401.301 Policy; 1401.301–70

Definitions; 1401.302 Limitations; and

1401.304 Agency control and

compliance procedures were removed

from 48 CFR. In Subpart 1401.6

Contracting Authority and

Responsibilities all ten sections are

being removed from 48 CFR. We

changed titles, rewrote language, and

eliminated redundant FAR material

from the Sections and retained them in

the Department of the Interior

Acquisition Regulation. Subpart 1401.1

Purpose, Authority, Issuance including

section 1401.106 OMB approval under

the Paperwork Reduction Act and

Section 1401.303 Publication and

codification of Subpart 1401.3 Agency

Acquisition Regulations are revised and

retained in 48 CFR Chapter 14.

Required Determinations

The Department believes that public

comment is unnecessary because the

revised material implements standard

Government operating procedures.

Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), the Department finds good

cause to publish this document as a

final rule. This rule was not subject to

Office of Management and Budget

review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule does not contain a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq). In accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.), the Department determined that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because no

requirements are being added for small

businesses and no protections are being

withdrawn. The Department has

determined that this rule does not

constitute a major Federal action having

a significant impact on the human

environment under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The

Department has certified that this rule

meets the applicable standards provided

in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1401

Government procurement, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 4, 1997.

Mary Ann Lawler,

Acting Assistant Secretary—Policy,

Management and Budget.

Chapter 14 of Title 48 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

part 1401 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40

U.S.C. 486(c), and 5 U.S.C. 301.

2. Subpart 1401.1 is revised to read as

follows: