[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35998-36004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17459]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[WA3-1-5479; FRL-5534-9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites 
public comment on its proposed approval of certain elements of the 
Spokane PM-10 attainment plan, including control measures, and the 
granting of a temporary waiver of the attainment date for the Spokane, 
Washington particulate nonattainment area. This is based on EPA's 
review of the State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Washington for the purpose of attaining 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 Clean Air Act requirements for an approvable moderate 
nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Spokane, Washington due on November 
15, 1991.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by August 8, 
1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston, 
SIP Manager, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality (OAQ 107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Copies of the State's submittals and other information supporting 
this proposed action are available for inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations: United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), 
Seattle, Washington 98101, and the State of Washington Department of 
Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington 98503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Lauderdale, Office of Air 
Quality (OAQ 107), US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-6511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Spokane, Washington, area was designated nonattainment for PM-
10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of 
the Clean Air Act, by operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991)(official 
designation codified at 40 CFR 81.348). The air quality planning 
requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are set out in 
subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, Title I of the Act.2 The 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 provisions to 
implement the moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements [see 
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 
1992)]. Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in 
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more 
detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title I advanced in this 
proposal and the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action on the 
Washington moderate area PM-10 SIP revision for the Spokane 
nonattainment area, EPA is proposing to apply its interpretations, 
taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented. 
Additional information supporting EPA's action on this particular area 
is available for inspection at the address indicated above. EPA will 
consider any timely

[[Page 35999]]

submitted comments before taking final action on today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. sections 7401, et seq.
    \2\  Subpart 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas 
(those areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)(B)) were 
required to submit an implementation plan that includes, among other 
things, the following 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 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.
    Some provisions were due at a date later than November 15, 1991. 
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 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 13543-44).

II. Today's Action

    Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's 
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-66). For PM-10 nonattainment 
areas, Section 188(f), Waivers for Certain Areas, can apply as well.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve portions of the PM-10 
nonattainment area plan for Spokane, Washington that apply to sources 
of PM-10 other than windblown dust. For PM-10 24-hour exceedences 
caused primarily by windblown dust sources EPA is proposing to grant a 
temporary waiver of the attainment date for the Spokane area. 
Discussion of EPA's requirements for a temporary waiver are detailed in 
59 FR 41998-42017 (August 16, 1994). In this guidance EPA provides 
certain flexibility for areas where the relative significance of 
anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic sources is unknown. The Washington 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) has presented preliminary data, based 
on an analysis of the relative contributions of anthropogenic and 
nonanthropogenic sources of PM-10 contributing to eastern Washington 
exceedences, indicating that nonanthropogenic sources may be 
significant in the Spokane nonattainment area during windblown dust 
events. EPA proposes to accept this preliminary information and grant a 
temporary waiver of the moderate area attainment date to December 31, 
1997. This temporary waiver allows Ecology and EPA to evaluate further 
the windblown dust PM-10 problems in the Spokane PM-10 nonattainment 
area. Once the evaluation is completed and reviewed, and/or the 
temporary waiver expires, EPA will make a final determination on the 
designation and classification for the Spokane nonattainment area.
    In order to move forward with consideration of the temporary 
waiver, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed in August 1995, by Chuck 
Clarke, Regional Administrator EPA, Region 10, and Mary Riveland, 
Director, Washington State Department of Ecology. This agreement 
outlines the approach each agency will take in completing work on the 
PM-10 problems in both the Spokane and Wallula nonattainment areas. The 
agreement contains commitments and conclusions including:

    EPA will propose and, subject to public comment, grant a 
conditional, temporary, waiver of the attainment date for 24-hour 
PM-10 exceedances during windblown dust events for Spokane and 
Wallula until the end of 1997 (12/31/97). The waiver would expire on 
12/31/97, and throughout its effective period, will apply only where 
windblown dust (both anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic) is an 
important contributor to the exceedances.
    The Spokane and Wallula nonattainment areas will retain the 
classification of a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area, until 12/31/
97 unless PM-10 air quality data indicates that the area has failed 
to attain the 24-hour health standard because of exceedances that 
cannot be primarily attributed to windblown dust.

    As required in the EPA guidance, Ecology and EPA are proceeding 
under written agreements which include a protocol for both technical 
analysis (emission inventory, emission factor development, dispersion 
modeling, receptor modeling, etc.) and evaluation of alternative 
control measures, including Best Available Control Measures. The 
activities required under the protocol are generally referred to as the 
Columbia Plateau PM-10 Project funded by EPA, Ecology, and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Cooperating agencies include USDA's 
Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, as well as several local conservation districts, Washington 
State University, the University of Idaho, and others.
    The temporary waiver of the attainment date, if finalized by EPA, 
will defer approval/disapproval actions on several otherwise required 
elements of the moderate area plan for Spokane. Since the purpose of 
the above described MOA is to have control measures in place that 
assure that the PM-10 NAAQS will not be violated from sources that are 
primarily urban in nature, the submission of an attainment 
demonstration, emission inventory, and contingency measures for such 
urban sources are necessary and required. However, if the temporary 
waiver is finalized, the attainment demonstration, emission inventory, 
control measures and contingency measures for windblown dust sources 
(e.g. agriculture and natural sources) will be deferred. EPA will take 
final action on the windblown dust elements after the Columbia Plateau 
analysis is completed and/or the expiration of the temporary waiver. 
EPA's reasoning for this approach is described in more detail under the 
various SIP element headings of this notice.
    In this action EPA is also proposing to approve regulatory orders 
for the Kaiser, Trentwood facility that will allow use of alternative 
opacity standards under certain very specific conditions. These orders 
will lower the allowable emissions from the facility and thus would not 
have an adverse impact on the attainment demonstration for other than 
windblown dust sources in the Spokane area.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the exclusion from precursor 
controls as described in part II. 5 below. EPA invites public comment 
on the proposed action described in this section.
    This action is EPA's response to Washington State Implementation 
Plan revision submitted for the Spokane PM-10 nonattainment area on 
November 15, 1991, January 31, 1992, and December 9,

[[Page 36000]]

1994. In addition, supplemental information was submitted by Ecology on 
May 18, 1995.

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background
    The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation 
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that 
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the 
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing. The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete 
and therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP 
submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1992). The EPA 
attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of 
receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by 
operation of law if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six 
months after receipt of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan provisions 
for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of section 
110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology held a public hearing to receive public comment on the 
November 15, 1991, Spokane PM-10 SIP revision on October 23, 1991. WDOE 
adopted the SIP revision for the area on November 14, 1991, and the 
plan was submitted to EPA on November 15, 1991. Ecology submitted an 
addendum to the November SIP revision that contained a regulatory order 
on January 31, 1992. The SIP revision submittals were reviewed by EPA 
to determine completeness in accordance with the completeness criteria 
set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. A letter dated May 5, 1992, was 
forwarded to the WDOE indicating the completeness of the submittals and 
the next steps to be taken in the review process. On December 9, 1994, 
Ecology submitted another SIP revision for the Spokane PM-10 
nonattainment area. This 1994 revision contained additional control 
measures, a more detailed technical analysis of the problem, and other 
improvements to the November 15, 1991 submittal.
2. PM-10 Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan 
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants for the base 
year in the nonattainment area. Because the submission of the emissions 
inventory is a necessary adjunct to an area's attainment demonstration 
(or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain) the 
emissions inventory must be received with the demonstration (see 57 FR 
13539).
    In the December 9, 1994, Spokane plan Ecology submitted an 
emissions inventory of all PM-10 sources, except windblown dust, which 
estimated actual annual emissions for the base year of 1990, allowable 
emissions for the attainment year of 1994 and allowable emissions for 
the 3-year maintenance year of 1997. Ecology concluded that, after 
excluding windblown dust, Spokane has three very different emission 
scenarios that could cause PM-10 short-term, 24-hour standard 
violations. Each scenario occurs at a different time of the year, has 
different meteorological conditions, and each has one source that 
dominates the source mix. Ecology illustrated the three scenarios by 
presenting separate 24 hour emission inventories for the following 
worst case days: an October 21, 1987 inventory for conditions where 
unpaved roads were the major source, a March 12, 1993 inventory where 
paved roads were the dominant source, and a January 21, 1987 analysis 
for residential wood combustion exceedences.
    For windblown dust, Ecology prepared and submitted as an appendix 
to the Spokane plan, a report titled ``An Analysis of the Impact of 
Biogenic PM-10 Sources on the Spokane PM-10 Nonattainment Area'', 
February 1992, which presented the most recent information on the 
emission sources in the Columbia Plateau region of eastern Washington. 
The report estimates gross annual emissions from anthropogenic and 
nonanthropogenic sources of PM-10 from a large area. Preliminary 
information is presented indicating that about 40% of the annual 
emissions in eastern Washington are from anthropogenic sources and 60% 
from nonanthropogenic sources. No attempt was made to estimate the 
highest 24-hour emissions which, depending on the location, is expected 
to vary greatly. This information suggests, but does not conclusively 
show, that nonanthropogenic sources contribute significantly to the 
Spokane nonattainment area.
    In summary, the 1994 annual emission inventory, excluding windblown 
dust, indicated that the largest sources of PM-10 were: unpaved roads 
(43%), paved roads (20%), residential wood combustion (18%) and 
industrial (14%). The SIP revision also includes 24-hour emission 
inventories for each of the three scenarios mentioned above.
    The emissions inventory estimating actual emissions for all 
significant sources except for windblown dust sources appears to be 
accurate and comprehensive consistent with the requirements of section 
172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act and national guidance.4 Recent 
information from the Columbia Plateau study indicates that the emission 
factors used for the windblown dust report may be inappropriate. 
However, EPA thinks that the assumptions used were the best available 
at the time the Spokane plan was prepared. The Columbia Plateau PM-10 
Project will include the development of emission factors specifically 
for eastern Washington and preparation of regional emission inventories 
that will be used to update the Spokane plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior 
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the 
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this 
document is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One final emission inventory issue relates to the use of actual 
emission estimates from two major stationary (stack) PM-10 sources. 
Ecology appropriately used allowable emissions for most of the 
stationary sources that had allowable emission limits. However, Ecology 
underestimated the allowable emissions for the two major stationary PM-
10 sources, the Kaiser primary aluminum smelter at Mead, and the Kaiser 
aluminum rolling mill facility at Trentwood. Supplemental information 
submitted on May 18, 1995, concludes that the allowable emissions for 
those facilities are greater (by a factor of 2 for Kaiser-Trentwood) 
than the emissions used in the plan. The Spokane County Air Pollution 
Control Agency (SCAPCA) has corrected this problem for the Kaiser-
Trentwood facility by issuing new regulatory orders which specifically 
limit the PM-10 emissions from the facility. The allowable emissions 
from the Kaiser-Mead facility are not significantly greater than the 
original allowable emission estimates used by Ecology and would not 
adversely impact the attainment demonstration for sources considered in 
the plan.
    EPA proposes to approve the emission inventories, excluding 
windblown dust, at this time. The windblown dust inventory is being 
prepared as part of the Columbia Plateau project. When the project is 
completed the detailed

[[Page 36001]]

emission inventory will be used for analysis of windblown dust. 
Therefore EPA proposes to defer action on the windblown dust emission 
inventory until after the temporary waiver expires.
3. RACM (Including RACT)
    As noted above, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must 
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented 
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and 
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of 
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 
FR 13539-45 and 13560-61).
    The Spokane annual emission inventory identified four urban (non 
windblown dust) sources as major contributors of PM-10 emissions; paved 
roads, unpaved roads, residential wood combustion and industrial 
sources. However, analysis of the 24-hour PM-10 problems conclude that 
industrial sources are not a major contributor. Ecology prepared RACM 
evaluations for paved and unpaved roads and residential wood combustion 
sources. Ecology did not present an evaluation of the controls that are 
currently being applied to agricultural sources likely impacting the 
Spokane PM-10 problem. For unpaved roads, the City of Spokane has spent 
more than six million dollars to pave over 16 miles of roads. Road 
paving is estimated to result in a PM-10 reduction of at least 90% from 
an unpaved road surface.
    SCAPCA also adopted an unpaved road control regulation which 
requires that the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the Town of 
Millwood submit emission reduction and control plans for unpaved 
surfaces in their respective jurisdiction. SCAPCA approves the plans 
and the respective jurisdictions are required to implement the plans. 
In addition, to address the paved road emissions the City of Spokane 
adopted resolutions committing to conduct additional (more frequent and 
earlier) street sweeping to better control PM-10. The City also 
committed to reduce the use of sand for traction material by 50%, 
increase the use of liquid deicers, plow major arterials more 
frequently, and sweep the arterial as soon as practical after sanding.
    EPA proposes to accept Ecology's RACM analysis for paved and 
unpaved roads and concludes that reasonable measures are being 
implemented.
    Residential wood combustion is regulated by SCAPCA through a 
comprehensive regulation that is based on state statute. The program 
contains limitations on opacity, curtails wood burning on days of poor 
air quality, prohibits the burning of inappropriate fuels, and other 
emission reducing measures. Curtailment of uncertified woodstoves and 
fireplaces is initiated when PM-10 levels are estimated to be 75 ug/m3. 
Ecology estimates an 80% reduction in emissions for the program. EPA 
proposes to determine that Spokane is implementing RACM for residential 
wood combustion sources.
    The only two major (greater than 100 tons per year) stationary 
source facilities within the nonattainment area, the Kaiser aluminum 
facilities at Trentwood and Mead, were not evaluated specifically for 
RACT by either Ecology or SCAPCA. However, attainment is demonstrated 
for the PM-10 sources other than windblown dust, using allowable 
emissions from the facilities. Therefore a RACT determination is not 
necessary and the SIP revision does not include any additional emission 
reductions from any stationary sources. It is important to note that 
the Kaiser Trentwood facility is under a federal consent decree and 
final judgement which will reduce PM-10 emissions from the facility in 
the future.
    The final source of PM-10 impacting the Spokane nonattainment area 
is windblown dust. There are two principal sources of windblown dust: 
undisturbed land and agricultural fields. Ecology did not perform a 
RACM analysis for agricultural sources in the Spokane nonattainment 
plan. However, Ecology had previously submitted an analysis of RACM for 
agricultural sources for the Wallula, Washington, PM-10 nonattainment 
area which has similar windblown dust issues. In that SIP revision 
Ecology concluded that RACM is being applied for agriculture sources of 
PM-10 based on soil conservation measures required by the federal 
government's implementation of the United States Department of 
Agriculture's (USDA) Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985. EPA Title I 
preamble guidance suggests states ``rely upon the soil conservation 
requirements (e.g. conservation plans, conservation reserve) of the 
Food Security Act to reduce emissions from agricultural operations'' 
(see 57 FR 18072).
    EPA proposes to determine that RACM is being applied to 
agricultural sources not only in the Spokane nonattainment area but 
throughout the region surrounding Spokane. Ecology did not evaluate the 
application of reasonable controls on undisturbed lands. This analysis 
will be accomplished after completion of the Columbia Plateau PM-10 
Project.
    Where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to the PM-10 
problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable (and 
would not constitute RACM) to require the implementation of potentially 
available control measures. 57 FR 13540. Further, EPA has indicated 
that for some sources in areas which demonstrate attainment, RACM does 
not require the implementation of otherwise available control measures 
that are not ``reasonably'' available because their implementation 
would not expedite attainment (See 57 FR 13543).
    EPA is proposing to grant a temporary waiver of the attainment date 
to December 31, 1997, which will allow Ecology and EPA to determine 
conclusively the significance of anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic 
sources impacting Spokane. This action does not relieve the area from 
the requirement to implement RACM. In the Spokane situation EPA is 
proposing to determine that the major sources of PM-10 have been 
reasonably controlled. Thus, EPA thinks it would not be reasonable to 
require other smaller sources of PM-10 in the area to implement 
reasonably available control measures or technology. Further, EPA 
believes implementation of such additional controls in this area would 
not expedite attainment.
    A more detailed discussion of the individual source contributions, 
their associated control measures and an explanation as to why certain 
available control measures were not implemented, can be found in the 
Spokane SIP revision. EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and 
associated documentation and is proposing to conclude that it 
adequately justifies the control measures being implemented.
4. Demonstration
    As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must 
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that 
the plan will 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 (57 FR 13539). 
Alternatively, if the State does not submit a demonstration of 
attainment, the State must show that attainment by December 31, 1994 is 
impracticable (section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii).
    The SIP utilized dispersion modeling for demonstrating attainment 
for all major sources of PM-10 except windblown dust. As mentioned in 
the emission inventory discussion above, Spokane has different sources 
that are major contributors at different times of

[[Page 36002]]

the year. Ecology provided an attainment demonstration which included 
each of the three source scenarios. The attainment demonstration 
included days when residential wood combustion emissions dominated the 
area, also days when unpaved roads were the major source, and days 
dominated by paved road emissions. The dispersion modeling analysis 
demonstrated attainment of the 24-hour standard. EPA proposes to find 
the attainment demonstration for the major PM-10 sources, except for 
windblown dust, is adequate.
    The attainment evaluation does not address the windblown dust issue 
including the anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic mix. In the 1994, 
Spokane SIP submittal, Ecology demonstrated attainment of the annual 
and 24-hour PM-10 standards for all sources of PM-10 except windblown 
dust by December 31, 1994. Ecology did not address exceedences of the 
24-hour standard that were primarily due to windblown dust. As 
mentioned previously, EPA is proposing to temporarily set aside certain 
SIP requirements for windblown dust sources, including the attainment 
demonstration.
    Since EPA is proposing to grant a temporary, three year waiver of 
the attainment date, EPA is also proposing that the approval or 
disapproval of the attainment demonstration for windblown dust PM-10 
exceedences, be deferred until after expira-tion of the temporary 
waiver. EPA proposes to make a final decision on the attainment status 
and classification of the area after the temporary waiver expires on 
December 31, 1997. The alternative decisions include, but are not 
limited to, reclassi-fying the area to a serious PM-10 nonattainment 
area; applying the May 30, 1996, Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, regarding ``Areas 
Affected by PM-10 Natural Events; or granting the area a permanent 
waiver. EPA invites comments on these possible approaches.
5. PM-10 Precursors
    The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary 
sources of PM-10, also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10 
precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see 
section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance 
addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e) (see 57 FR 
13539-40 and 13541-42).
    The relatively small contribution of stationary sources in the 
Spokane nonattainment area suggests that stationary sources of 
precursors provide an insignificant contribution to the Spokane ambient 
PM-10 concentration. This conclusion is also supported by limited 
receptor analysis conducted in 1993. Based on that information Ecology 
concluded that the only major stationary source of PM-10 precursors, 
Kaiser-Mead, does not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels.
    EPA is proposing to grant the area an exclusion from PM-10 
precursor control requirements authorized under section 189(e) of the 
act. Note that while EPA is proposing to make a general finding for 
this area, this proposed finding is based on the current character of 
the area including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the 
area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the 
significance of precursors in the area. EPA intends to issue future 
guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance of 
precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating 
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be 
achieved every three (3) years until the area is redesignated 
attainment and which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), 
toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). 
Reasonable further progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual 
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 
are required by Part D or may reasonably be required by the 
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable 
NAAQS by the applicable date.
    In the Spokane situation, EPA is proposing to approve the 
reasonable further progress requirement for all significant sources of 
PM-10 except windblown dust. The dispersion modeling conducted by 
Ecology indicates that the 24-hour standard was attained in 1994 and 
air quality will be maintained below the standard until at least 1997 
(except for windblown dust). As stated previously, EPA is proposing to 
grant a temporary waiver of the attainment date for the Spokane area 
for windblown dust sources. If granted, the area would not be required 
to meet RFP for windblown dust sources. In 1998 EPA will determine the 
designation and classification of the Spokane area.
7. Enforceability Issues
    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
Ecology and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). 
EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP revisions 
were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with attachments) from 
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al. 
(see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain 
a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures and 
other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C)).
    Ecology's and SCAPCA's control measures and regulations for control 
of particulate matter, which are contained in the SIP, are addressed 
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control 
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that discussion 
including, for example, fugitive emissions from unpaved roads. The SIP 
provides that the affected activities will be controlled throughout the 
entire nonattainment area.
    The Clean Air Act requires that all the applicable RACM provisions 
be implemented by December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C). In addition 
to the applicable control measures, this includes the applicable 
record-keeping requirements which are addressed in the supporting 
technical information document (TSD).
    EPA is proposing to approve a December 12, 1991, SCAPCA Order No. 
91-01. This order provides for the use of an alternate opacity limit 
for the Kaiser-Trentwood aluminum facility. EPA has evaluated 
information presented in the 1994 SIP revision for Spokane and other 
information and has concluded that the order will not have a 
significant impact on the ambient air quality in Spokane. EPA is 
further proposing to approve SCAPCA Order #96-03, Order #96-04, Order 
#96-05, and Order #96-06, for the Kaiser-Trentwood facility which will 
significantly lower the allowable emissions from the facility. The new 
allowable emission totals are the same as the amount used by Ecology in 
the attainment demonstration. Upon final approval by EPA as part of the 
SIP, the orders will be federally enforceable.
    The TSD contains further information on enforceability requirements 
including enforceable emission limitations; a description of the rules 
contained in the SIP and the source types subject to them; test methods 
and compliance schedules; malfunction provisions; excess emission 
provisions; correctly cited references of

[[Page 36003]]

incorporated methods/rules; and reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. Ecology and SCAPCA have the primary responsibility for 
implementing the measures in the plan. Ecology and SCAPCA have 
compliance inspectors and EPA considers the staffing level adequate to 
assure that the RACM provision in the Spokane attainment plan are fully 
implemented. As a necessary adjunct of its enforcement program, Ecology 
and SCAPCA also have broad powers to adopt rules and regulations, issue 
orders, require access to records and information, and receive and 
disburse funds.
8. Contingency Measures
    As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate 
nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include 
contingency measures (see generally 57 FR 13543-44). Contingency 
measures should consist of other available measures that are not part 
of the area's control strategy. These measures must take effect without 
further action by the State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that 
the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the 
applicable statutory deadline.
    Ecology submitted several measures that were identified as 
contingency measures. As with their control measures necessary to 
demonstrate attainment, Ecology and SCAPCA, adopted contingency 
measures for each of the three significant sources of PM-10 other than 
windblown dust. The contingency measures include additional treatment 
of unpaved roads, early implementation of paved road controls 
(additional reductions from what is included in the attainment program) 
and banning the use of uncertified stoves if an exceedence is primarily 
due to residential wood combustion sources.
    The plan does not contain a contingency measure for windblown dust. 
Since the action proposed in this Federal Register notice would allow 
for a temporary extension of the attainment date for windblown dust 
sources, EPA proposes to take no action on a contingency measure for 
windblown dust until after the temporary waiver has elapsed.

III. Implications of Today's Action

    EPA is proposing to approve those portions of the 1994 PM-10 
attainment plan for Spokane submitted by Ecology to control significant 
sources of PM-10 except for windblown dust, as meeting RACM and 
demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour standard by the statutory 
deadline of December 31, 1994. EPA is further proposing to grant a 
temporary waiver of the December 31, 1994, attainment date to December 
31, 1997 for windblown dust-caused exceedences of the PM-10 24-hour 
standard. If this action is finalized, Ecology and SCAPCA will continue 
to implement the adopted control measures and Ecology will determine 
the significance of anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic windblown dust 
sources impacting the Spokane PM-10 nonattainment area. If any of the 
non-windblown dust sources cause any exceedences of the PM-10 24-hour 
standard the area could be reclassified to a serious PM-10 
nonattainment area. When Ecology has completed its analysis on 
windblown dust, and/or the temporary waiver expires, EPA will make a 
final determination of the nonattainment status of the Spokane area. 
EPA is also proposing to approve several SCAPCA orders, including an 
alternate opacity order for the Kaiser-Trentwood facility in Spokane. 
Finally, EPA is proposing to grant an exclusion from precursor control 
requirements as described in part II. 5 of this notice.

IV. Request for Public Comments

    EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of today's proposal. As 
indicated at the beginning of this notice, EPA will consider any 
comments postmarked by August 8, 1996.

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 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. section 7410(a)(2).
    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 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 proposed 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 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan 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 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2224), 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.


[[Page 36004]]


    Dated: June 27, 1996.
Jane S. Moore,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17459 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P