### 41998 

### Federal Register / Vol. 59, 

### No. 157 

### / Tuesday. August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules

A review of the environmental effect of the proposed measurement rule changesconcludesthat the proposed change will not have a significant effect

on thequality of the human environment. An environmental impact
statement is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Finally, the Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission certifies that these proposed regulations meet the applicable standardsprovided in sections 2(a]and 2(b][2)of Executive Order No. 12778.
List of 

### Subjectsin 35 

### Part 103



### Advance reservations. Booking system. Order of transit, Panama Canal. Vessels.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is proposed that 35 CFR part 103be amended as follows:

PART 103-GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING VESSELS

1.

### The authority citation for part 103 isrevised to read as follows:

Authority: 22 

### U.S.C. 3791. 

### E.O. 12215,45 

### FR 36043.3 

### CFR. 1981

### Comp.. p. 257.



### 2. Paragraph (e)of 

## 5 103.8 is revised
to read as follows:

g 103.8 

### Preference In the transit schedule; order of 

### transltlng vessels.

ttttt



### [e) Booking Fees. (1) 

### For vessels measured in accordance with 

## 5 135.13[a)of this chapter. the fee for booking shall be $0.26 per PClUMS Net Ton. [2)For vessels subject to the transitional relief measures of 

## 5 135.31 of this chapter and measured in accordance with 

### 5 135.13[b) of this chapter, the fee for booking shallbe $0.23 per Panama Canal Gross Ton as specified on the last certificate issuedby the Panama Canal Commission between March 23,1976 and September 30. 1994. inclusive.

(3)The minimum booking fee for any vessel is $1,500.

tttt. 

### (Existingcollections of information are approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB)control number 3207-0001. Modifications are being submitted to OMB for approval.)

Dated: August 10. 

### 1994. CilbertoCuardia F., Administmtor, Panama Cnnnl Commission. 

### IFR Doc. 94-20049 

### Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am1

BILLING CODE X4044-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

### reasonable fee may be charged for AGENCY 

### copying.

40 CFR Part

### 52

[FRLd052-2] 

### SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION:

Table

### ofContents
I. 

### Introduction 

## statelrnplernentatlon plansfor sedous 11. 

### Designations and Classifications
PM-10 Nonattalnrnent Areas, and A. 

### Designations B. Classifications Attainment DateWaivers for Ph4-10 C. 

### Reclassifications NonattalnrnentAreas Generally; 

### D. Appendix K 

### and Waivers Addendum to the General Preamble for 

### 111.International Border Arwas the lmplementatlonof Tltle 

### Iof the A. 

### StatutoryRequirement B. 

### Policy 'Iean *Ir Act 

### AmendmentsOf lggo 

### IV. SeriousAma 

### SIP Requirements AGENCY: EnvironmentalProtection V. Waivers for Certain PM-10

### Nonattainment Agency (EPA). ACTION: Addendum to General Preamble for future proposed rulemakings.

SUMMARY: Thisaddendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle 

### I of the Clean Areas A. 

### Historical Perspectives B. Waiver 

### Provisions C. 

### Application of Waiver Provisions D. 

### Waiver Policy Description VI. Best Available Control Measures (BACM)

A. Requirwment for BACM B. 

### EPA's HistoricalInteromtation of ~i; Act Amendments of 1990 Control Technology~~rminolo~~ principallv describesEPA's preliminary C. 

### BACM for Serious PM-10 iiewsbn how the Agency sgoould NonattainmentAreas interpret various provisions of title I D. Proceduresfor Determining BACM E. 

### Selection of BACM for Area Sources with regard to requirements forPM-10 F. 

### Selection of Best Available Control (particleswith an aerodynamic diameter Technolonv (BAGTI 

### for Point Sources less than or equal to a nominal 10 VII. 

### ~ontinne&'~eas;res micrometers) seriousnonattainment VIII. 

### ~uant~tati;e Milestones and 

### Reasonable area State implementation plans (SIP'S). Further Progress This document also addresses ~olicv A. 

### Generol Discussion

- - 

### and guidance on attainment dab '


### waivers potentially applicable to all areas that have been designated nonattainment for PM-10, waivers of certain requirements applicable to PM10serious nonattainment areas, and requirements for internationalborder

areas in PM-10 nonattainment areas. Although theguidance includes various statements that States must take certain actions, these stntementsare made pursuant to EPA's preliminary interpretations, and thus do not bind States and the public asa matter of law. This addendum is anadvance notice of how EPA generally intendstotake action on SIP submissions and to interpret various PM-10 related title I provisions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

### CON7ACT: 

### CharleneE. Spells, Air Quality Management Division. Mail Drop 15. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, (919)541- 5255. ADDRESSES: References cited herein are available from thePublic Docket No. A92-23. The docket islocated at the Air B. 

### ReasonableFurther Progress C. 

### QuantitativeMilestones 1X. 

### OtherRequirements

A. 

### Executive Order 12866 B. 

### Regulatory FlexibilityAct
In accordance with 1

### CFR S.Q(c), this document ispublished in the proposed rules category.
I. Introduction

Issues are discussed in this document regarding policy and guidance that will be applicable to areas that havebeen designated nonattainment for PM-10 and reclassified as serious areas. This document also discusses issues regarding policy and guidance on attainment date waivers potentiallv applicable to all areasthat have been designated nonattainment for PM-10, as well aspolicy and guidance or. waivers of certain other requirements applicable
to PM-10 serious nonattainment areas, and req~ire~nents for international border areas in PM-10 nonattainment

areas.

Initially, all areas designated as nonattainment for PM-10 are classified

as moderate areas (seesection 188[a)of the Clean Air Act (Act)).' Subsequently.
and RadiationDocketand 

### Information

I The 1990 Amendments lothe Clean Air Acl Room M-1500* Waterside mada significant changes to the air quality planning 

### Mail Code 6102. 401 M Street SW.. roquiremcnts lor areas that do not meet (orthat 

### Washington, DC 20460,The docket may significnntly contribute to ambient air quality in a 

### be inspected from 

### 8:30 a.m, to 12noon nearby area that does not moetl the PM-I0 national ambient air qu~lity standards (seePub. L. No. 101- 

### and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on 549. 104 Stnt. 239' ;. References herein are to the 

### weekdays,except for legal holidays. A Clenh Air Act, asnnlendod. 42 U.6.C. 7401. rt sq. 

# ,

VerOate OPAUG-94 13:39Aug 15.1994 Jkl15025 

# -

7 POOOMX) Frm OOOOe Fm(4702 SM 4702 E:\FRFM\Pl6AU2.PTI pl6ptl

### Federal Register 

### 1 Vol. 59, 

### No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules 41999



### in accordancewith section 188h) 

### of the 11. 

### DesinnaC~ns and Classifications months followinnthe attainment date Act, "The Administrator may iciassify

as a seriousPM-10 nonattainment area
any area that theAdministrator determines cannot practicably attain the national ambient air quality standard for PM-10 by the attainment date (as prescribed in subsection (c)) for moderate areas" or any area that failsto timely attain. TheEPA took final action

on January 8. 

### 1993to reclassify 5 moderate areasthat were initially designated as nonattainment for PM-10 upon enactment of the 1990 Amnndments (see 58FR 3334).TheEPA is consideringreclassifying additional

aroas from moderate to serious.

This guidance document isbeing publishod as an addendum to the General Prenmble for the lmplementntionof Title 

### I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990(General Proamblo) published April 16. 1992 (57 FR 13498).2Among othor things, this PM-10 nonattainment area guidance document describesEPA's preliminary views on how EPA should interpret various provisions of title Iwith regard
to requirements 

### for PM-10 sorious area SIP'S:Although the guidance includos various statements that Statesmust take cortain actions,theso statements are made pursuant to EPA's preliminary interpretations, 

### and thus donot bind the States and the public as a matter oflaw. Of course,the use of prescriptive languilgo is 

### appropriate in thoso instancos whero tho policy is simply reitorating statutory mandatos which provide that Statos must tako certain aclions.

Possiblo appronchos to 

### implementing tho provisions in soction 1798 applicnble to intornational border aroas. gonoral SIP roquiromonts of section 172(c), tho spocific roquiromontsin subpart 4 of part 

### D of titlo 

### I in sorious PM-10 nonattainrnont aroas,the issuos involvod and tho means of resolving those issuos are discussod in the following sections.

### Tho topics 

### discussed includo SIProquiromonts such as provisions to assuro that bost available control moasuros (BACM)aro implomentod; waivors for aroas impactod by nonanthropogonic sourcos; troatmont of intornational border aroas; roquiromonts for quantitative niilostonos, roasonablo furthor progross (RFt') and contingency 

### mcasuros.

'A supplnrnnntal notico wns ~lut~lishnd at 57FR 18070. April 28. 1002. which provit1r.scnrtnin nppnntlicns to tho April In. 1992 CmnnraI I'roarnble. S~~bsrqu~nt rnlornncna in this nntico lothe General Prnnnl!,lo aro inciuslvn or hoth dtrcunlnntn. 4 " 

### A.

### Designations

Section 107(d)of the Act provides generaily for the designation of areasof each State asattainment, nonattainment

orunclassifiable for eachpollutant for which there isa national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).Certain areas meoung thequalifications of section 107(d)(4)(B)oftheAct were designated nonattainment for PM-10 by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments (initialPM-10 nonattainment areas). A Federal Register notice announcingall of the

areas designated nonattainment for PM10

### at enactment andclassified as moderate was published onMarch 15, 1991(56FR 11101).A follow-up notice correcting someof these area designationswas published August 8, 1991(56FR 37654). The nonattainment

areas wero form~lly codified in 40 CFR part 81. 

### effective January6, 1992 (56FR 56694,November 6,1991). All thoso

areas of the country not designated nonattainment for PM-10 at enactment

were designated unclassifiable (see section 107(d)(4](B)(iii) of the Act].

B. 

### Classifications

Once an area is designated nonattainmont, section 188of theAct outlines the process for classification of thearea and establishes the area's attainment date. In accordancewith section 188(a), nll PM-10 nonattainment

areas are initially classified asmoderate by oporation of law upon their designation asnonattainment.

1.

### Cenoral Conditions

A moderate ama can subsequentlybe 

### reclassified asa serious nonattainment

area under twogeneral conditions. First, EPA has general discretion under soction 188(bJ(1.) to reclassify a moderate area as a serious area at any time the Administrator determines the

area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for moderate aroas.3

Second, under section 188(b)(2)a moderate area is reclassified as serious by oporation of 

### IJW aftor the statutory attainmont datehas passod if the Administrator findsthat the area has not att~inod the NAAQS. The EPA must publish a Federal Register notice idontifying the aroas that have failed to attain and werereclassified, within 6

'The EPA'r Interpretation of the roclassificntion provisions in sectlon 188(b)[1) is discussed in dntail In soction 

### III.C.l(b) o! tho Gonerel Prenrnble (57FR at 

### 13537-38).

s 

### (see section 188G)(2)(~)).

2. Reclassification of Initial PM-10 Nonattainment Areas

Section 188[b](l)(A) provides an accelerated scheduloby which EPA is to reclassify appropriate initial PM-10 nonattainment areas. TheEPA proposed

on November 21,1991 (56FR 58656)to reclassify 14of tho 70 initial moderate

areas asserious. The 14areas EPA

roposed to reclassify were identified rargelybased on the magnitude and frequency of ambient PM-10 measurements above the 24-hour NAAQS of 150micrograms per cubic
meter (&my duringcalendar years 1988-1990. The EPA took final action

on January 8,1993 (58FR 3334)to reclassify 5 of the 14areas. The final decision to reclassify the 5 areas was based onthe criteria utilized inthe proposal, comments received in response to theproposal and on EPA's preliminary review of the SIP'Sfor the

areas.

In the future, EPA anticipates that, generally, any decision to reclassify an initial PM-10 nonattainment area before the attainmont datewillbebased on specificfacts orcircumstances demonstratingthat the NAAQS cannot practicably be attained in the arcsby December 31,1994 (thestatutory attainment date specified in section 188(c)(l) for initial PM-10 nonattainment areas).
3. Reclassification of Future PM-10 Nonattainment Areas

Section 188(b)(l)(B) provides a timeframe within which EPA isto roclassify appropriate areas designated nonattainment for PM-10 subseauent to enactment of the 1990~mendmints. Appropriate areas are tobe reclassified

asserious within 18

### months after the required date for the State's submission of a moderato area PM-10 SIP.' The
statuteroquires that these moderate area PM-10 SIP'Sbe submitted within 18 

### months after the aroa is designated nonattainment (sue soction 189(a)(2)(B)). Taking those provisions together, the statute thus roquires that EPA reclassify appropriate PM-10 modorate areas designatod nonattainment after 1990as sorious within 3 years of such designation.

Bocause the moderate area SIP'Sare duebofore this reclassification deadline, EPA anticipatos that any determination that such areas shouldbe reclassified will bebased upon facts contained in

'This directive does not restrict EPA's general authority. bur simply specifies that it is to ba oxarcisod, 0s appropriate, in accordance with cnrtain da~oa.

### 42000 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 59, 

### No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### I Proposed Rules

the moderate area SIP demonstrating Appendix 

### K and accompanying that the NAAQS cannot practicably be guidance (both preceding the 1990 attainod by the statutory deadline. The Amendments to theAct] provide in part EPA may alsoconsidermclassifying that measured exceedances of thePMmoderate areas for which a SIP has not 10NAAQS which 

### are believed tobe boen submitted whenever it bocomes influenced by uncontrollableevents ap amnt [e.g., bocause of anextensive caused by natural sourcesof particulate de 

# f ay in submittingthe SIP]that an ama matter orby eventsthat are 

### not expocted cannot practicably attain the standards to recur at a given location 

### are flagged by the applicable attainment date.The and excluded from decisions asto EPA may also dotermine that an aroa whother or not theoroa should be cannot practicably attain the standards designated nonattainment.8 Therefore, if by the applicable dato when tho Stato it 

### is established that exceodances are submits an incomploto or othorwise caused by natural sources. a State may inadequato SIP fortho aroa he., a SIP bo permitted to avoid designating the which would not assure timoly aroa asnonattainment. even though the attainnlontl and the Stato doesnot act exceodances 

### are expected to rocur. oxpoditiously to corroct such The savingsprov~sion of section 193 doficioncios. of the amendod Act provides, among

The EPA does not beliove that othor things, that reeulationsand gonorally reclassifying ~nodornto amas as guidance 

### promulgated or issued by the sorious mwards amas which delay Administrator prior to enactment of the dovolopmont and implomentation of 1990 Amendments are to remain in PM-10 coritrol moasurus. Rather, 

### EPA 

### effect accordingto thoir terms exccpt to boliovos itspolicy croatos an incentive tho 

### extant that they are 

### inconsistent fortho timoly submittal and offoctivo with any provision ofthe amended Act. imp~omontation of motiornto aroa SIP Section 188(f) of

### the amended Act roquimmonts and focilitnt0~ tho PM-10 

### provides EpA with the discmtionary attainrnont objoctivo. For oxamplo, if 

### an authority to waive a 

### specific date of



### aroa that fails to submit a timoly attainment 

### for a PM-10 nonattainment ~nodorato aroa SIP is roclassifiod, this 

### area whore it is dotormined that dons not o\)viototho roquiromont that nonanthropogenic 

### sources contribute tho aroa submit nnd implomont tho significantly to the violation of the modorato aroa SIP roquiron~ents. standard in tho area,and towaive Accordingly, in addition to mclassifying certain 

### nonattainmont 

### area SIP such orous,EPA woultl also dotormino Mquimmontswhore the ~d~i~i~~~~~~~ that tho Stato had fnilod to submit a dotermines that anthropogonic sources PM-10 SIP and tho 

### arcs could bo subioct ofPM-10 do not contribute significantly to sanctions undor soctions 110(m)and totho ofthostandardin the 179 for its tloloy. As providod undor ,roam 

### Those provisions 

### as a soction 178(a)of tho P.ct. States fundamontal promise that areas contnininp nrons for which EPA has oxpor~occing ,,iolations of

### thoNAAQS nindo such doturminntions havo up to 18 

### duoto

### nonanthropogonic

### sources to 

### months froni EI'A's dotormination to bo dosignatellas

### nonattainmenl.Ifamas 

### su\)nlit n 

### comploto plnn or plan rovision 

### wore pormittod toavoid

### baing boforo EI'A is roquirerl to imposo oithor 

### designated as 

### nonattainmont

### because tho 

### "Inding snnctionOr 

### tho their 

### violations 

### are cnusod in or mq~iiromont to providn two-to-ononow part by 

### uncontrollable natural ovonts, sourco offsots doscril)od in suction thon this statutory provision would 179(1)1. If t liu 

### (loficioncyhas not t)oen 

### have tobo road as 

### havingno 

### logaloffoct 

### corrected G 

### months nftor tho first or significanco. Howovor, this would snnction applios, thon tho socond violato cnnons of statutory construction, snnction must n 

### ply.s Tho EI'A's which diroct that statutory languago not dotormination agotrigporn a bo tmutod asmoro surplusago. roquiromont for EI'A to i~tiposo a Consoquontly, although appondix 

### K Fodoml implomantation plan undor appoarsto be prosorved in part by snction 110(c)(l) of tho Act. In soction 193, the provision pormitting conjunction with tho possiblo tho twatmont of "uncontrollable evonts iniposition of sanclions. EPA may issuo by natural 

## sources- as a tintorminntion to rnclnssify tho area to 

### oxccptional ovonts,and thorofore soric~us. oxcludablo from nonattainmont



### D. A~aandix 

### K and LVair~ars 

### decisions. is inconsistont with the



# .

# . Apy)onclixK 

### to 40 CFR part 50 

### provisions of soction 188(f) 

### and should providos ~uidnnco on tho intrrproiation thamfom bo rogiirdod asno longor ;,f 

### omt)in~ii nir quality dn~n to cli!~c!rniino 'Swi r~c:tion 

### 2.4 orul)paliclix K or40CFW par1 

### tho air quulity statris of ti11 

### aroa. sn nncl "fhn ~:uiclnlinn on tlie Iclantificn~ion and OM ofAir Quality Dele Afft~cI~~d by Excol)tionrl 'Scw 51) FH 51270 (Oc:tc~l~~r 1. 18!131. Evonra." EIJA450/4-8O-007. luly 1080. 

### having legal effect. Similarly, any EPA guidance permitting such exclusion of these events is inconsistent with the amended Act. For this reason, exceedances which are attributableto uncontrollable nonanthropogenic event* may not be discounted or dewoighted in any manner,but must be fully considered in determining whether violations of the NAAQS havo occurred and whether designation as nonattainmont is warranted. Future determinationsrolevant to exceptional
events should 

### therefore focusonthe remaining type of 

### exceptional event 

### identified undor soction 2.4 of 40 CFR part 50, appendix

### K,namely whether the events-anthropogenic or nonanthropogenic-arelikoly to recur a\ the same locsion.

TheEPA plans to make perfunctory ' 

### modifications to soction 2.4 of40CFR part 50, appondix K. 

### In addition. guidanco on the interpretation of air quality data bolioved tobe influenced by spocial evonts and conditions will be addrossed in a separate publication that will replaco the 1986Exceptional ~vents-~uidcline.
111. International Border Areas

A. Statutory Requirement



### Section 818 

### of the 1990Amendments addod a now section, 179B. to subpart 1.

### part D 

### of title I. 

### Soction 1798applies to areas that could attain the relevant NAAQS by the statutory attainment date but for emissions emanating from outsido the United States (U.S.]. For PM-10 nonallainmenl areas, section 179B(a)providos that EPA must approve the moderato area SIP if (1)

### the SIP
meets a11 the applicable requirements undor the Act other than a requirement that such plan or mvision demonstrate attainment and maintonance of the PM10NAAQS by the applicablo attainment dato. and (2)tho Statodemonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the SIP would bo adequnto to nttain and maintain tho PM10NAAQS by the attainment datebut for emissions emanating from outsido tho U.S. In addition. section 179B(d) providos that if a State demonstrates that an aroa would have timely attained the PM-10 NAAQS but for emissions omanating from outsido the U.S.. the

area must not be subject to tho reclassification provisionsof section 188(b](2]. Section 188@](2) provides that any moderato I'M-10 nonattainrnont area that EPA determines is not in attainment after the applicablo attainrnont dato shall be 

### rcclassifiod to sariousby operation of law. Therefore. the statute provides th~t areas that could attain but for emissions emanating from outsido tho IJ.S.

### must not be mclassificd 

# -

VuOala 08-AUG-94 13 39 Aug 15.1994 Jr( $50257 POWFnn M)(l11 Fm14702 Shn14702 E:\FWSWlMU2.PTI p16pll

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 59, No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### I Proposed Rules

as serious aFter failing to attain by the applicable date.'



### B.

### Policy

Assuming that a plan or revision
meets all applicable requirements, the State must show that an area is eligible
to have its SIP approved and not be reclassified as serious under section 179Bby evaluating the impact of emissions emanating from outside the U.S. and demonstrating that the SIP would bring about attainmentbut for those emissions. Several types of information may be used to evaluate the impact of emissionsemanating from outside the U.S. The EPA will consider the information presented by the State for individual nonattainment areas on a case-by-casebasis in determining whether an area may qualify for
treatment under section 179B.Five examples of such information are listed below in increasing order of sophistication (theState may use oneor

more of these types of information or other techniques, depending on their feasibility and applicability, to evaluate the impact of emissions emanating from outside the U.S. on the nonattainment
area; the first three examplesdonot require the State to obtain informntion from a foreign country): 1. Placs several ambient PM-10 monitors and a meteorological station. measuring wind speed and direction, in the U.S. nonattainment area near the international border.8 Evaluate and quantify any changes in monitored PM-

'As noted, section 179B(dlstates that areas demonstrating attainment of the standards. but for emissionsemanating from outside the U.S..shall not be subject to section 188(111(2) (roclassification for failure to attain).By analogy to this provision and applying canonsof statutory construction. EPA will not reclassify bofore the applicablo attainment date nroas which can domonslrate attainment of the stnndards. but for omissions emanating from outside the U.S. (soosoction 188(b)[l)). First. section 1790evinces a gcnoral congressional inlenl not to ponalize areas whero omissions emanating from outside the country are the but-for causeof the PM-I0 nonattainment problems. Further. if EPA

were to roclassify such arnas before the applicable attninmnnt date. EPA, in effnct. would be reading soction 1790(d)out of the slatute. Sl)ecifically.if El'A procoodod to roclassify, bofore the applicable
attainment date, thoso aroas qualifying for treatment under soction 1790. an area would never be subjoct to the provision in section 179D(d)which prohibits EPA from reclassifying such areas aftar the applicable attainment data. G~nona of statutory construction counsnl against intarproling the law such hat language is rcndcrod more si~rplusnge. Finally, note that section 17tlI3(~1) contains a clcarly

erronoous rnft!renco to carbon monoxidn instcad of PM-10. and that this soction conlainsothor cloar

errors (son,e.g.,soction 17!ln(cl rnfera~lcn to soction 186(11)(9), which dons nrit rxisr 1. 8See40CFK part 58 for gl~id~licn on loceling PM-I0 monitors and "On-sit13Mnte(lr'~I~gi~a~ I'rogram Guidance for Kt?gulntoryMo(ll!ling Applications." EPA45014-87-013. luria 1987 for g~~tdanco on locating mctnorologicnl sti~tions.

VwOate 09-AUG-94 1339Aup 15, 1994 Jkt 1502: 10concentrations with 

### a change in the predominant wind direction.

2. Comprehensively inventory PM-10 emissions within the

### U.S. in the vicinity of the nonattainment area and demonstrate that the impact of those

sources on the nonattainment area after application of reasonably available controls doesnot causethe NAAQS to be exceeded. This analysis must include

an influx of background PM-10 in the area. Background PM-10 levels could be based. for example, on concentrations measured in a similar nearby area not influenced by emissions from outside the US.

3. Analyze ambient sample filters for specific types of particles emanating from across theborder (althoughnot required, characteristics of emissions from foreign sourcesmay be helpful).

4. Inventory the sources on both sides of the border and compare the magnitude of PM-10 emissions originating within the U.S. to those emanating from outside the U.S.

5. Perform air dispersion and/or receptor modeling

## tb quantify the relative impacts on the nonattainment

area of souices located within the U.S. and of foreign sources of PM-10 emissions (this approach combines information collected from the international emission inventory. meteorological stations, ambient monitoring network, and analysis of filters).

In addition to demonstrating that the SIP for the area would be adequate to timely attain and maintain the NAAQS but for emissions emanating outside the U.S.. the SIP must continue to meet all applicable moderate area SIP requirements in order to qualify for the special SIP approval under section 179B.Among otherthings, the SIP must provide for the implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM),includingreasonably available control technology (RACT) (see 57 FR 13540).In international border areas, RACMIRACTmust be implemented to the extent necessary todenionstrate attainment by the applicable attainment date if emissions emanatingfrom outside the U.S. were not included in the analysis. TheEPA believes that this interpretation of the degree of RACM tho State is required to implement in moderate PM-10 areas affected by emissions emanating from outside the U.S. is consistent with the purpose of section 179B. By directing EPA, under section 179B. to approve the plan or plan revision of a moderate PM-10 area which shows it would attain the NAAQS but fur foreign emissionsa::. : by excluding such an area from reclassification to serious. Congress

i7 POW000 Frm 00012 Fml4702 Slml4702 E:\FA - 

### - \ clearly wanted to avoid penalizing States containing such areas by not making them responsible for control of emissions emanating from a foreign country over which they have no jurisdiction. Moreover, by excluding th!;

area from reclassification. Congress alsrr elected to avoid subjecting such areas

### tq the more stringent control measures applicable in seriousPM-10 areas. In addition, as set forth in section 179B(a)(2), the second condition which must be met before EPA may approve

### a moderate area plan showing attainmenk but for foreign emissions, by its plain terms, requires the State to establish only that the plan submitted would be "adequate" to timely attain and maintain the NAAQS, but for emissiorib from outside the U.S. Nothing in secticif, 179Brelieves the State from meeting all its applicable moderate area PM-10 SIP requirements, including therequiremetic
to implement RACM. Nonetheless, if, is doing so, States containing such anarq were also required, because of contributions to PM-10 violations caused by foreign emissions, to should$,

more of a regulatory and economic ' burden than Statesnot similarly affectu,, [i.e., by implementing measures which

## - go well beyond those which the SIP demonstrates would otherwise be adequate to timely attain and maintain the PM-10 NAAQS) such a reqliiramesl would unfairly penalize States containing international border areas and effectively undermine the purpose of section 179B. Indeed,to the extent ah affected State can satisfactorily demonstrtlte that implementation of such measures clearly would not advance the attainment date. EPA coul~ concludethey are unreasonable and ,=, hence do not constituteRACM. Notwithstanding the above, in light of the overall health and clean air objectives of the Act, EPA does
encourage affected Statesto reduce emissions beyond the minimum
necessary to satisfy the "but for" test irr order to reduce the PM-10 concentrations to which their populations are exposed.

The SIP for an international border

area must also include contingency

measures asrequired under section 172(c)(9) of the Act. Under section 179B!a)(l), such SIP'Smust meet "all therequirements applicableto it undel the Act" except that they may demonstrate timely attainment by discounting emissionsemanating frorn outside the U.S. Contingency measures

are additional measures included in tk SIP that can be undertaken to reduce emissions if the area fails to make RFP or to attain the primary NAAQS by the

.* rFMP16AU2 PTl pl6ptl

### 42002 

### Federal Register 

### / Vol. 59, 

### No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules

applicable attainment date. In the area isrequired under section be implemented in the area.TheEPA international border areas,EPA will not 189(b).Thisrevision must. among other intends to issue guidance in the future. require thecontingency moasuros for things, include provisionsto assure that asapp~opriate, on applying for an PM-10 to be implomented after the area BACM (includingBACT)willbe extension of the serious area attainment fails to attain if EPA detnrmines that the implemented inthe area (soesection date.

area would have attained the NAAQS. 189(b)(l)(B)]. In addition. a If a seriousarea fails to attainby the but for emissions emanatingfrom demonstration (includingairquality applicable attainment date (which may outside the U.S. Howevor, the EPA will modeling] must 

### be submilted showing be anextended attainment date), require contingency measures tobo that the plan will attain the NAAQS mother SIP revision is required within 

### implemented if it determinesthat the either by the applicable attainment date 12

### monthsthat provides for attainment

area failed to make RFP in achieving lhe or. if anextension isgranted under and until then for annualreductions in roquimd reductions in PM-10 omissions section 188(e), by the most expeditious PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions from sourceswithin the U.S., or if tho alternative datepracticable (seo section within the area of not less than 5

area does not, in fact, obtain the 189(b)(l)(A)). percont of the amount of such emissions emission reductions that were necessary The SIPrevisions torequire the asreported in the most recent emission to demonstrate timely attainment 

### ofthe implementationof BACM must be inventory for the area (see section NAAQS, but foremissionsornonoting submitted to EPA within 18months 189(d)). from outside the U.S. afier an area isreclassified asserious In addition to the spocificPM-10 SIP
1V. SeriousArea SIP Requirements (seesection 189(b)(2)). The BACM are to rcquimmentscontained in subpart 4 of be implementedno later than 4 

### years part D, title I, States containing serious Tho Act roquiros States to submit aftor an area isreclassified [see section areas must meet all ofthe applicable sovoral SIP rovisions, as nocossary, 189(b)(l)(B)). The EPA's policios gonoral SIP requirements set forth in providing for implomontotion of rogflrdingthe 

### requirement to implement section 110(a](2) and the nonattainment incroosingly stringont control moasuros BACM in serious areas are discussed in area SIPrequirements 

### set forth in and 

### demonstrating when those control section VI of this document. subpart 1

### of part D, title 

### I, to tho extent meosuros will bring about attoinment of The sorious area ottainment that those provisions arenot otherwise tho PM-lo NAAQS. Tho first SIP 

### demonstration requirud under section by, or intogrally to, rovision was duo Novombor 15. 1991for 189(b)(l)(A) must 

### be submitted to EPA themore specific PM-I~ 

### the initiol modornto PM-10 within 4 years aftor anarea is roquirements.10 The general SIP nonottainmont aroas. For areos roclassifiod based on a determination by requirements applicable to

### all redesignoted nonattoinmont forPM-10 EPA hottho aroa cannot practicably ,,onattainmentareas are 

### discussed in 

### in tho future undor soction 107(d)(3), attain the NAAQS by the statutory the General Preamble at 57 FR 13556- the first SIP revision will bo duewithin deadline lor moderate aroas. It is due 13557, 18

### months aftor tho aroa is redesignated within 18months after anarea is The requirements specifically (soe soction 189(a)(2)). This SIP revision reclassified for actually having failed to aPplicablo to 

### serious areas 

### under must, omong othor things. provido for attain the NAAQS by the modorate area subpart 4 are 

### found primarily in section irnplomontation ofRACM on sources in attainment date (see section 189(b)(2)). 189,~h~~~ include: tho aroa (see sections 189(a)(l)(C) and Tho now attainmenl date for initial a. Current actual and allowable 172(cl(ll). All available technologically PM-10 nonattainment areas that are emissions invelltoriesthat meet EPA 

### and oconomicolly feosible control roclassifiod as serious is tobe as guidelines 11 

### (seesection V1.D. below).
moosuros would bo 

### considered RACM, oxp~ditious as practicable but not later b. Submission of

### a SIP, under section nnd tl~erefore roosonablo for odoption, that 

### Docomber 31, 2001. For areas that 189(b)(l)(A), that includes a forornos that cannot ottain tho NAAQS are dasignoted nonattainment forPM-10 demonstration that the plan provides for 

### by tho applicnble ottainmont date inthe future

### and become 

### attainment by the applicable attainment (~oc~~b~~ 31, 1994 forinitial modoroto scrious~ tho attainment dateis be 

### as date (December 31, 2001 for

### the areas PM-10 nonottoinmont aroos) (so0 57 FR expeditiousas procticable but 

### no later initially designated nonattainment for 

### 13544).v than the end of tho tenth calendar yonr PM-10 

### by operation of

### lawunder

If 

### EPA dotorminos thot a modoroto boginning afterthe area's designation as section 

### 107(d)(4) and no later than the
oroo cannot practicably attoin tho nonattainment (seesection 188(c)(2)). end of

### the tenthyear beginning after

### the NAAQS by tho applicoblu attoinmont 

### Ifthe State demonstrates to the area's redosignation for areas clnto (ordotorminos the nrna has failed satisfactionofEPA that atta~~mont by subsequon~~y mdesignated to olloinl roclassifios tho nroa as a the statutory doadline for sorious aieas nonat!ainment), or a demonstration that snrioi~s nonottninment area undor (0s sot forth in sodion 188[c)ofthe Act) attainment

### by the above daleis 

### not soction lRR(b),a secontl SIP rovision for is im~racticablo* the State must practicable and that the plan provides demonstratethat

### the 'IP provides 

### lor forattainment 

### by the most expeditious "N~ltn that Il it can I*stinwn that mnasures are 

### attainment the most ox~oditious datepracticab]e.l~ trnr~~r~nonatrln tn~cnl~sn nminnions from tho sources 

### alternative date ~racticable. The State
alf~rct~~tl nrn ir~siynifit.nnt or de minlmis. such Intlnslrrlrsmiry In trxclud~rd from considnration as 

### may to 

### lora 

### sing1e extension #Osee 57 FR I3538 [April 16, ]ggz),

I~IIIV woultl rtot rcrt,rnnnnt RACM lor that arna (see 

# thosari?"'

.. attainment -.

. 

### date*

11 "PM-I0 Emisslon lnventorv Reouirements."
57 

### PK ins4nl. Mo;novnr. in lntnroaticlnnl tmrtbr 

### under section 188(elofthe Act, not to EpA450/~-93-XX. U.S. ~nvirdnmentel f2rotoction Ilrncrr. rntmwres which go hyontlthosn wliieh tlin 

### excood 5 yoars beyond tho sorious area Agoncy. Resoarch Triangle Park. NC. 1993. SII' cl~~~nc~ristrat~rs woultl tm ncl~~rltrnt~ to nltnin nnd 

### attainment data. 

### A Stat0 roquosting an '~Substquon: to adopting requirements lor BACM nrr~i~itniti tln rte~~(Iard. but lr~r nniissions ema~inting 

### extension under section 188(e) foran shortly after the nonettainment area is reclassified lroni oirtsi~lo thn 1J.S..would not l)n consi(inrnd as sorious, it may be nocessery lor the State to adopt "rnasonrtt~ly" avnilnt~ln-nncl tl~nrnlrrrn wr~uld not be 

### must* among 

### other things* additionni control measures inorder to demonstrate rnclrrir~tcl Iry KAC'M-sincn t1111y WIIUIII 11r1t aclvnnce 

### demonstrate that the plan for the area that the SIP provides lor attainment olthe PM-10 llrlr ntlr~irr~tic!r~t cl~rto lnlthou~h SIIIII-~niny ~~luct to 

### includOS the most stringent 

### measures NAAQS inaccordance with section l89lb~(l~~A~~i~. imi~lnni~rrit sirclr ~n~~nsurc~s inordar to rn(111c:e the 

### that 

### included in tho implomontation Ilt11e Statn dnmnnatre~nn, in accordnncn with 111rtrlic'a t~xlrrlntrrn to I'M-101 [JIIII diacirssion undnr section l8~[bllll(Al~iil, that attainment by the Irrtnrnritioti~~l Dordnr Amas olthis yuidnncn 

### plon of any Stote or are achieved in al~plicablp serious erna nttainment datu is rloc:~~ninnl I. 

### proctico in any State,andcan fonsibly iml)racticableatid sn~ks an extnnrion or the

### Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules 

### 4200:1 'I

, .


### c. Provisions, under section 189@][l)(B). to assure that BACM [including BACT] will be implemented no later than 4 

### years after the area is reclassified as serious.

d. A requirement, under section 189(b)(3),that the terms "major source" and "major stationary source," used in implementinga new-source permitting prowam under section 173and control bf

## FM-10 precursors under section 189(e), include any stationary source or group ofstationary sources located within a contiguous area and undor common control that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 70tonsper year of PM-10.

e. Contingency measures 13 

### (see section VII. below).

f. Quantitative milestones, (applicable
to both moderate and serious area SIP's under section 189(c)), which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment, and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date. The provision includes a requirement for periodic reports demonstrating whether the milestones have been met [see'section VIII. below).

g. Plan revisions which provide for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS and annual reductions of not less than 5 percent of inventoried PM-10 and PM10precursor emissions within the area, under section 189(d],if the serious area fails to attain the standards.

h. As applicable, RACT-level,BACTlevel,and new source review control of PM-10 precursors %ommajor stationary

sources of precursors in the airshed (applicableto both moderate and serious area SIP's under section 189(e)).

The demor.stration required under section 189(b)(t](A) should follow the existing modeling guidelines addressing PM-10 (e.g., "PM-10 SIP Development Guideline" (June1987); "Guideline on Air Quality Models" [Rsvised); memorandum from JosephTikvart and Robert Bauman dated July5,1990) and any applicableregulatorjrequirements. A supplementaryattainment demc%s!ration iolicyapplicable to initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas facing special circumstances was issued in a memorandum from EPA's

attainment date pursuant to section l88le),the State must demonstrate to the best of its ability that the plan lor the area includes the most stringent

measures that are included in the implcmcntotion plan ofany State or are acl~ieved in practice in any State,and can be foa~ibly implnmentcd in the area. "Contingency measures are other available control measures. in addition lo those in the control strategy to attain the NAAQS, that can be implemented if EPA determines the area fails to make reasonable further progress or to atloin the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date lseo section 172(c)[9)1. 

### Office of Air Quality Planning and TheEPA's policy focus shifted awaye ' 

### Standards to the Directors of EPA from the type and location of the Regional Air Divisions on March 4, 

### emission sources (i.e.,traditional or 1991.14That supplementary policy is nontraditional sources, urban orrural
not applicable to serious area SIP locations)to tha size of the particles demonstrations. emitted when the indicator for the

V. Waivers for CertainPM-10 

### NonattainmentAreas


### A.

### HistoricalPerspectives

TheEPA in the past focused much of its air pollution control efforts on ind:istrial point source emissions and other traditional sources of air pollution.15 For instance, EPA's 1977 guidance on SIP development gave priority to control of urban fugitive dust aftercontrol oftraditional sources,but in proference to rural fugitive dust, on tho grounds that (1) 

### urban soil was believed to be contaminated and, therefore, potentially more harmful than the native soils in rural areas; [2)the potential for significant population exposures and attendant health effects wismuch greater inurban areas; and (3)

scarce resources atthe Federal, State, and local agency levels could be most effectively brought tobear on the more pronounced problems found inurban areas.16 Accordingly, EPA's policy was to require greater emphasis on control of emissions inurban areas, including control of fugitive dust from all major

sources. In contrast, control requirements for rural areas were far less ambitious, focussing on the control of major industrial sources,with little attention given to natural or nonindustrial emissions. This policy of giving a lower priority to contr-olling natural or nonindustrial emissions in rural areas became known as the "Rural Fugitive Dust Policy." l7

1'"PM-10 SIP Attainm.*nt Demonstration Policy for Initial Moderate NonattrInment Awas." mamorandum from JohnCa!cahni andWilliam Laxlon lo Director. Air Division. EPA Regions I-X. March 4. 1991.

"The EPA distinguished between "traditional" and "nontraditional" sources. Theterm "nontraditional source" first appeared in official print in 1976In EPA's "National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem." EPA-45013-76-024. July 1976. and was coined ase catch-allto refer to those sources not traditionelly considered In air pollution control strategies. including construction and demolition. tailpipeemissions. tire wear. end various sources of fugitive dust. Since then,the use nl the term has expanded to include such sources

asprescribed agricultural and silvicultural burning. open burning. and residential wood combustion.

1h"Guidance on SIP Development and New Source Review in hensImpacted by Fugitive Dust." Edward F. Tuerk. Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management. to Regional Administrators.

''See. e.g.. "Model Lettar Regarding State Designation of Attainment Status." David H. Hawkins. Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management,to Regional Administretors. October 7. 1977: see also. "Fugitive Dust Policy: SIP'S and New SourceReview" (Augunt 1084). 

### NAAQS was changed in 1987 from total suspended particulate matter to PM-10, While revisions to the rural fugitive dust policy were being considered, tho policy

was continued during the initial phases, of implementing the PM-10 NAAQS on
an interim basis.ls However, EPA believes that the 1990 Amendments provide a statutory alternative that 

### . wholly supplantsthe rural fugitive dust policy (see sections 107[d)(4)[B) and 188[f)of the amended Act; 56FR 37659 (August 8, 1991)).


### B. WaiverProvisions

The Act, asamended in November 1990,was designed to assure that attainment and maintenance of the PM10standards, which were promulgated. in 1987 (52FR 24634,July 1,19871,be as expeditious as practicable. Thus,the Act requires States to submit several revisions of the SIP for PM-10 nonattainment areas,if necessary, to

ensure attainment of the PM-10 NAAQ:?

asexpeditiously aspracticable. Among other planning requirements,the SIP

, 

### revisions must first provide for the : 

### implementation of RACM on PM-10

sources. If 

### RACM is not adequate to attain the NAAQS, subsequent revision6 must provide for implementation of additional, more stringent control

measures until the NAAQS are attained.

Congress recognized that there may be

areaswhere the NAAQS may never be



# . attained because of PM-10 emissions from "nonanthropogenic sources," 19 

### andthat the imposition in such areas of certain State requirements, as. described inthe previous section, may not be justified. Therefore, under section 188(f')of the Act, Congress provided a means for EPA to waive a 

### specificdato for attainment and certain control and planning requirements when certain conditions are met in the nonattainment area.

Section 188(f) provides two types of waivers. First, the Administrator may.

on a case-by-casebasis, waive any requirement under subpart 4 applicable to any serious nonattainment area wherq EPA determines that anthropogenic

sources of PM-10 donot contribute

,- 

### significantly to the violation of the

'*See 52 FR 24716 [luly 1. 19871. '"The legislati\ e history of the 1990Amendmanli indicates that Congress intended that the term ; "nonanthropogenic" sources of PM-10 refer to activities where thehuman role in the cause of sucl, emissions is highly attenuated [seeH.R. Rep. No. 490. lOlst Cong.. 2d Sess. 265 (1990)).

VerOale09AUG-94 13:39A~Q 15.1994 Jkl 150257 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fm( 4702 Sfm(4702 E:\FRFMIPlGAUP.Prl pl6pll

### 42004 

### Federal Register I Vol.

standard inthe area. Second,tho Administrator may waive a specific date forattainment of the standard where EPA determines that nonanthropogenic

sourcesof PM-10 contribute significantly tothe violation of the standardinthe area.

Section 188(1) contains two different legal tests. The first test applies to a waiver of the seriousarea requirements and requires that EPA determine that anthropogenic sources donot contribute significantlybefore EPA grants such a waiver. Thesecond test applies to a waiver of an area's attainment date and requires that EPA determine that nonanthropogenic sources contribute significantlybefore waiving the attainment date. Thefirst test is more stringent than the second. C. Application ofthe Waiver Provisions

Several questions must be answered beforethe waiver provisions canbe applied. Each of these questions is discussed inthe subsections that follow. 1.

### What types of sources should be considered anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic?

The legislative history of the 1990 Amendments indicates that Congress intended that the term "nonanthropogenic" sources of PM-10 refer to activities where the human role in thecauseof such emissionsishighly attenuated [see

### H.R. Rep. No. 490 at 265).Naturally occurringevents such as wildfires, volcanic eruptions, unusually high pollen counts, and high winds which generate dust from undisturbed land are examples of nonanthropogenic

sourcesthat EPA believes meet the intent of Congress.

Anthropogenicsources of PM-10 emissions are those resulting from human activities. Someof the traditional and nontraditional anthropogenic sourcesgenerally considered in PM-10 SIP'S are commercial,institutional, and residential fuel combustion; fossil fuelfired electricpower plants; industrial processes; vehicular trafficon paved and unpaved roads; construction activities; agricultural activities; and other sourcesof fugitive dust which are directly traceable to human activities and which are reasonably foreseeable incidents of such activities.20

2. 

### What criteria shouldbe used in determining when nonanthropogenic sources contribute significantly and when anthropogenicsources donot contribute significantly toviolation of the NAAQS in the area?

m"PM-10 SIP Development Guideline." EPA45012-86-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resoarch Trianglo Park. NC. 1987,p. 5-5, Table 5.1. 

### 59, No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### I Proposed Rules

4 

### TheAct doesnot define the term area's practicable abilities. These

, ' 

### "contribute significantly" asit is used principles are discussed below in in section 188(f), nor doesthe legislative connectionwith each of the two waiver history provide anyuseful guidance.2' tests. Where a statuteis silent orambiguous 1ii selecting an appropriate with respect to the meaning of a "significance" contribution from statutory term, a reasonable agency anthropogenic sources (for the purposec interpretation of the term must be given of deciding whether serious area deference by a 

### reviewing court (see requirements should be waived). EPA Chevron U.S.A.,Inc. v. Natural haselected torely on the test of Resources Defense Council,Inc., 467 significancethat is applied under new U.S. 837,8424345 (1984)).TheEPA source permitting programs. Under the thusbelieves it hasthe authority to new source review (NSR)permit select reasonable criteria by which to program, the EPA requires State determine when nonanthropogenicl permitting programs to considernew anthropogenic sourcesin an area dotdo major sources or major modifications a& not "contribute significantly" tolevels causing orcontributing to a violation 

## ol
of pollution which exceed the NAAQS, thePM-10 NAAQS when the source

aswell asto consider forthis purpose, would add, at a minimum, over 5 pglm criteria utilized in other statutory tothe 24-hour average orover 1

### pglm 3 

### contexts. In light of the differentlegal to the annual average PM-10
tests set forth in section 188(f),the EPA concentrationsin an area that doesnot believes that different indicators of orwould not meet thePM-10 NAAQS significanceareneeded to serve the (see 40 CFR 51.165fi)). Given that the statutory purpose of encouraging purpose of new source permitting protection of public health andwelfare programs is also to protect air quality i~ while avoidingunreasonable control both attainment and nonattainment ! 

### actions. Thecriteria which EPA believes areas, EPA generally believes that the ' 

### provide a reasonable approach to test of significant contribution to making sucha determination, aswell as violations under that program should

a discussion ofthebasis for selecting alsobe applicable when determining these criteria, are set forth below. significant contributions of

Generally, where a nonattainment anthropogenicsourcesunder section area's anthropogenicsources contribute 188[f)of the Act. It should alsobe note? very little toviolations, it islikely that that,in determining "significance" for: controlling those emissions tothe extent purposes of section 188(f),the plain feasible for the area will be insufficient terms of that provision and its
to attain theNAAQS. In such cases, it underlying purpose dictate that EPA would be unreasonable torequire the considerthe impact of the

area to implement more stringent and anthropogenicsources asa whole. more expensive controls on Consequently,where emissions from al, anthropogenicsources sincethey would anthropogenicsources asa whole

, 

### contribute little to attainment or to contributeless than or equal to 5 pglm a 

### reducing the public's exposure to to 24-hour average design unhealthy air quality. In similarfashion, concentrations and lessthan or equal to where nonanthropogenic emission I 

### pglm 3 

### to annual mean design contributions are great, oven after the concentrations in a nonattainment area,
area hastaken reasonable steps to after all RACM have been reduce them, at somepoint it may not implemented,22EPA will generally be feasible for the area to reduce regard such contributions as nonanthropogenic (or anthropogenic) insignificant for purposes of waiving emissions sufficientlytoeffect any real requirements applicableto seriousPMchange in ambient concentrations. 10nonattaiilment areas pursuant to Consequently, it would be unreasonable section 188(f). to require the area to continue to pursue Generally, if an area meeting this test control measuresthat arebeyond the hasnot yet been reclassified as serious and the area would qualify under this
"It shouldbe noted that the term "contribute 

### test for

### a waiver of

### certain serious area significantly" (orvariations of that term] has been 

### requirelnents as 

### deemed appropriateby intorpreted difforently throughout the ALI, 8.8.. in the ozonelcarbon monoxide programs (see section 

### EPA (see discussion below),then EPA

. 107[d1(41(A)(iv) and (~11, the new source review 

### will not require reclassification, since (NSR)program. and in specific provisions of the 

### that action would have no 

### practical , statute. such as sections 110(a)(2)[DJ(i)(11 and 126[aJ(l)(B1. An agency is permitted. but not required. to give a similar meaning to similar terms 221mplemontationofWCM (includingWCT)i! which nnnnnr in different nnrts ofastatute. Thus. required in all moderate PM-10 nonallainmenl

. .. . .

-

. .-rr--.

...

~ r-..- - although EPA is not bound to adopt the ar&s and that roquirement is not waived under thy interprotation given the term "contribute provisions of ~ection lee(&Therefore, the issue is' sinnificantlv" in other oarts or the etatute. it is whether anthropogonic sourcos still contribute iiLoiise no; orecludebfrom accordinn this use of significantlv lo ;iolalion, of the NAAQS in an aroh

.
~ ~ r

~ -~ 

### ., similar language some interpretive weight. ahr inlple~enting RACM. 

# -


### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 1994 

### I Proposed Rules 42005 4


### effect. Generally, if the contribution of anthropogenic emissions to the 24-hour design concentration exceeds 5 

### pg/m 3,


### orif the contribution to the annual design concentration exceeds 1

### pglm 3,


### even after the application of all RACM, then the area should be reclassified as serious,and serious area requirements, including BACM. should be implemented. The EPA will consider exercising its authoritytowaive serious area requirements on a case-by-case basis where the anthropogenic source contribution exceeds these levels, and it

canbe persuasively demonstrated that because of unique circumstances. anthropogenic sourcesdonot contribute significantly toviolations of thePM-10 NAAQS in the area.

The EPA will consider nonanthropogenicsources to contribute significantly (and hence grant an attainment date waiver)only if, after the application of RACM to nonanthropogenic sources, their contribution to the 24-how average design concentration exceeds 150lg/

m 3,

### ortheir contribution to the annual

mean design concentration exceeds 50 lg/m 3. 

### Because the basic purpose of title I isto protect public health and welfare through attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA believes that before it may generally presume a serious area's nonanthropogenic emissions contribution tobe significant, that contribution shouldby itself prevent the

area from attaining the NAAQS after reasonable steps have been taken to reduce or minimize their impacts. Areas which donot meet the above criteria, and other situationsfor which the general presumption is rebutted, will be reviewed on a case-by case basis (see question 4 below).

Information derived from chemical and optical analyses of ambient filter catches, area emission inventories, and dispersionmodeling to determine maximum source impactscan be used to evaluatethe impact of anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic sources. Analysis of filters collected with a network of monitors over a long period (1

### or more years] shouldreveal the portions of normal area PM-10 concentrations attributable tobackground. nonanthropogenic, andanthropogenic sources. rsspectively.

3. 

### Under what conditions will the attainment date for a moderate area be waived?

The effect of waiving the attainment date for a moderate area is torelieve it of the serious area requirements. Therefore. special considerations apply
to the determination of whethor nonanthropogenic sourcescontribute 

### 59, No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 16,

significantly to violation of the PM-10 NAAQS ina moderate area andwhether such area therefore qualifies for 

### an attainment date waiver.

The significant disparity between the legal tests set out in section 188(f),as discussed above,ma) IeaJto anabsurd result. In particular, if a moderate area
met the less stringent attainmentdate waiver test andthe attainment date for the area was actually waived. the area would neverbe reclassified.23 Theresult would bethat a moderate area would be effectively relieved from the seriousarea requirements without having met the

more stringenttest that Congress expressly required be met asa prerequisite to a waiver of such requirements. In such an event, the more stringenttest for determining whether to waive serious area requirements would be rendered meaningless. Moderate areaswould qualify for the attainment date waiver, be effectively relieved of all seriousarea requirements andnever have tomeet the required test for suchwaiver.

Toavoid this absurdresult and only grant a waiver of the 

### ss-' .lous area requirements consistent with the legal standard set out inthe Act. EPA has construed section 188(f)inthe following

manner. A 

### moderate area may only qualifyft; 

### an attainmont date waiver if it also qualifies for a waiver of the seriousarea requirements. Therefore, EPA must determinethat anthropogenic

sourcesin the area donot contribute significantly tothe violation of the PM10NAAQS, and the serious area requirements shouldbe waived before EPA can grant anattainment date waiver for a moderate area. If such a determination is made, then the attainmentdatemaybe waived and the

area would not be reclassified. These special considerations would not be relevant where EPA 

### isdetermining whether to waive the attainment date for

a seriousarea sincewaiving the date in such circumstances would not asa matter of course have theeffect of relieving the area of the seriousarea requiremonts. An area already reclassified as serious could qualify for an attainment date waiver solely by

If EPA waives a specific attainment date for a moderate area consistent with itsauthority under section 188(0.the attainment date for thearea will be vacated. Therefore. the moderate area would not be subject to reclassification under section 188(b) because there simply would be noattainment date that the area cannot practicably meet or that the

area fails to meet. However. since section 188[0 authorizes waiving only the attainment date. the moderate ares would still be subject to all the remaining moderate area SIP requirements. Therefore. the moderate area SIP submitted to meet the applicable requirements of subparts 1and 4 must. among other requirements,continue to provide for implementation of RACM. 

### showing that nonanthropogenic emissionscontribute significantly to thy nonattainment problem.

Aspart of its policy, EPA will require that areasreceiving waiversbe revisited periodically toreevaluate source contributions, to ensure that source emissions growth isreasonably controlled, and to determine whether additional controls to reduce the public's exposure tohigh concentrationc of PM-10 areavailable (see also the '


### discussion under question 5).

4. 

### What happens if anarea cannot meet the general criteria described

. 

### above?

If evidence ina given nonattainment

area suggests that nonanthropogenic emissions mav contribute significdntlv
to violations 6utarenot nreser than i5u 

### lg/mland/or anthropog&ic source

,. 

### contributions are relativelv smallbut .


### not less than 5 lg/mJ,the; EPA will review the situation on a case-by-case basis taking into account relevant information such asthe relative contribution of nonanthropogenic 

### emissions/a~:thropogenic emissions anq the effects of applying additional controls toboth types of sources.

For moderate areas,if preliminary data (emission inventory, filter analysis, etc.1 persuasively indicate that anthropogenic emissions may be insignificant andthat nonanthropogeni+ omissions may be significant in anarea; but such data are not decisive,then EPA will considergranting a temporary or ', 

### conditional waiver of the moderate area 

### attainment date for no more than 3 

### yeq to allow further evaluation of the situation. Prior to granting a temporary waiver, EPA and the State must agree 04 a protocol for evaluating the impacts of anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic emissions. The protocol must include 

### a schedule with interim milestones by which the State will complete its analyses. The schedule should considq the need forthe area to adopt and - 

### implement BACM soastomeet the applicable serious area attainment date (as expeditiously aspracticable and,for those areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d](4](B], nolater thaq December 3 

### 1,2001)in the event the * 

### evaluation demonstrates that nonanthropogenic emissionsdonot contribute significantly to violations in the area. If 

### the evaluation conclusively demonstrates that nonanthropogenic emissions are significant, then a waiver of the serious area attainment date may be ranted.

Ifit isshown for any moderate nonattoinment area that, although nonanthropogenic emissions may be significant, the application of controls

on anthropogenic sources would


### 42006 

### Federal Register / Vol. 

### 59. No. 

### 157 

### / Tuesday, August 

### 16. 1994 

### / Propoxd Rules

-8 

### appreciably reduce PM-10 NAAQS at some time inthefuture 6. 

### What requirements applicable to concentrations in the area, then the area through available means. While EPA serious nonattainment ereas under would not be granted a waiver of the does not expect States to exhaust their subpart 4 of part 

### D should be waived? moderate area attainment date. but resources to meet standards that may 

### be The individual subpart 4 would be reclassified asserious. The unattainable. it doesexpect them to requirements (seesection IV. above] wilt

area would then be required to continue effortsto minimize exposures be waived only afterconsidering all implement BACM on non-de minimis to unhealthy air. relevant circ~mstances on a case-byanthropogenic source categories (see Even though a specific attainment case basis foi serious areas where discussion in sectionVI). However. date and serious area requirements may anthropogenic sources donot contribuh; subsequent to suchreclassification, the be waived indefinitely for anarea significantly and where RACM have

. 

### area may later apply for a waiver of the where. respectively, nonanthropogenic been implemented. Currently, the serious area attainment date if it can sources contribute significantly to section 189(b](3)requirement to moditj demonstrate that even after violations and anthropogenicsourcesdo the definitions of

### "major 

### sourcewand 

### ' implementing BACM (andafter not. the State should review the status 

## 41mai0r source- 

### is the only

, 

### considering the extended ottainment ofanthropogenic and nonanthro~ogenic serio,s area requirement that will not

## t,& and post-attainment provisions of source contributions in the 

### area every 3 

### waived,



# . , 

### sections 188and 189of theAct), years. Such a review would entail nonanthropogenic emissions will determining whether nonanthropogenic 

### D. Waiver FoIicJ' Description 

### prevent the area from attainingthe sources still contribute significantly and consistent withthe discussion abovud NAAQS. anthropogenic sources donot contribute EPA 

### intendsto

### implement its

5. 

### For what period may a 

### specific significantlyto violation ofthePM-10 a~ithority to grant waivers under sectioq attainment datehe waived? NAAQS in the area. Since emissions 188(f) in a manner 

### described hy the

. 

### When nonanthro~ogenic sourceshave from anthropogenic sourcos increase diagram presented in Figure lt is been determined to contribute with population growth and the location important to note that this diagram is significantly to violations in an area that new sourcesto the area, the has been reclassified to serious, in provided for illustrative purposes only contribution ofanthropogenic sources to and should not 

### be interpreted contrary accordance with the above criteria, violations canbecome significant over to 

### the as 

### it is described in this those sources may permanently Prevent time. Therefore, theneed for reinstating ~h~ figurepmsonts six decisiol the area from attainingthe standards. a specific attainment dateandlor Therefore. the attainment date for such previously waived serious area questions. A SIP submitted for G



### areas could bewaived 1ndefinitely.24 moderate nonattainment area seekinga 

### requirements 

### be reconsidered 

### waiver is oxpected to address the first "However, the phrase waive a specific periodically. date" does not require that the three questions: TheEPA has the authority under attainment datebe waived indefinitely section 172(c](3) to require periodic 1. 

### Can the area attai.1theNAAQS by (seefootnote 23 on the effect ofwaiving updates ofa nonattai-ent area's the applicable statutory nttainment datu
the moderate area attainment date]. nor emissions inventory to assure that the (December31,1994for the initial "+ 

### nonattainment areas) after does it lessen the State's obligation to requirements of part Daremet. TheEPA implementing 

### mCM (including

### mCT, strive to 

### expeditiously attain the plans to use this authority to periodically review the waiver statusof for contributing anthropogenicand

14In cases where it is feaslble to implement 

### areas, asdescribed above. A specific nonanthropogenic sources?

measures that will reduce future emissions from 

### attainment date and applicable If themoderate area SIP demonstrate? nonanthropogenic sources (i e

# .planting indigenous
or wind breaks), EPA has 

### requirements should

### be reinstated if it is that 

### the area 

### can attain

### with 

### RACM '
the authority u.idersection t88(e)to extend the 

### determined that nonanthropogenic (includingRACT] by the attainment

attainment date for a seriousarea for UP to s years 

### Sources no longer contribute date,then the answer 10 this question iu beyond 2001 if it is possible that the NMQScould 

### Significantlyor 

### anthropogonic sources 

### "yes" and thewaiver provisions are no! be attained in the future. Suchmeasures shouldbe considered by Statesbefore secking waivers of the 

### begin contributing significantly to applicable.

attainment date 

### violations in the area. BILUNO CODE 65~40-@0 

# E

8 

# FIGURE 1. 

# WAIVER POLICY DIAGRAM

_-_-



## 1. 

## Can area No 

## 2. Anthropogenic Yes Rechss'i

## area attain with sources s' nificant RACM? 

### after RAc

# 8(>

### 5uglrn3)? 

## as serious

Yes 

### No

3. 

### Nonanthropogenic

4. 

### Can 

## areaaltain by

### the deadlinefor No

## wahrers serious 

## areas?

5.Canareaattain with an extension ofthe attainment Grant an extension 

# f Waive 

### specific 6.Canareaattain attainmentdate andor appropriate wlannual reductions
serious 

## area of emiss'ins? 

# \ requirements 

# 1 Implement Yes 

### annual 

# \ reductions 

# /

### 42008 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 59, 

### No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### I Proposed Rules

If an area cannot attain by the Case 113 

### contribute to violations, to attain the statutory deadline. then questions 2 

### and 

### If sources contribute NAAQS at any time in the future, a

. 3

### on the w~iver policy diagram m~~st be significently

### to violations, but, specific attainment date would not be addressed. and several cases may exist. 

### nonan~opogenic sounes contribute waived. Rather. asdiscussed previously.

2. 

### Do anthmpogenic sources ofPM-10 leuthan 150pg/m3, then waivers will 

# t: ~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~",~~,"~l~~g 

### asa whole contributesignificantly to be granted on a case-by-case basis as violations in the are^? 

### discussed abovein subsection C., for attainment date extensions and continued emission reductions until the 3. 

### DOnonanthropogonic sources of question 4*

### The 

### lor and timing NAAQS 

### are 

### attained. H~~~~~~, if PM-10 asa wholo contribute of serious area attainment datewaivers emissions from

### anthropogenic sources 

### significantly to violations in the area? de~nd upon 

### the 

### answen the reduced tothe point that it is no Case #1 last diagram. 

### three questions On 

### the Waiver 

### policy longer technologically oreconomically feasible to reduce thoseemissions

, 

### If anthropogenicsourcosno longor 4. 

### Can 

### the serious 

### area attain by 

### the further,andtho area still cannot attain statutory the NAAQS, then EPA may consider contribute significantly toviolations in 

### the serious area 

### control (i.e., the area after the implomentation of BACM, [including BACT]), for waiving the serious area attainment datu RACM, then by default, significant anthrupogenic sources? and appropriate seriousarea nonanthropogenic sourcesmust requirements. If theStato

### can demonstrate that it is contribute significnntly.25 In this case, 

### possible to attain

### theNAAQS 

### by the 

### VI. Best Available Control Measures the moderate area attainmont date may statutory

### deadline

### forserious

### areas bo waived. Thepractical offoct of A. Requirement for BACM waiving tho attainmont date for a through theimplementation of BACM, There aretwo circumstances, as moderate ama is to mliovo it from then a waiver isnot appropriate. If discussed earlier, under which a roclassificetion assorious and,therefore, attainment by the deadline is not moderate PM-10 nonattainmont area

toreiiove it from cortnin serious area possible, thon question 5 must be may be reclassified asserious. First, an requirernonts. Thomfore, a modorate addressed. area may be reclassified whenever EPA 5. Can thoareaattain withan aroa may only qualify for an attainment 

### extension 

### ofup

### to of

### the detormines that thePM-10 NAAQS dnto waivor if it alsoqualifies for a cannot practicably be attained by the
wnivor of the sorious ama requiremonts attainment date?'b statutory attainment date.10 Such a Toansworthis question, the State [SOO 

### soction V.C., question 3).TheState must determineif

### an extension oftime 

### determination may be madebefore the
should reevaluato the impact of attainment dateif a review of the SIPfor. anthropogonic sourcos on thearea will make it technologically and anarea showsthat RACM. including ' 

### economically foasible to implement RACT, will not practicably bring the pOriodica'ly lo Or 

### additional coi~trol measures that will area into attainment orif delays in not thoy contribute significantly to violations. bringthe area into attainment. Again,if adopting, submitting, and implementing it ispossible to attain the NAAQS, then SIP requirements form a basis for EPA 

### : Case #2 

### a waiver isnot appropriate. If to conclude that on area cannot attainment isnot possible even with the practicably attain theNAAQS by the If anthropogonic sources still maximum extension of the attainment statutory attainment date. Thesecond contribute significantlytoviolations in dateallowed under section 188(e),then circumstance iswhen thearea is tho aroa aftor the implomontation of question 6 

### must be 

### addressed. reclassified by operation of law upon a RACM (I.O.~ contribute

### over 5 ~g/m3 to 6. 

### Can thema attain at any time after determination by EPA that the aroa has PM-10 concentrations),

### thon the ama theextonsion deadline ifemissions failed toattain the NAAQS on schedule would bo mclassifiod assorious. within the areaare reduced annually by (wesoction 188b)l. Consoquontly. tho sorious aroa not lessthan 5 percent?" Section 189b)establishes additional roquiromonts discussod in section IV, Toansworthis question, the State ccntrol requirements for PM-10 obu\.o,would hnvo tobo implomontod must dotemine iftheimplementation of nont;ttainmont areasthat arereclassified in tho aron. Thoso mquimmcnts include, additionalcontrol measures, 

### annually, as serlousby EPA. Under section amongolhor things, tho application of would eventually bring the area into 189b)(ll(B), States must submit SIP BACM (includingBACT) on source attainment. Sufficient additionalcontr.01 revisions which provide for cologorios that aro still contributing measures would noed tobe implomentation of theBACM for PM-IQ significantly to violotions (sootho 

### implemented to achieve at least 5 

### emissions in such areas. These 

### SIP discussion of BAChl in soction V1 and portent 

### annual reductions inthe revisions must be submitted to EPA footnoto 33). invontory of PM-10 emissions from within 18

### months after an 

### area is

Subsoquontly,the arua may qualify for anthropogenic sources. reclassifi~d and must assure that the

a waivor of the sorious ama attainment 

### If EPA believos that it ispracticable mo"sures are implemented no laterthan
doto if it is domonstrotod that for

### anama,whore both anthropogenic 4 

### yoars aftor the area is reclassified as nononthropogonic sourcocontributions and nonanthropogonic sources serious [soe section 189011 [I) 

### and (2)). (i.0.. contributionsgronter than 150pg/ 

### ThoEPA bolieves the requimment to m3) would pmvont tho aroo from *The EPA may granl a single extension of the 

### BACM in P"-10 

### attaining tho NAAQS. atteinmenl dale for serious areas of no more than 

### nonaitainment areas should. in one 5 years under the conditions of section 188(8) of Ihe 

### respect. be interpmted similarly to the Act. Guidance on ctem~~nstrating that a State r*lt In IiCtrlv that Cnngnru inlanilnil all area- qualifies for an attainment date exlanslon wlll be 

### cOmpRrable roquircmcnt

trvnn Itin.r O~I~IIIIII for waivertto implarnenl huedin the future. 

### RACM in moderate PM-10

whntrvn, n~nnnurnr ware mmnablyavallabln. "If an area fails to attain the NAAQSby !he end Thnrmforn. EI'A hnlinvns tl~n Iwnt rna~linp of the of the axtanslon porlod. then the Stale must plan -The statutory attainment date for the initial ntatutn rcluinrn !hat !ha nn~lsrion rniluctinns to achieveannual reductlorrs of not 1081 than 5 group of amas dnsignatrd nonaltalnrnent by a~trlbutrtrln lo KA(:M [incluiling RACT)should be parcent of PM-10 and PM-I0 precurwr amisslons operation of law uponenadnlenl of the 1990 ronslilernil I~rfi~rn avaluat~ng the signifir~nce of wilhin the am.. as reported In the most recent Arnendmwnts. under uction 107[d)[4l.is Dncernbr anthrirpr~prnic contributions. Invanlory (ma sacllon 189(d)). 31. 1994. 

# -

VaDsla 09-AUG-94 1339Aug 15.1994 Jd lS0257 PO 00000 Fnn00010 Fnl4702 SM 4702 E:\FRFMW1MUZ.PTl piWl

### Federal Register / Vo!. 59, 

### No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 16. 1994 

### I Proposed Rules 

### 42009

nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(l). which appliesto all nonattainment
areas, statesthat part D RACM shall include "such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the ama asmay be obtained through the adoption,at a minimum, of masonably available control technology 

### ' ' '



# . "

### Thus, modorate PM-10 nonattainm~~\t ama RACM plans, which are submitted to meet theroquimmonts of wction 189(a)(l)(C), must include provisions ensuring the adoption of RACT [sw57 FR 13540,column 1).



### For moderate PM-10 areas reclassified asserious. the nonattainment control requimments (i.e., RACM) arectrrried ovor and olevatod to 8 

### higher lovol of stringency (i.e.. BACM). So,by analogy, lust as RACM includusRALT, in the samo way. BACM includos BALT.m Thus,just as nioderato PM-10 SIP mvisions whon 

### implementing RACM undor section le9[a][1)[C) must provido for the adoption of RACT, 

### similarly. PM-10 SIP rovisions undor snction 189(b](l)(B]. implomonting BACM in sorious PM-10 nonattainmont arnas, must include provisions onsurir~g the adoption of BACT. Thispoint was explicitly addrossod in tho Houso Committoe Ruport: "Sorious areas must includo in thoir submission provisions to require that thebest available control measures for tho control of PM-10 omissions are implomontod no lotor than 4 yoars after tho aroa is classifiod or mclassifiod as sorious. Such provisions must include tho ap lication of tho bost available
contro 

# Ptechnology to oxisting statiunary sourcos" (H.R. Rop. No. 490, lOlst Con



# .. 2nd Soss. 26647(1990)).

~khough snction 189(bi[l)(B) mquims RACM (includingBALT)tobe implomontod in sorious PM-10 nonattainmonl aruns, tho Act doos not dufino oithor BACM or BACT for PM10nonatt~inmont purposos. Whore a statuto is silont or ambiguous with rospnct to tho moaning of a statuto torrn, tho agoxicy is authorizod to a opt

an interpretation 

### mosonably 

# a

accommodated to tho purpose of the statutory provisions..'f'In considoring how to intorprot tho provisions requiring 

### BACM (includingBACT] for sorious I'M-10 nonattainmont amas. EPA has lookod at sovoral factors: The way in which similar terms havo boon historically interprotcd in other soctions

or titlos of tho Act, tho ordinary grnmmotlcal usngo 

### associated with tho

BEvnn wlthout the UC:M analcwv. the Lmst avnllalrln lechnolcwir~l ronlrol mnasums by their plnln ternis ama subnet of the univerw of lmrt avallalrla control measures.

u'Cl~r~vn~n. 1J.S.A.. Inr. v. Nol~rml Rrrourccs r)r.\rmrlsr Cotrnrif. Irlr.. 467 [J.S.R37. 84344(1984). 

### word "best." 

### and the overall structure and purpose of title I of the statute.


### B.EPA's 

### liistorical Interpretation of Contiol Technology

### Terminology

Tho Act uses ssveral terms to refer to different levels of emission control technology required for existing or new sources: "reasonable (RACT)," "best (BACT)." and lowest achievable emission rate 

### (LAER). It ishelpful to considerEPA's past andcurrent interp~tation andim lementation of those various control

# P evels in detormining thecontrol level appropriate for BACM for serious PM10nonattainment areas.

Theterm "reasonably available" was applied to control measures and control technology required tobe implemented at existin sourcesin nonattainment

areasb 

# t'i

e 1977Clean Air Act AmendYmonts (1977Amendments)('12 U.S.C. 7502(c)(lj). At that time. EPA dofined RACT asthe lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meotingby the a plication of technology that is masonab

# I' y available considering 

### technological andeconomic feasibility.'t Control measures were determined tobe reasonable aRer considering their energy and environmental im acts end their annualized capita

# fand operating costs. In EPA's view, the cost of using a control measure isconsidered masonoble if those samecosts areborne by othorcomparable facilities. Since Congmss, in the 1990Arne. dments,did
not modify EPA's interpretations of tho RACM and RACT in the earlier 1977 Amondments, it can

### be prosumed to havo given someendorsement to EPA's dofinition of the tom.

Congress definod the term "bost available control technology" in section 169(31of the 1977 Amendments for use in 

### implementing the requireme~it o prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of airquality under part C. title I, of that Act. This dofinition was modifiod by soction 403(d]of the 1900 Amendments. The BACT iscurrently dofined for the PSD rogram asan emission limitation base

# i'

on the "maximum dogroe of mduction of each ollutant 

### ' ' ' emittod from orw 

# I'I ich rosults from any majcr emittingfacility, which the

omitting authority. on a caw-by-caso &sis, taking into account enorgy.

''be. lor example. 44 FR 53761-53762 (Splornbr 17. 1979)end footnote 3 of that notice. No10 that EPA's emissions trading policy statement (51FR 43814 [Docember4.19BOJI has ctarlned that RACT rmqulmmen!s may be ra~lsfied by achieving "RACT equivalent"emlsrlonsraductlons In tha aggregate from \he full sot ofexlrllng slatlonary

wurces sub)eclto thore requlremantr (awalsa EPA's prolmnd economic lncan~lvrs rule. 58FR 11110.11I23(February 23. 1W3)). 

### environmenta!, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems,end techniques 

### ' ' 'for control of each suchpollutant." Thus. BACT is to be determined for the PSD program on a case-by-casebasis taking into account theenergy. environmental,and economic impacts and othercosts. Secti~n 169(3)also requires that BACT 

### be at least asstringent asany corresponding new sourceperformance standard (NSPS)or national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).

Under the PSD program. BACT applies through pmconstruction permits issued to major new and major modified facilities in areas where the air quality is better than the NAAQS (section 165(a)[41 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(41). In broad overview. BACT is dotermined by identifyingthe 

### technologically feasible control
measums, from the universe of available control 

### techniques, which yield the maximum dogroe of omission reduction. aRer consideringthe energy. environmental and econon~!~ impacts of thetechnology, and other costs. Tliis may include consideration ofthe annualized capital and operating costs for the facility. Thecostsof control for a major new facility or major modification of an existing facility should be considered asa portion of the overall costs of the new facility.

The term LAER mfers to the level of control required for issuinga preconstruction permit to major new or major modified facilities in areas whore tho air quality isworse than the NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment areas)(section 173(a)(2) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7503(al(2)). In broad terms. LAER is defined at section 171(3)of the Act as the more stringent emission rate bawd

on eithor the most stringent State emission limit or the most stringent emission limit achievod in practice by such class or ctitegory of source. Like BACT, the LAER level of control must 

### be at loast asstringent as the NSPS applicable to the source. Unlike RACT and BACT, the LAER requirement does not considor energy orcost factors. In genoral, the costs of achieving LAER in

a nonattainment area must 

### be considomd as a 

### portion of the overall cost of investing 

### in a major new or major modifiod facility,asthey amwith BALT in attainment areas. TheEPA belioves that it is reasonable toconcludb that in 

### selecting the term "best" to applytocontrol measures in PM-10 serious nonattainment areas. Congmss likely considemd how the tern hasbeen

### 42010 

### Federal Register / Vol. 

### 59, No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules

e! 

### interpreted in other sections and ti;les the reasons stated above, EPA believes reasonable to accord some interpretive of theAct. Several other factors it isreasonable to concludethat wei ht to this use of similar langua 0.32 

### [discussed below) support such a Congress intended a greater level of Tierefore. EPAWs interpretation of conclusion. stringency to apply in areas that are BACM for seriousPM-10 nonattainmen~

C.BACMfor SeriousPM-10 required toimplement "best available" areaswill generally be similarto the

. 

### Nonattainrnent Areas controls than in those required only to definition of BACT for the PSD program, implement controls that are "reasonably TheBACM isthe maximum degree of : 

### A plain-English interpretation of the available." emissions reduction of PM-10 and PMd term "best" implies a generally higher As noted earlier,

### an array ofdifferent 10precursors from a source [except as standard ofperformance than one that control measures isapplicable under provided in subsection C. 3)which is may be considered "reasonable." In various title 

### I NAAQS-related programs. determined ona case-by-case basis, addition, the structural scheme A key factor, among others, in taking into account energy, throughout titlo I of the Act isto require determiningthe level of control environmental,and economic impacts the implementation of increasingly appropriate for a given area from among and other costs, tobe achievable for stringent control measures in areas with the different emission control measures such sourcethrough application of

more seriouspollution problems, while and technologies referred tothroughout production processes and available providing such areas a longer time to title 

### I is the severity of the air pollution methods, systems, and techniques for attain the applicable standards. This problem in that area. In addition to the control of each such pollutant. For Pblstructural scheme reflects a basic general categorization of areas as 10. BACM must be applied to existing underlying premise of title I. 

### The "attainment." "nonattainment," and source categories in nonattainment area& premise is (1)

### That more stringent "unclassifiable," the Act characterizes that cannot practicably attain (orfail to control measures aro needed in cases the soverity of anarea's air pollution attain1 within themoderate area when the current control requirements problem by classifying the area, for timeframe and are roclassified as will be insufficient tobring a particular example, as "marginal," "moderate," serious.33

area into attainment;and (2)

### that the "serious," and soon. As discussed As noted above. EPA will interpret

more seriousthe air quality problem, above,the different control measures are PSD BACT and PM-10 BACM as the more reasonable it is to require required tobe implemented asfollows: generally similarbocause, despite the Statesto implement control measures of For new (or modified) sources, BACT similarity in terminology, certain koy greater stringency despite the greater appliesin PM-10 unclassifiable and differences exist between control burdens such measures are likely to attainment areas under the PSD measures applicablein the PSD and

cause. TheAct attemptsto balance the program, while W\ER applies in PM-10 serious nonattainment area greater burden imposed in those areas moderate and seriousPM-10 programs. TheBACT under the PSD where more stringent controls are nonattainment areas under the program appliesonly in areas already required by affording the State nonattainment NSR program; for meeting the NAAQS, while PM-10 additional time to implement them. existing sources, RACM (including BACM applies in areas which are

For example. under section 188[e), RAn) in moderate PM-10 seriously violating theNAAQS. This EPA is given authority to extend the nonattainment areas. while BACM difference in policy goals, arguably, attainment date for a serious PM-10 (includingBACT)applies in serious suggests that thePM-10 BACM controlnonattainment area beyond the PM-10 nonattainment areas. In each standard should be more stringent than specified statutory date, provided case,the more serious the pollution that forPSD BACT. On the otherhand. certain conditions are met. One ofthose problem, tne more stringent the control theburden of installing efficient conditions isthat the State must standard required. controls during construction of a new demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that It is apparent that in requiring the source or sourcemodification is "the plan for that area includes the most application of BACM toexisting sources generally less onerous than retrofitting stringent measures that are included in in seriousPM-IO areas, Congress an existingPM-10 source with similar the implementation plan ofany State or implied that these sources should be controls. If one compares both programs are achieved in practice in any State, subject to a more stringent level of interms of these factors, the differing 

### '
and can feasibly be implemented in the control than theapplication of RACM regulatory and economicburdens and area." Thus, under this section,the Act required forexisting sources in the different policy purposes tend to provides such areas an opportunity to moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas, offset each other. Nevertheless. EPA receive additional time to attain the but not asstringent as the applicationof NAAQS. Theconsequence of receiving LAER required for new ormodified ']Under accepted principles of statutory 

### additional time,however, is that the sources in moderate and serious interpretation. similar terms in a statute generally 

### State must demunstrate that itsPM-10 nonattainment areas [orthe degree of ~$~~~(i~~~o~~~~~~~<~~~~~~~~i~~r 

### implementation plan contains the "most control required to secure an extension meaning tosimilar termswhich appear indifferen, 

### stringent measures" that can feasibly be under section 188[e)). parts of e statute. 

### implemented in the relevant area from 1.Definition '.'The term "source cstegories" for which BACM 

### among those which are either included will be required, refers to categories ofarea-wide 

### in any other SIP or havebeen achieved In view of the preceding discussion, Or large PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissionsthat may be 

### in ractice by any other State. EPA 

### as a 

### startingpoint in regulated under a specific rule, generic emission



### &milarly.the Act requires the interpreting BACM for PM-10 limit. or standard of performance. or a specific 

### application of control measures that are nonattainment pur?oses, it isreasonable control program in n SIP. For nxampln. the SIP may 

### "reasonable" in moderate PM-10 to consider the term BACT as 

### applied in regulate emissions from unpaved roads. 

### the P~D under section 

### 169[3~ construction activiti~s, residential wood 

### nonattainment areas [RACM)and combustion. nsphalt concrete batch plants, etc..as 

### control measures that are "best" asan analogue. Because PSD BFhCT and source cntegories. Note that. in some instances. an 

### [BACM)whenever a inoderate area PM-10 BACM (which includes BACT] entire source category may consist of one larue 

### cannot "practicably" attain or failsto are similar terms. EPA beiievos it is individual stationary source that is regulated 

### attain the NAAQS and istherefore separately under tho SIP such asa single iron and steel manufacturing fncility and the various 

### reclassified as serious. Accordingly, for processes therein.

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 59, No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules 42011

4
believes that the differences in policy goals--i.e.. preventing further pollution under the PSD program and reducing existing pollution under the PM-10 nonattainment program+ounsel against adopting the interpretation and implementation of PSD BACT in its entirety for PM-10 nonattainment purposes. Rather. EPA considers it reasonable to use the approach adopted in thePSD BACT program asdefined in section 169(3)of tho Act asananalogue for determining appropriatePM-10 nonattainment control measures in serious areas, while at the sametime retaining the discretion to depart from that approach on a case-by-casebasis as particular circumstances warrant.

2. Preventive Measures

The EPA ,.onsidersmeasures that prevent PM-10 emissions over the long
term (e.g.. requiring gas logs in new fireplaces)to be preferable to those

measures that will only temporarily reduce emissions (e.g.. curtailment of wood stove use during air pollution episodes or treatment of fugitive dust sources with water). This isbecause such preventive measures are inherently

more effective and involve significantly fewer resources for surveillance. enforcement. and administration. Moreover, increasingemphasis on prevention over mitigation is more likely to be both economically and environmentallybeneficial over the long
term.
3. De Mininlis SourceCategories

The BACM are required for a11 categories of sources in serious areas unless the State adequately demonstratesthat a particular source category does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS. While EPA regards the BACM standard applicable in PM-10 serious

areas as a more stringent control standard which calls for a greater degree of emissions control for the source categories to which it applies. EPA also believes that it has the authority to limit the applicability of BACM to those

source categories which "contribute significantly" to violations of the NAAQS. The Act leaves unresolved the question of whether BACM is intended
to be an all-inclusive requirement applicable to every PM-10 serious area

source category. It should be noted that in section 189(b)(l)(B). which contains the requirement that serious area PM-10 SIP'S provitie for the implementation of BACM. Congress has not used the word "all" in conjunction with BACM. Congress has also not stated anywhere in the relevant law or legislative history that BACM must be applieti to all serious area source categories. Even if the statute on itsface were interpreted
to require States to impose BACM on all

sourcecategories in serious PM-10
areas,theAgency believes. based on the decision in 

### Alabama 

### Power Co.v. 

### Costle," that it hastheauthority to exempt from regulation those source categories in thearea which contribute only negligibly toambient concentrations which exceed the NAAQS. TheEPA believes thecourt's
test for invoking the deminimis exemption authority would 

### be satisfied in circumstances where a State demonstrates conclusively that, because of the smallcontribution of the source category's emissions tothe nonattainment problem, the imposition of additional controls, such asBACM.

on a particular sourcecategory in the

area would not contribute significantly
to the Act's purpose of achieving attainment of theNAAQS "as expeditiously aspracticable." The EPA will have todetermine from the record that, with respect to pa;ticular serious

area PM-10 source categories which contribute to omissions in excess of the NAAQS, requiring application of BACM would produce an insignificant regulatory benefit.

The EPA will, in general, rely on the criteria applied under new source permitting programs (40CFR 51.165(b))
to determine when a sourcecategory contributes significantly to violations of the NAAQS in a PM-10 serious nonattainment area. The criteria will alsobe applied spatially and temporally in the same way it is under new source permitting pro rams.J5 

# 'f As discusse above, a moderate PM10nonattainment area may be reclassified asserious based on evidence that the area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment dateor evidence that it has failed to attain by that date. The evidence, whether modeled or measured, will generally indicate the standard (24-hour or annual), the day. and the location of tho predicted or monitored violation. Therefore, under this policy, a sourcecategory (see footnote 33)will be presumed to

"The inherent authority ofadministrative agoncies to exempt deminimis situations from a statutory command has been upheld in contexts whore an agoncy is invoking a deminimis exemption as "a tool to be used in implon~enting tho Iogislativo dosign" on the ground that "the burdons of rogulation yield a gain of trivial or no value" [Alabon~a Power Co. v. Coslle.636F.2d 323. 360-61 (U.C. Cir. 1979)).

3sSoe "Interpretation of 'Significant Contribution."' memorandum from Richard C. Rhoads to Alexandra Smith. December 16. 1080. OAQPSPolicy and Guidance Notebook. PN 165- 80-12-lM7. contribute significantly to a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS if its PM-10 impact
at the location of the expected violation.' would exceed 5 pgtm3. Likewise, a

sourcecategory will be presumed to contribute significantly to a violation of the annual NAAQS if itsPM-10 impact
at the time and location of the expected, violation would exceed 1pplm3.

Procedures for identifying source categories that continue to significantly affectthe air quality of a serious area (even aRer RACM (including RACT) are implemented)and procedures for identifying the appropriate mix of control measures applicable to those

sourcecategories are discussed below irb subsection E.

4. BACM Analysis Independent of Attainment Analysis

The overall structure and purpose of title I of the amended Act, the standard suggested by the word "best," andthe differences in the statute between the requirements for BACM ascompared to those for RACM, lead EPA tobelieve that, unlike RACM, BACM aretobe established generally independent of an analysis of the attainment needs of the serious area.

As noted earlier in this section, the overall structural scheme throughout title 

### I of the Act is to reauire the implementation of increasingly strineent control measures in areas with mor~serious pollution problems, while providing such areas additional time to attain the applicable standards. These tougher measures are deemed necessary in cases where it appearsthat less stringent controls will be insufficient to reduce emissions in an area to the level of the NAAQS. As described above,the fact that the Act requires the applicatior, of control measures that are "reasonable" in moderate PM-10 areas and control measures that are "best" whenever it is determined that a moderate area cannot "practicably" attain or actually fails to attain the NAAQS and is therefore reclassified as serious, strongly suggests that BACM is intended to be a more stringent standard than RACM. Thus, it is reasonable to



# . interpret the statute asrequiring a different analysis for determining BACM from the practice of analyzing RACM according to what is reasonable in light of the overall attainment needs of the area. Moreover, when comparing the terms "reasonable" and "best" as applied to control measures, the word "best" strongly implies that there should be a greater emphasis on the merits of the measure or technology alone and less flexibility in considering other factors.

VerDale 00AUG-94 13.39Aug 15. 1994 JM 150257 PO OOOOO Fnn 00022 Fnd 4702 Shn14702 E:\FR\FM\PIGAU2.PTI pl6pll

### 42012 

### Federal Register 1 Vol. 59, No. 157 

### 1 Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### 1 Proposed Rules

. - Additionally, for PM-10 areas reclassified as serious before the moderate area attainment date, States have up to 4 years, under section 189(b)(2). in which to submit their serious area attainment demonstration. However. under section 189(b)(2), States have only 18months after reclassification from moderate to serious to submit their plans requiring the use of BACM for those same areas. Thus, for such areas. Congress provided a differenceof asmuch as Z1/2 years Setween the required date for submitting BACM plans and the dateby which to submit a new attainment demonstration satisfying the requirements of section 189(b)(l)(A]. 

### his pronounced difference in timing for the seriousarea submittals described above is to be contrasted with the timing for submittal of similar provisions for moderate areas. Under section 189(a)(2). both the RACM plans and the attainment demonstration for moderate PM-10 areas must as a genera! matterbo submitted ot tho sonro time. Tho fact that the Act requires BACM to be adopted and implementedby an appreciable time before the attainment demonstration is required, for areas that

are reclassified before the muderate area attainment date, suggests that Congress intended that BACM determinations be based more on the feasibility of implementing the measures rather than

on an anolysis of the attainment needs of the area.:S6 Therefore, the steps described below for making a BACM determination are intended to be carried
out independently frorn the analysis to determine the eniission reductions that would be necessary to attain the NAAQS by the statutory deadline. If the attainment demonstration for the area subsequently shows that BACM will bring the area into attainment before the statutory deadline,then the plan provides for expeditiousattainment of the NAAQS. However, if the BACM are not adequate to provide for attainment of the standards, then the State must submit additional measures with the attainment demonstration that will result in attainment of the standard by the statutory deadline or apply for an extension of the attainment dateby demonstrating that the specific

'"Tht! El'A lx!lievcs this interpretation of the Acl is re~~s(~nnt~le. cveli if. asto ortws which nro ~Iassifi~vl in Ihe futr~re ns serious I'M-10 nonattainment aroas because tho HrnHs hnvo fniled
to nttnin. tlit! rlate DACM 1)I~ns must bo submitted nnll tho (Int~ tho seriolts nrna altninrnent d~?rnonstrntinn is duoshould Ilnppnn to coincide. Thcre is no r~tional t~sis far interproling DACM differently depending mrrcly on when an area happens to hc reclnssified. conditions of sections 108(e)and a. Major point sources (i.e.. sourceb.. 189Ibl[llIAl[iilhave been met. with the ~otential to emit at least 70 ' 

### - D. Proceduresfor Determining Best Available Control Measures

1.Inventory Sources of PM-10 and PM10Precursors

The BACM (including BACT) applicable in a nonattainment area must be determined on a case-by-casebasis since the nature and extent of a nonattainment problem may vary within the area and from onearea to another. Nonattainment problems range from reasonably well-defined areas of violation caused by a specific source or group of sources to violations over relatively broad geographical areas due predominantly to large numbers of small sourceswidely-distributed over the area. The BACM are required for all

source categories for which the State cannot conclusively demonstrate that their impact is deminimis. As stated above,the EPA will generally presume the contribution to nonattainment of
any source category tobe do minimis if the source catogory causes a PM-10 impact in the area of lessthan 5 pg/m" for a 24-hour average and less than 1pg/ m3annual mean concentration. The starting point for making a BACM determination would be to reevaluate the emission inventory submitted with the moderate area SIP. Section 172(c)(3) of the Act calls for all nonattainment

areas to submit comprehensive. accurate, and current emissions inventories and provides for such periodic revisions as may be necessary to assure that the nonattainment planning requirements are met. If there have been any significant changes in PM-10 sources in the area sincethe inventory was first compiled (i.e., sources permanontly shut down or new

or modified sourcesconstructed) or if the inventory is not adequate to support the more rigorous analysis required for serious area SIP demonstrations, it should be revised. All anthropogenic

sources of PM-10 emissions and PM-10
precursors (ifapplicable) and nonanthropogenicsources in a nonattainment area must be included in the emission inventory.

Because of its importance in identifying anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic sources and the applicabil~y 

### %f BACM requirements, the breakdown of sourcesto consider when compiling an emissionsinventory are as follows:

"Ambienl filter analysis and inventory informlion may have been presented in certain moderate area SIPto indicate the insignificance of secondary particles [see 57 FR 13541421. tons per iearof PM-10 (orPM-10 precursors) asrequired in sections 189(b);3)and 189(e)of the Act).

b. Minor point source categories. c. Area source categories such as fugitive dust from anthropogenic

sources (e.g.,construction activities, paved and unpaved roads, agricultur*: activities, etc.), residential wood ; combustion, prescribed burning, and commercial/institutional fuel combustion.

d. Nonanthropogenic sources.

2. Evaluate SourceCategory Impact

The second step in determining BAChl for an area is to identify those

source categories having a greater tha,, deminimis impact on PM-10 concentrations. The potential maximu,,, impact of various source categories mh; have been determined with receptor

### w, dispersion modeling performed for th~ attainment demonstration submitted 

### - with the modorato area SIP. In additiq,; tho irnpoct of some source categories 

### -- may bo nppnront from nnalysis of *- ambient sampling filters from days when the standards are exceeded. If modeling was not performed during developmont of the moderate area SIP. receptor modeling, screening modelinb
or, preferably, refined dispersion



## . modeling will generally be necessary A,, 

# -- thistime to identify key source

,. categories.

3. Evaluate Alternative Control Techniques

In developing a fully adequate BAG@ 

### ; SIP, the State isexpected to evaluate 

### 14,;. technological and economic feasibility of the control measures discussed in tlr. BACM guidance documents and 0th.)

,

## . relevant materials for all source categories impacting the nonattainmerab area except those with a deminimis impact considering emission reductiob. achieved with RACM.

Energy and environmental impacts ~2 the control measures and the cost of 

### : control shouldbe considered in determining BACM. In general, for th~ reasons stated above,the test of - economicand technological feasibility will be higher for source categories in serious areas than for source categories in moderate areasbecause of the great^,

c.,

, , 'Son "Technical Informati011 Document for Residnntial Wood Combustion Besl Available Conlrol Moasuros." EPA-45012-82-002. Septom!..

. 1892: "Proscribed Burning Background and t'" Technical Information Document for Bnst A~ailai.~, Control Moasures." EPA-45012-92-003, ~n~)tnnllk", 1992: and. "Fugitive Dust Rackground Documegaf andTechnical lnfornlation Docunlenl for Best

. ' Available Control Moasures." EPA-45012-92-0?$, September 1892.

. . 

# v;

VerOate OQAUG-94 1339 Aug 15. 1994 Jkl150257 PO 00000 Fn 00023 Fm14702 Slm14702 E.\FR\FM\Pl6AU2PTI pt6pt1

### Federal Renister 1 Vol. 

### 59, No. 

### 157 1 Tuesday, August 16, 

### 1994 1 Proposed Rules 

### 42013

need for emission reductions to attain the NAAQS. As noted earlier,this interpretation is consistent with the overall statutory scheme which requires that as an area's air quality worsens. increasingly stringent control measures

are to be adopted in conjunction with the area receiving more time to attain the NAAQS. Thus, measures that were not considered reasonable to implement by the moderate area attainment date
may be BACM for serious areas because of the additional time available for implementing them3" and because of the higher degree of stringency implied by the statutory scheme and theterm "best." Therefore. BACM could include. though it is not limited to, expanded use of some of the same types of control

measures as those included as RACM in the moderate area SIP.

It does not currently appear that mobile sources, as distinct from the surfaces on which they travel, contribute significantlyto the PM-10 air quality problem in a sufficient number of areas to warrant issuing national guidance on best available transportation control measures for PM10under section 190of the Act. However, in those areas where mobile

sources do contribute significantly to PM-10 violations, the State must, at a minimum, address the transportation control measures listed in section 108(f) to determine whether such measures are achievable in the area considering
energy,environmental and economic impacts and other costs.

The technological feasibility of reducing emissions from area sources depends on the ability to alter the characteristics that affect emissions from the sources. Those characteristics have to do with the size or extent of the
sources, their physical characteristics and the operating procedures. Reducing emissions of fugitive dust from construction activities, for example, could require the most effective combination of reducing the size of the

sources (i.e.. acres cleared at one time or vehicle miles traveled on unpaved surfaces). changing the physicel characteristics (i.e.,silt loading on travel surfaces or moisture content of materials handled], and/or changing the operating practices (i.e..lower vehicle speeds, less surface area exposed to the wind, treating or paving travel surfaces).

""rhe statulnry allninmanl date for initial niotlarale PM-I0 nonnttainment areas rcclassified

as serious will hn Uccn~nhnr 31. 2001. Fnr arnas designatnd nnnaltsinrncnt subsnquent to enactment of thu I990 Amendments thnt bccomn scrious, the r~ttr~inmenl dnte will bn bcforn thn nnd of the tenth
year boginning after the area's designation as nc~natlainrnenl (see section IBR(c]l. The technological feasibility of applyingan emission reduction method
to a particular point source should considerthe source's process and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, energy requirements, and any collateral environmental impacts (e.g., water pol!ution and waste disposal). The
process, operating procedures, and raw materials used by a source can affect the feasibility of implementingprocess changes that reduce emissions and the selection of add-on emission control equipment. The operation and longevity of control equipment canbe significantly influencedby the raw materials used and the process to which it is applied.Thefeasibility of modifying processes or applying control equipment is also influenced by the physical layout of the particular plant. The space available in which to implement such changes may limit the choices and will also affect the costs of control.

4. Evaluate Cost: of Control

Economic feas-ibility considers tho
cost of reducing emissio~s from a particular source category and costs incurred by similar sources that have implemented emission reductions. As with RACT determinations and BACT/ LAER analyses in other statutory contexts. EPA believes that for PM-10 BACM purposes, it is reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of emission reduction. As such,when identifying BACM, consideration of economic feasibility should not rely on claims regarding the ability of a particular sourceto "afford" to reduce emissions to the level of similar sources. Otherwise. less efficient sources might be rewarded for their inefficiencyby being allowed tobear lower emission reduction costs. Instead, economic feasibility for PM-10 BACM purposes should focus upon evidence that the control technology in question has previously been implemented at other

sources in a similar source category without unreasonable economic impacts.

Where the economic feasibility of a

measure (e.g..road paving) depends on public funding. EPA will considerpast funding of similar activitiesaswell as availability of funding sources to determine wheth-era good faith effortis being made to expeditiously implement the available control measures. In other words, if 20 miles of unpaved roads are typically paved each year, then the BACM fugitive dust program should include paving more than 20 miles per year of existing roads and should offer evidence of ambitious efforts to increase funding and increase the priority for use of existing funds.

The capital costs, annualized costs, and cost effectiveness of an emission reduction technology should be considered in determining its economic feasibility. The "OAQPS Control Cost Manual, Fourth Edition." EPA-45013- 90-006, January 1990,describes procedures for determining these costs. The above costs should be determined for all technologically-feasible emission reduction options.



### E. Selection ofBACMfor Area Sources

Oncethe significant PM-10 area

source categories have been identified, the State should select area source control measures from the candidate BACM listed in the technical information documents for fugitive dust, residential wood combustion [RWC]. prescribed burning, or any other technical information documents issued by EPA [see footnote 38).Thisguidance is based on EPA's analysis ofavailable control alternatives for tho identified

sourco categorios. While the guidance is intended to be comprehensivo, it is by

no means exhaustive. Consequently,the State is encol~raged to consider other

sources of information and is not precluded from selecting other measures and demonstrating to the public and EPA that they constitute BACM. Further, any control measure that a commenter indicates during the public
comment period is available for a given

area should be reviewed by the planning
agency. The agency should determine whether the affected categories of

sources are significant and, if so, whether the available measure is achievable in the area considering energy, environmental, and economic im acts and other costs.



# A: stated earlier. EPA considers

measures that prevent PM-10 emissions

over the long term to be preferable to short-term curtailment measures. Therefore. when selecting BACM for

area sources, a State should first consider pollution preventive measures and measures that provide for long-term sustained progress toward attainment in preference to quick, temporary control. For example, a State should consider requiring the replacement, over time, of old wood stoves with cleaner-burning wood stoves or alternative fuels. Such programs would complement and reduce dependance on wood-burning curtailment programs adopted as RACM for the moderate area SIP. However, EPA recognizes that such long-term

measures may entail significant lead time and that temporary measures like wood-burning curtailments may need to be continued in serious areas. at a

### 42014 

### Federal Register / Vol.

minimum,to provide interim health protection.

Once the list of available measures for

an area source has been identified, the State must evaluate the technological and economic feasibility of implementingthe controls. The State may refer to the technical information documents for procedures to determine feasibility.

When evaluating economic feasibility, States should not restrict their analysis
to simple acceptancelrejection decisions based on whether full application of a

measure to all sourcesinaparticular category is feasible. Rather, a State should consider implementing a control

measure on a more limited basis, e.g., for a percentage of the sources in a catpgory if it is determined that 100 percent implementation of the measure is infeasible. l'his would mean, for example,that an area should consider the feasibility of paving 75 percent of the unpaved roadways even though paving all of the roads may be infoosi1)le.Altarnativcly,the Stote shoul(i considcr whothar nleosuros which cannot feasibly be implemented in their entirety prior to the statutory deadline for BACM implementation could be completed over an extended period. In that event, BACM might itself be defined to change over time from a

more limited set of measures at the initial implnmentotion date to a progressively tighter or more ambitious
pro ram at later dates.

T



# a

e following example is presented to illustrate how a moderate area program

orRACM for fugitive dust control may be complemented with additional RACM after the area is reclassified as serious. Assume that the following control measures were adopted as RACM: 1.Reduce the speed limit on unpaved county roads to 25 miles per hour.

2. Treat all unpaved county roads. monthly, with chemical dust stlppressants within 500 feet of their intersections with paved roads.

3.Treat 10milas of the most heavilytravaled, unpaved county roads with chemical dust suppressants once per month.

4. Pave 4 miles of unpaved city
streets.

5.Treat unpaved parking lots in the city with chemical dust suppressants

once per month.

6. Clean anti-skid materials from 50 milos of city streets within 48 hours aftcr snow melt begins.

The same area. after baing reclassified as serious. may adopt the following 59, No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules

BACM examples to complement the representative range of available RACM program: 40 controls (includingthe most stringent,

1. Pave 10miles of the most heavily- those capable of meeting standards of traveled, unpaved county roads. performance under 40 CFR part 60 or

2. Treat 10miles of unpaved county 61. and those identified by commenters roads with chemical dust suppressants during the public comment period). once per month. Selection of a particular control system

3. Pave 25 unpaved county roads as BACT must be justified by a within 500 feet oftheir intersections comparison of the candidate control with paved roads. systems considering energy,

4. Chemically treat or pave both environmental,and economic impacts, shoulders of 30 miles of State highways and other costs, and be supported by 

### th~. within the county. record.

5. Pave all parking lots within the In addition, if the reviewing authority city. determinesthat there is no

6. Revise the specifications for winter economicall~-reasonable or anti-skid materials to require cleaner, technologicall~-feasible way to less friable materials, and reduce the accurately measure the emissions,and quantity used per lane-mile. hence to impose an enforceable

7. Require croprotations on highly emissions standard, it may require the
erodible lands. source to use design, alternative

8. Retire highly erodible sections of work practice, or farmland and plant indigenous operational standards to reduce vegetation as a cover instead of leaving emissions ofthe pollutant tothe
land fallow. maximum extent feasible [see,by

9. Plant crops and windbreaks across 49 CFR 52-21fi)[12); 40 CFR tho provailing wind direction on highly 51~16fi(b~(~2)~* erodible lands. Altarnative approaches to roducing

In summary,the Statemust document emissionsofparticulate matter
its

### selection ofBACMby showing what including PM-10 are discussed in
control measures applicable to each "Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources" 

### - category (not 

### shown tobe de V~lume I (EPA-45013-811005a)and minimis) were considered. The control Volume I1 (EPA-45013-81-005b1,
measures preferably be September 1982.The design, operation,

measures that will prevent PM-10 emissions rather than temporarily and maintenance of general particulate
reduce them. The documentation matter control systems such as mechanical collectors, electrostatic should comparethe ccntrol efficiency of precipitators, fabricfilters, 

### and wet technologically-feasible measures, their scrubbers are discussed in Volume 

### I. energy and environmentalimpacts 

### and The collection efficiency ofeach system the costs of implementation. is discussed as a function of particle F. Selection of RACTfor Point Sources size. Information is also presented

The reviewing authoritydetermines regarding and environmental BACT on a case-by-case basis. As considerations and procedures for described above,EPA expect the estimating particulate matter reviewing authority to select an control equipment. The emission emissions 

### limitatioll that the characteristics and control technologies
maximum degree ofemission reduction applicable to specific sourcec~tegories of each pollutant subject to regulation are discussed in 'I. Secondary [PM-10 andlor PM-10 precursors), environmental impacts are also taking into account energy. discussed. environmental, and economic impacts The BACTILAER Clearinghouse,the

and other costs,that it determines is EPA Control Technology Center, and

achievable for such facility. past BACT analyses for new and modified major sources under the PSD In light of preceding discussions of 

### program maybe used to in RACT and its statutorybases. it isEPA's availablecontroloptions policy that BACT be determined using and maximum achievableemission the analytical methodology established reductions.The EPA willcontinueto in the reviewing authority's current PSD evaluatetheneed foradditional program to the extent that it is guidance and will produce additional consistent with guidance contained in materialsas appropriate. this notice. The anelytical methodology used should,at a minimum, considcr a VII. Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) requires that SIP'S '"Adol~tion of these types of measures may roquire coordination with other local governmental provide for the implementation of

entities such as the Duparlments of Agriculture. be undertakenif Tmnsporletion. andlo& Interior. 

## - the A(ln1inistrotor finds that the

-,

### Federal Register 1 Vol. 

### 59, No. 

### 157 

### 1 Tuesday, August 

### 16, 1994 

### 1 Proposed Rules 42015

nonattainment area has failed to make about attainment. TheEPA has Section 171(1)of the Act defines RFP as RFP toward attainment or to attain the recommendad that contingency "such annual incremental reductions in primary NAAQS by the applicable measures provide the emission emissions of the relevant air pollutant as statutory deadline. Following the reductions equivalent to 1year's average are required by this part (part

### D) or may Administrator's finding,the measures increment of RFP (seediscussion reasonably be required by the

are to "take effect without further action below). Administrator for the purpose of by the State,or the Administrator." The Oncemoderate areas are subsequently ensuring attainment of the applicable EPA interprets this requirement to be reclassified asserious, tho affected national ambient air quality standard by that no further rulemaking actionsby Statesmust ensurethat adequate the applicable date." A discussion of the State or EPA would be needed to contingency measures, asdoscribed these requirements follows. implement the contingency measures above, are in place for such areas. This (see generally 57 FR 13512 and 13543- is explicitly required under the statute. ' Progress 544).The EPA recognizes that certain Section 189(b)(l) reql-liresareas Historically, for some pollutants, RFP actions, such as the notification of reclassified us serious to submit "an has been met by showing annual sources, modification ofpermits, etc., implementation plan." Under section incremental emission reductions would probably be needed before a 172(c),in turn, "plan provisions" sufficient generally to maintain at least

measure could be implemented required under part 

### D must provide for linear progress toward attainment by the effectively. However. States must show the implelnentation of contingency specified deadline. Requiring linear that their contingcricy meastires can be measures. Accordingly, for those progress reductions in emissions to implomcntcd with minimal furthor moderate areas reclassified asserious, if maintain RFP may be appropriate in action on their part and with no a11 or part of the moderate area plan four situations: additional rulemaking actions such as contingency measures become part of 1.When pollutants are cmittod by public hearings or lcgislativo rcviow. the required serious area control numerous and diverse sources. After EPA determinesthat a moderate measures (i.0.. BACM),then additional 2. Where the relationship between PM-10 nonattainmcnt area has failedto contingency measuresmust be any individual source and the overall attain the PM-10 NAAQS. EPA submittod whether or not the previously air quality is not explicitly quantified. generally oxpects all actions nccdod to submitted contingency measures had 3. Where a chemical transformation is effect full implementation of tl~o already been implemented. Further, the involved.
measures to occur within 60 days after affectedStatos must ensure that serious 4. Where the emission reductions EPA notifies the State of the area's areas have adequate contiilgcncy necessary to attain the standard are failure. The State should ensure that the measures considering, among other invcntory-wide.

measures are fully implemented as things, new information about the For examp!.e, in those areas where the expeditiously as practicable after they potential attainment shoitfall for the nonattainmcnt problem is attributed to take effect. newly reclassified serious area. The area type sources (e.g.,fugitive dust,

'The purpose of contingency measures Statesmust submit contingency residential wood combustion, etc.),RFP is to ensure measures measures for serious areas or otherwise should be met by showing annual tlcyond or in addition to the demonstrate that adequate measures are incremental emission reductions "core" control measures [i.e.RACM for in place within Pars sufficient generally to maintain linear moderate areas and BACM for serious progress towards attainment. 'Total PMareas) immediately take effect when the ~111. ~~~~tit~ti~~ ~il~~t~~~~ and 10emissions should not remain area fails to make RFP or to attain the ~~~~~~~bl~ ~~~th~~ progress constant or increase from 1year to the PM-10 NAAQS in order to provide next in such an area. interim public health and welfare A. General Discussion Requiring linear progress reductions protection. The protection is considered The PM-10 nonattainment area SIP'S in emissionsto maintain RFP is less "interitn" because the statute often must include quantitative milestones provides for a more formal SIP revision which are to be every 3 years 1.Wllere there are a limited number
in order to correct, for example, the until the area is redesignated attainment failure of an area to attain the PM-10 and which demonstrate RFP toward 2. Where the relationships between NAAQS (e.g..section 1 A9(1))-serious attainment by the applicable date (see individualSources and air quality are

area plan required upon finding of section 189(c)of the amended Act). relatively well defined. faillire of n~odorate area to attain the 3. Where the emission control systems PM-10 NAAQS under 188(b)(2)-and 41 ~ho Clean Air ~ct dons not prescribe when (e.g.,at major point sources) 189(d) revisions required upon States containing serious PM-10 nonattainment will res~lt in swift and dramatic failureofserious to attain the PM- areas shall submit section 172(c)(9)conlingency emission reductions.
10NAAQS)).Thus. EPA has noted measures (or otherwise demonstrate that adequate F~~ in those where the contingoncy measures are already in place). previously that contingency measures However, section 172Ib) of the ACI directs the PM-10 nonattainmcnt problem is should consist of Administrator to establish a schedule for submittnl attributed to a few stationary sources,

measures not contained in the of tho plnn items insection 172(c) at the time the RFP shoul[ibe met by "adherence to an Administrator designates an area as nonaltainmenl. compliance 42 a~~licabie core strategy(57FR Such scl~edulo is lo include a date or dates 1:3543).In designing its conlingoncy "extending no later than 3 years from the date of which islikc!y to

### P~~~~~~~~~~Y yield nl(?asuros, the Stato should also take into the rionattainmont designation" (see section 172(b)). Significant emission reductions. (;()llsi(jcrotion the !,otential rialurc and BY~~"I[)KY- El'A CO~CIU~O~ it 1s rea~onable to Adherence to "an ambitious compliance establish that the formal dendline for the submittal docs not c?xtontof any atlainnlent shortfall for the of 172(c1[9) conlinRoncy (or a
area. The magnitude of the effectiveness domonstrntion that adequate contingoncy measures that it achieve of tho measures should IJC calculated to are in place1 by Stales containingserious PM-10 theapproprinte perct,nlagc of noriattainniont areas is no lator than 3 years from 'lU.S. El'A. Office of Air Quality I'lanning and tho i111le ol the serious area reclassificstion (see Standards. "Guidance Document for Correction of Chcvrorr. U.S.A.. Irrc. v. NRDC.467 US.837. 842- Part D SIP'Sfor Nonaltoinmt?n! Arcas." Research by the SIP control strategy lo bring 45 (1984)). Triangle Park. NC, lant~r~ry 27. 1984. page 25. 

# -

VetDale 09-AUG-94 13.39Aug 15.1994 JM 150257 PO 00000 Frrn 00026 Fml4702 Slmt 4702 E:WR\FhnPIGAU2.P?1 p16pl1

### 42016 

### Federal Register I Vol. 

### 59,

### No. 157 

### I Tuesday, August 

### 16, 1994 

### I Proposed Rules

annual incremental emission reductions b. Percent compliancewith for the moderate area SIP.43 Therefore.' .

or generally linear progress, however. implemented control measures. the second RFPImilestone for the initial

Tho SIP'Sfor PM-10 nonattainment c. Adherenco tn a complianca nonattainment areas that are reclassifiecj

areasmust include detailed schedules schedule. as serious must be achieved by

.

### c for compliance with emission 2. RFPIMileslone Due Dntes November 15,1997.Thethird RFPI ".: regulations in the areasand accurately milestone achievement datewill be indicate the corresponding annual As mentioned above, PM-10 November 15,2000, etc,These RFPI :, emission reductions to be realized from nOnattainment 

### are milestones should be addressed by each milestono in the schedule. In quantitative milestones which areto be quantifyingand comparing the annual .' reviewing the SIP,EPA will 

### determine achieved every 3 Yearsuntil the area is incremental emission reductionswhich whether the annual incremental redesignated attainment. Thereis a gap result from implementation ofBACM/.' emission reductions tobe achieved are in the law in that thetext of section BACT (requiredwithin 4 yoars after th? reasonable in light of the statutory 189(c)does not articulate the starting area isreclassified as serious)and 

### fro^ objective to ensure timely attainment of point 

### for counting

### the 3-year period. additional measures included in the '.' thep~-~~ NAAQs. Additionally, EPA TheEPA believes it is reasonable to final serious area SIP to those believes that it is appropriateto require begin 

### the 3-Year reductions which were identified in thb early implementation ofthe most cost- deadline fromthe duedate (and not the SIP asquanti!ative milestones necessarj effective control measures (e.g., submittal date) for the applicable to achieve the NAAQS by the 

### applicable controlling fugitivedust emissions at moderate area im~lementation plan attainment date. The annual [he while phasing 

### in rovision (see section III.C.l.(fJof the incremental emission reductions must ; the more expensive control measures, (57

### FR 13539)for 

### an be sufficient 10 assure attainment as 

# - such asthose involvingthe installation of EPA 

### believes it is expeditiously as practicable but not 

# .'.

of new hardware. appropriate to begin counting the 3-Year later than December 31.2001. In some

Section 189(c)provides that the milestone deadline from the SIP due cases it may also be appropriate to ; quantitative milestones submitted by a date]. require that the annual incremental

,, State for an area also must be consistent The first "RFPImilestone" emission reductions maintain at least achievement date for those areas linear progress toward attainment, as RFP 

### lorthearea' 

### Thus' EPA initially designated as nonattainment for discussed earlier. determine an area's compliance with PM-10 

### by of

### lawwhen the RFP in conjunction with determining its compliance with the quantitative Act was amended will be the moderate 3. RFPlMilestone Report
milestone requirement. Because RFP is area attainment date of December 31, The State must demonstrate to EPA. 1994,as stated in section 1II.C.l.f. of the within 90 days afterthe milestone an annual emission reduction requirement and the quantitative General Preamble (57FR 13539).The achievement date,that the SIP measurc I RFPImilestone achievement date would are being implemented and the RFP/

. mi'estones are be achieved every normally be November 15.1994.3 years quantitative milestones havebeen met

. years' when a State an after the SIP due date of November 15, [see section 189[~][2)]. The RFPI area's compliance with the quantitative 1991. 

### The achievement 

### datewas milestone report must be submitted

. requirement' it delayed 46 days,however, because the from the Governor or Governor's demonstrate that RFP hasbeen achieved de minimistimingdifferential between during each of the relevant 3 years. designeeto the Regional Administrator the attainment date and the literal first of the respective EPA Regional Office 

### Thus' thediscussion ofquantitative milestone date made it administratively which servesthe State where the milestones below refers to the "RFPI impracticable

### and oftrivial value to affected area is located. milestone" submittal dates, require separate milestones and The RFPImilestone repcrt must achievement dates and demonstration attainmentdemonstrations for

### these contaiii technical support sufficient to (orreporting) requirements. areas. Thus, for these initial areasthat document completion statistics for C.Quantitative Milestones demonstrate timely attainment,EPA's appropriate milestones. For example. policy isto deem the emission the demonstration should graphically Nature ofQuantitative reductions progress made between the display RFP over the course of the As mentioned above. PM-10 SIP submittal due date and the relevant 3 years and indicatehow the nonattainment SIP'Sare to contain attainment date as sufficientto satisfy emission reductions achieved to date quantitative milestones (see section the first milestone requirement (57 FR compare to those required or schedule(i 189(c)). These quantitative milestones 13539). tomeet RFP and the required should consist of elemnnts which allow Thus the initial RFPImilestone will be progress to be quantified or measured. met by showingthat emission .>The plain terms of section 189(c)require that Specifically. States should identify and reductions scheduled to be made milostones be achieved "every 3 years until the are, sul)mit quantitative milestones between the SIP duedate and the is redesignated attainment" and. therefore, do not contemplate any breaks in the milestones due to ar. providing for the amount of emission attainment date for these moderate areas aroavs reclassification. Further. rec~assifying an aro) reductions adcquate to achieve the were actually achieved. Most of the to sorious does not obviate the State from controIr'" and emission reductions required in the moderate NAAQS by the applicableattainment emission reductions wi!l result from area implomon,alion (see section 189(b)(l,), date.The following are examples of RACM continuous serios of control measures must be :

measures which support and RACT) adopted aspart of the moderate implemented in PM-10 nonattainment areas 

# "

demonstrate how the overall area SIP. TheAct requires that RACM be boginning with RACM (including RA~) and :i quantitntive 

### milestones illentilied for an implemented by December 10, 1993in 

### ~~~~~$~~~~~~J~~P,"~I",~~~~~~~,","~~,","~
area may be met: the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas N,,,, BACM (includingDA~) mustbe a. Percent implementation of various [see section implonionted within 4 years after the area is control strategies (e.g.,pave 50 percent Subsequent RFPImilestones for these reclassified as serious. Subsequently. it may be of culpable streets. replace 75 percent of initial PM-10 nonattainment areasthat 

# ~~~7~~~~2~~~",~~it~9"h",'~d'~~f""asur~* residential wood heaters with natural are reclassified as seriouswill be due Therefore, the of theAct requiresa serier' gas heating units). every 3 years after the original due date of measures which can provide for RFPlmilestoner.,

-- VerDate 09-AUG-94 1399Aup 15.1994 Jkl150257 PO OOOOO Frm 00027 Fm14702 Slm14702 E:\FR\FM\P16AUZ.PTl p16pll

### Federal Register 

### / Vol. 59, 

### No. 157 

### / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 

### / Proposed Rules 

### 42017

-

milestones. The calculations (andany economy, a sector of the economy, EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16,1994. assumptions made) necessary to productivity. com etition,jobs, the 

# P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: dotormino tho omission roductlons to onvlronmont,pub 

### IC health or Sofoty,or Shnronp. McDonald, Moss Moc\iu ~latci nI1o\11(1 

### IIIWO11(1 n~~l~~~litto(l. TI111 nlntn, lacnl, or tribal govnnrmsnt or Dt~roau, (202) 034-0530. tla~~~ouwtrc~tlo~~ nhoultl nlxo contnln nn comn\~inltlos; ovc~l\ietlon of whuthor tho I'M-10 2. cruoto 

### a sorlous lnconnlnto~~cy or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Naotl for
NAAQS will bo attainod by tho Corroction. othorwlso intorforo with anaction takon As 

### published, thoNotice tho projocted attainment dato in the SIP, or plannod b another a oncy; 3. matorialh alter the%udgotary wrong rulemaking number which needs i.e.. answer the question "Are the emission reductions to date sufficientto impact of entitlements, grants, Usel' fees, to be corrected'

or loan programs or the rights and Correction of Publicntion. ensure timely attainment'?"

Within 90 days of its receipt, EPA obligations of recipients thereof; or Accordingly, the publication on July
4. raise novel legal or issues 25, 1994 of the Public Notice regulations must determine whether or not the State's democs!ration is adequate and arising out oflegal mandates*the (MM Docket No. 94-74) which were the



### meets allthe requirements diwussed President's priorities, or the principles 

### FR
94-179921 

### is above. The EPA will notify the State of Set 

### forth in the 

### ExecutiveOrder. corrected as follows:

its determination by sending a letter to 

### Pursuant lo 

### the ofE.O. 12866* On page 37737, in the third column.

theappmpriateGovernoror Governor.s OMB has notified EPA that this action under 

## r7CFR Part 73. the rulemakine designee. is a "significant regulatory action" number is corrected to read "RM-8503" within the meaning ofthe Executive in lieu "RM-8476." 4. Failure to Submit RFPlMilestone Crder. For this reason, this action was Federal Communications Commission. Report or Meet RFPlMilestones submitted to OMB for review. Changes williarn F,caton,

If a State fails to submit the RFPI made in response to OMB suggestions or Acting

### secretory. milestone report within the required be [FR 94-19989 Filed &15-g4: 8:45 timeframes or if EPA determines that in the public record. BILLIHQ CODE 8712-41-~ the State has not met any applicable 

### B.RegulatoryFlexibility ~,-t RFPlmilestone. EPA shall require the State. within 9 months after such failure theAgency is required by or determination, to submit a plan section 553of the Administrative DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR

revision that assures that the State will Procedure Act (APAI or any other law 

### and Wildlife achieve the next milestone (or attain the to publish general notice of proposed
PM-10 NAAQS, if there is no next rulemaking for any proposed rule, the 50 

### CFR part 20 milestone) by the applicable date (see Agency propose 

### and make set:lion 189(c)(3)). For example,with available for public comment an initial RIN 1018-AA24 respect to RFP, ifthe required annual re~ulatory 

### The emission reductions are not achieved for regulatory flexibility requirements do 

### Bird Hunting:

the relevant years according to the RFP forthisPM-10 serious area Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on addendum to the General Preamble Certain Federal Indian Reservations schedule and the implementing milestone requirement, EPA will require it is not a regulatory action in and Ceded Landsfor

### the 1994-95

the Stateto submit a SIPrevision so that the context of the APA or the Regulatory
these deviations can be corrected and Act. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, attainment assured by the applicable Dated: July 29. 1994. Interior. date. This would also necessitate Carol M. Browner, ACTION: Proposed rule. implementation of ~ppropriate Administrator. contingency measures pursuant to IFRDOC. 94-19884 Filed &IS-94; SIJFAMARY:This rule proposes special section 172(c)(9). BILLING CODE 0560404 migratory bird hunting regulationsthat

Note alsothat failure to meet RFP, if would be established for certain tribes

not expeditiously corrected, could also 

### - on Federal Indian reservations,offresult in the application of sanctionsas FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS reservation trust lands and ceded lands described in sections 110(m) and 179(b) COMM~SS~ON for the 1994-95 migratory bird hunting of the amended Act (pursuant to a season. finding under section 179(a)(4)). 47 CFR Part

### 73 DATES: The comment period for these



### IX. Other Requirements [MM Docket No. 94-74; RM-84761 proposed regulations will end August 31, 1994. A.Executive Order 12866 Radio Broadcasting Service; Elrna, WA ADDRESSES: Address Comments to: Under Executive Orcier 12866 (E.O. 12866)(58FR 51.735 (October4, 1993)), \heAgency must determine whether the regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)review and the requirements of E.O. 12866. The E.O. 12866 defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may: 1.Have an annual cffcct on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Prouosed rule; Correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the Notice ofProposed Rule Making (MM Docket No. 94-74; RM-84761, which was published Monday, July25,1994 (59 FR 37737). TheNotice proposed the allotment of Channel 271A at Elma, Washington, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Director (FWSfMBMO),lJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,634 ARLSQ, 1849 C St., NW, Washington, DC 20240. Comments received, if any, on these proposed special hunting regulations and tribal proposals will be available for public inspection during normal business hours in Room 634-Arlington Sq~lare Building,4401 N. Fairfax Drive. Arlington. VA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: Dr. Keith A. Morehouse. Office of Migratory Bird Management. U.S. Fish and


# -