Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Washington

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