Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 8563

1The 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. sections 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 conflict. EPA has attempted to

clarify the relationship among these provisions in

the ‘‘General Preamble’’ and, as appropriate, in

today’s notice and supporting information.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 99

Family Educational Rights and Privacy

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations; correction.

SUMMARY: On January 17, 1995 (60 FR

3464), the Secretary of Education

published in the Federal Register final

regulations implementing the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

This document corrects an error that

was made in the effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Campbell, Family Policy

Compliance Office, Office of

Management, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20202–4605.

Telephone (202) 260–3887. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final

regulations published on January 17

stated that the effective date was 45

days from the date of publication in the

Federal Register subject to certain

conditions. This document corrects the

effective date to read ‘‘These regulations

take effect on February 16, 1995.’’

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Rodney McCowan,

Assistant Secretary, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. 95–3699 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR11–2–6854; FRL–5145–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (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 La Grande, Oregon.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on March 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s request

and information supporting today’s

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: EPA,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101,

and the State of Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, 811 S.W. Sixth

Avenue, Portland, OR 97204–1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Montel Livingston, Air and Radiation

Branch (AT–082), EPA, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 553–

0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Union County, La Grande,

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

SIP’s 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 State of Oregon was required to

submit for the La Grande PM–10

nonattainment area, among other things,

the following provisions by November

15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably

available control measures (RACM)

(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 (RACT)) 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 three 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).

Additional provisions are due at a

later date. States with initial moderate

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 (see section

189(a)). Such States also were required

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

section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543–

13544).

To address the CAAA of 1990, Oregon

submitted a PM–10 nonattainment area

SIP for La Grande, Oregon, on

November 15, 1991. EPA reviewed the

November 15, 1991, SIP revision

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, indicated

that it was approving the plan to be

effective on August 30, 1994, unless

adverse or critical comments were

received by August 1, 1994, (see 59 FR

33914, July 1, 1994).

On July 1, 1994, EPA also published

an accompanying proposed rule (see 59

FR 33941) explaining that if adverse

comments were received on the

prospective final rule approval of the La

Grande PM–10 SIP, then the final rule

would be withdrawn and all comments

would be responded to in relation to the

proposal. The notice also indicated that

anyone wishing to comment should do

so by August 1, 1994.
8564 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3Short term intensive ambient monitoring studies

in which portable PM–10 samplers are distributed

throughout a small geographical study area to better

characterize PM–10 concentrations.

EPA received an adverse comment on

August 1, 1994, on its approval of the

SIP. The effective date of the rule was

withdrawn on September 13, 1994, to

allow time for EPA to review and

respond to the comment. See 59 FR

46929. EPA has thoroughly considered

the comment in determining the

appropriate action on the La Grande

PM–10 SIP. The response to the

comment is presented in the ‘‘Response

to Comments’’ section below.

EPA is approving the La Grande PM–

10 SIP as described in the July 1, 1994,

Federal Register Notice at 59 FR 33914

and its accompanying technical support

document and proposed in the July 1,

1994, Federal Register Notice at 59 FR

33941.

II. Response To Comments

A. Source Apportionment

The commenter questioned the

validity of using Chemical Mass Balance

(CMB) for source apportionment of the

various smoke sources in the area.

Commenter was concerned that CMB

may not accurately distinguish between

residential wood combustion, industrial

emissions, field burning, and other open

burning and therefore could lead to a

control strategy that is not going to work

properly. The Commenter did not

provide specific evidence that the

attainment demonstration is actually

flawed, but rather raised as a concern

the possibility that the source

apportionment was inaccurate.

EPA has broad discretion in

determining what modeling is

appropriate for moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas. The CAA only

requires that an attainment

demonstration include ‘‘Air Quality

Modeling’’ and does not describe a

particular analysis. CAA § 181(B)(i). In

contrast, CAA § 182(c)(2)(A) specifies

that attainment demonstrations for

serious ozone nonattainment areas must

be based on photochemical grid

modeling or an alternate analytical

model that EPA determines to be at least

as effective. See also, Central Arizona

Water Conservation Dist. v. EPA, 990

F.2d 1531, (9th cir.), cert. denied 1114

Sup. Ct. 94, (1993).

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 La Grande, Oregon. 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 sets out

specific criteria for attainment

demonstrations based on proportional

rollback analysis and explains that such

analysis may be appropriate 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.’’

The CAA gave states containing initial

moderate PM–10 areas only a limited

time—1 year from designation—to

develop comprehensive control

strategies and attainment

demonstrations. CAA 189(A)(2)(a).

As discussed in the July 1, 1994,

Federal Register and the technical

support document for that notice, the

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality (ODEQ) conducted an

attainment demonstration based upon

receptor modeling (Chemical Mass

Balance version 7.0) and proportional

emission inventory roll-back analysis.

The results of the emission inventory

and CMB analysis were consistent

between themselves in identifying

woodsmoke and soil dust as the major

sources of PM–10 on exceedance days

(e.g. local woodsmoke = 61 percent and

60 percent and soil dust = 38 percent

and 32 percent for CMB and rollback

methods, respectively). Control

strategies for the area were developed

based on this analysis. The CMB

modeling was conducted according to

EPA guidance. It was used in lieu of

dispersion modeling because at the time

the attainment plan was being

developed, valid historical

meteorological data was not available. It

would not have been possible for the

state to use dispersion modeling and

still submit the SIP by November 15,

1991.

Therefore, because ODEQ followed

EPA guidance, used the approved EPA

CMB model, and because the CMB

results were verified by the emission

inventory, EPA is satisfied that the

source apportionment provided by

ODEQ in the La Grande PM–10 SIP is

adequate. EPA has also considered the

fact that, since implementation of the

control strategies in 1991, the area has

not exceeded the PM–10 NAAQS. The

last measured 24-hour PM–10

exceedance occurred on January 28,

1991, indicating that the selected

measures, are likely to be sufficient to

attain the NAAQS and protect public

health.

B. Potential Impact From Point Source

Located Outside Nonattainment

The commenter questioned why the

emissions from a large industrial source

located ‘‘within close proximity to the

PM–10 nonattainment area’’ was not

accounted for in the SIP. The comment

did not contain any specific data

showing the sources’ impact on the

nonattainment area and did not provide

any technical support for the general

concern.

The source in question is Boise

Cascade’s Island City facility. This

major source is located approximately

five kilometers northeast of the La

Grande PM–10 monitor and three

kilometers from the nonattainment area

border. The Island City facility is about

fifty-five feet lower in elevation and is

down valley from the PM–10 monitor.

It is the State’s contention that the

results from both the CMB modeling

and wintertime PM–10 saturation

surveys,3 indicate that this point source

is not a significant contributor to the

nonattainment problem. The CMB

modeling, based on the analysis of 43

PM–10 samples (seven of which

exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS), showed

La Grande industrial source category

emissions to be insignificant. The

emission inventory showed industrial

emissions to be less than five percent on

a worst case day basis. Wintertime PM–

10 saturation surveys conducted in

1985, 1989, and 1990, do not indicate a

significant impact from the source. For

these reasons, EPA thinks the State’s

contention is reasonable and it is EPA’s

position that the implemented control

measures will bring the area into

attainment of the NAAQS by the

December 31, 1994, attainment date. See

59 FR 33918 and its accompanying

support documents for a description of

the control measures. Also, as

previously stated, the area has not

exceeded the NAAQS since 1991,

indicating that the implemented control

measures are sufficient to attain the

NAAQS.

To further address the adequacy of the

attainment demonstration and the point

source issue, EPA reviewed the

effectiveness of the control measures.

Because the control strategies are

achieving greater emission reductions

than anticipated and accounted for in

the SIP, EPA’s analysis indicates that

even if the Island City facility had a

significant impact on the nonattainment

area or influenced the background

concentration, the area will still attain
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 8565

the 24-hour NAAQS. Information

supporting this analysis is contained in

the docket supporting this notice.

C. Open Burning, Field and Forestry

Slash Burning

Finally, the commenter expressed

concern ‘‘about when open burning is

allowed and that field and forestry slash

burning be allowed to increase without

good monitoring.’’ Again the comment

was only a general concern and did not

provide any specific information to

support it.

As discussed in the July 1, 1994,

Federal Register, 59 FR 33914 and

further explained in its technical

support document, open, field and

forestry slash burning activities either

do not occur, are adequately controlled

or are not allowed during the time

period when exceedances of the 24-hour

NAAQS typically occur.

IV. Significance of Today’s Action

EPA is approving this plan revision

submitted to EPA for the La Grande

nonattainment area. Among other

things, ODEQ has demonstrated that the

La Grande moderate PM–10

nonattainment area will attain the PM–

10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Note

that this action includes approval of the

contingency measures for the La Grande

nonattainment area which take effect

without further action by the State or

EPA, upon a determination by EPA that

the area has failed to make reasonable

further progress (RFP) or attain the PM–

10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory

deadline.

V. Administrative Review

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 CAA 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 regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The EPA has reviewed this request for

revision of the federally-approved SIP

for conformance with the provisions of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The

EPA has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements.

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.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

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 April 17, 1995.

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), 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: January 17, 1995.

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) (107) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(107) On November 15, 1991, the

ODEQ submitted a PM–10

nonattainment area SIP for La Grande,

Oregon.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) November 15, 1991 letter from

ODEQ to EPA Region 10 submitting the

PM–10 nonattainment area SIP for La

Grande, Oregon.

(B) PM–10 Control Strategy for

Particulate Matter, October 1991, La

Grande, Oregon Nonattainment Area, as

adopted by the Environmental Quality

Commission on November 8, 1991.

[FR Doc. 95–3679 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 14–15–6851; FRL–5145–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Kern

County Air Pollution Control District;

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval

of revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on October 20,

1994 and October 21, 1994. The

revisions concern rules from the Kern

County Air Pollution Control District

(KCAPCD) and the Monterey Bay

Unified Air Pollution Control District

(MBUAPCD). This approval action will

incorporate these rules into the

Federally approved SIP. The intended

effect of approving these rules is to

regulate emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

The rules control VOC emissions from

solvent metal cleaning operations,

gasoline transfer operations, storage of

organic liquids, and steam drive wells.

Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of