### 43084 Federal Register 

### I 

### Vol. 58, No. 155 

### I Friday. August 13, 1993 

### I Rules and Regulations

(lAC) 6-1-12 as amended, effective January 13, 1990.

IFR Doc. 93-19495 Filed 8-12-93; 8:45 ami

BILUNG CODE**~**

40 CFR Part 52
{AK2-1-6480; AD-FRL-4666-3)

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska

AGENCY: 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: 

### Final rule.

SUMMARY: 

### EPA proposes approval ofthe
state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State ofAlaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) for the purpose of bringing about the attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
ton nominal10 micrometers (PM 111). 

### The implementation plan was submitted by ADEC on October 15, 1991, to satisfy certain federal. Clean AirAct requirements for an approvable moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP for Eagle River, Alaska. This action to approve this plan has the effect of making requirements adopted by the ADEC federally enforceable by EPA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 

### October 12, 1993.
ADDRESSES: 

### Copies ofthe materials submitted to EPA may be examined during normal business hours at: Public Information Reference Unit, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, Docket# AK2-1- 5480, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT4J82, Seattle, Washington 98101; Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Christi Lee, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenu·e, AT-082, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone: 206/553-6510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 

### Background

The Eagle River, Alaska area was designated nonattainment for PM to 

### and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) ofthe Clean Air Act, upon enactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR

•The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant changes to the Act. See Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. Z399. References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended ("the Act"). The 

### 56694 (November 6, 

### 1991). The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 ofpart D, title I 

### ofthe Act.z EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends
to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted under Title I 

### ofthe Act. including those state submittals containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April28, 1992).

On March 12, 1993, EPA announced its proposed approval ofthe moderate nonattainment area PMto 

### SIP for Eagle River, Alaska (58 FR 13572-13575).1n · that rulemaking action, EPA described its interpretations ofTitle 1 

### and its rationale for proposing to approve the Eagle River PM 10 

### SIP taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented.

Those states containing initial moderate PMto nonattainment areas (those areas designated nonottainment under section 107(d)(4)(B)) were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by November 15, 1991:

1. 

### Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM) 

### (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology (RACf}) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 

### 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (induding air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicablebut no later than December 31, 1994, ora demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three years and which demonstrate reasonable further
progress (RFP) toward attainment by December 31, 1994; and

4. 

### Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources ofPM10 also apply to major stationary sources ofPM 10 

### precursors except where the Administrator determines that such

Clean Air Act Is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code at 4Z U.S.C. sections 7401, el seq.

•Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment areas generally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM"' nonattainment areas. At times, subpart 1 and subpart 4 overlap or connict. EPA has atlempted to clarify the relationship among these provisions in 1ho "General Preamble" and, as appropriate, in loday's notice and supporting informalion.

I kinOnlinc

-- 5X Fed. Reg 430X4 1993 

### sources do not contribute significantly
to PM to 

### levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 

### 188, and 189 of the Act.

Additional provisions are due at a later date. States with initial moderate PM Ill 

### nonattainment areas were required
to submit a permit program for the construction and operation ofnew and modified major stationary sources of PMtl1 

### by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such states also must submit contingency measures by November 15. 

### 1993, which become effective without further action by the state or EPA, upon

a determination byEPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP orto aHain the PMto 

### NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (see section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544).

II. 

### Response to Comments

EPA received no comments on its March 12, 1993, (58 FR 13572-13575) Federal Register proposal to approve the Eagle River moderate nonattainment

area PM to 

### SIP as a revision.

III.

### Today's Action

Section 110(k) ofthe Act sets out provisions governing EPA's review and processing of

### SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In today's action, EPA is approving the plan submitted to EPA on October 15, 1991. EPA has determined that the submittal meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe Act. Among other things, the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation has demonstrated the Eagle River moderate PMto 

### nonattainment area will attain the PM,., NAAQS 

### by December 31, 1994.

IV. 

### Administrative Review

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 

### 1989, the Office of Management and Budget waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements ofsection 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of
two years.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this revision will not have a significant

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 58, No. 155 

### I Friday, August 13, 1993 

### I Rules and Regulations

economic-impact on a**subs~antial** numberofsmall entities (See 46 FR 8709).

Underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare


### a regulatoryflexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final mle on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that 

### thB rule will not 

### h11ve-a significant impact on 

### a substantial number ofsmall entities. 

### Smailentities fnclude small**business~.** small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withiurisdictionover populatiol!sof less than50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter

### I, part D ofthe 

### CAA d{) not
create any new requirements,but simply approve requirements that the
state is

### a1 .ready imposing. Therefore, becausethe federal SIP-approvaldoes
not impose any new requir.ements,l certify that it does nothave a significant impact on any smallentitiesaffected.

· Moreover. dueto the nature o.£ the

federal-state 

### relationshipunder the CAA, preparation of

### a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federalinquiry into

### the economic reasona81eoess o(state action. The CAA forbids 

### EPA t.o base 

### its actiAillls concemi.Rg SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E:P.A..42'1 

## u.s. 246,**25~** (S.Ct. 197&}; 42 

## u.s.c.
74l0(a.)(2.). Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 1993. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the AdminiskawrofUMs 

### linalruledoes
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nordoes it extend ilie

### time withinwhich

### a petition for judicialreview maybefiled and shall

### notpostpoufue effectiyeness

### of sucll rule or action.Thisaction maynot be challengedlater 

### iD:**proceedin~s**to e·nforce its

### requmments. 

## ISee section 307{b}(2)) 

### lSee 42

# u.s.c.**7607~)(2))** LisI ofSubjects in 4U 

### CFitPart 52

Air 

### pollution control, Carbon monoxide.Hydtclcm:bons,lncorporation by**reference,lut~JDe.llltal** relatims, Lead, Nitrogen diox:iide, Ozone,**Particulat~**uralter,Reportilng and recordkeeping requiremellllts, 

### Sulfur oxides.

Note: lllCOI'porationbyreference ofthe Implr:mentalion P't8R A>rthe State ofAlaska

was appnM!dbytheDDectvr oflhe Office of the Fedeml**~eron** July 1, 1;!9>12.

Dated:

,._3.. 1!93.
Gerald'A. Emison, ActingRegft'mrrlAdministrotur.

Title 40, chapter 

### I.part 52ofthe Code ofFederalRegJJlations is amended as follows: 

### PART**~-{AillfNDED)** 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

### c-Alaska

2. Section 

### 52.70

### H. amendedby aQd.ing pwagsapa lc){l7)**t~**readas follows:

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

### • * 

### *

(c)* • • (17)0n October 17,1991,the State of Alaska**De~l'lli!Dl** 

### ofEDvinnmwm.ta.l Conservation submitted a 

### PM,o nonattainment area state implementation plan for Eagle1itiver, Alaska.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) October 15.,. 1991 

### lel1ller from Alaska Department

### ofEnvironmental Conservation toEPA Region l!J submitting the

### PM10 nonattainmenf area state implementation plan 

### far Eagle River.Alaska.



### (B) The**PM~**nonattainment 

### a.rea state implemen.tatioD plan for EagleKiver. Alaska, 

### as adoptedby 

### theAnclwrage Assembly on February i. 1'998sad effective 

### onSeptember 24, 19Q.t.
(FR**Do~:.** !113-19496 Filed 8--12-93;8:4'5' ami

BILUNG CODE I5IO-D0-8

lleinOnlinc

-- 5X Fed. Reg 43085 1993

### 13572 Federal Register 

### I Vol. 58, No. 47 

### I Friday, March 12, 1993 

### I Proposed Rules

40 CFR Part 52**[AK2-1~;AD-FRL~J** 

### Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan: Alaska

AGENCY: 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: 

### Notice ofproposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: 

### The EPA proposes approval of the state implementation plan (SIP) .revision submitted by the State of Alaska for the purposeofbringing about the attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than orequal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted by the state to satisfy certain federal Clean Air Act requirements for an approvabla moderate nonottainment area PM-10 SIP for Eagle River, Alaska.

DATES: 

### Comments on this proposed action mustbe postmarked by April12, 1993.
ADDRESSES: 

### Comments should be addressed to: Christi A. Lee, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-Q82, Seattle, Washington 98101. Copies ofthe state's submittal and other information are available for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air and Radiation Branch (AK2-1-

5480), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-Q82, Seattle, Washington 98101. Alaska Department ofEnvironmental

Conservation, 410 Willoughby, suite 100, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Christi Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-Q82, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone: (206) 553-1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### I. Background

The Eagle River, Alaska, area was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) ofthe Clean Air Act, upon enactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 1 

### See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of

1The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant chan88S to theAct. SeePublic Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein areto the Clean Air Act, as amended ("the Act"), The Clean AirAct is codlfted, as amended, In the U.S. Code at42 U.S.C. sections 7401. et seq. 

### Part D, Title I ofthe Act.2 

### The EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted underTitle I 

### ofthe Act, includingthose state submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (sea generally 57 FR 13498 (Aprilt6, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here onlyinbroad terms, the reader should refer to theGeneral Preamble for a more detailed discussion ofthe interpretations ofTitle I 

### advanced in today's proposal and the supporting rationale. In today's rulemaking action

on the Alaska moderate PM-10 SIP for Eagle River, EPA is proposingto apply its interpretationstaking into consideration the specific factual issues presented. Additional information supporting EPA's action on this particular area is available for inspection at the addresses indicated above. EPA will consider any timely submitted commentsbefore taking final action on today's proposal.

Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by November 15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology-RACT) shall be implemented nolaterthan December 10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than Decamber 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable;(Insert date 30 days after the date ofpublication). [Insert date 30 days after the date ofpublication). [Insert date 30 days after the date of publication). [Insert date 30 days after the date ofpublication). (Insert date 30 days after the date ofpublication).

3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment by Dec'!mber 31,1994;and

2Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable lo nonattainment areugenerally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable toPM10 nonattainmenl areu. At limes, subpart! and subpart 4 overlap or conftlct. EPA has attempted to clarify therelallonJhlp among these provisions in lhe "General Preamble" and. as appropriate, in loday's notice and supportins information.

HeinOnline --58 Fed. Reg. 13572 1993 

### 4. Provisions to assure that the con'trol requirements applicable to major stationary sources ofPM-10 also apply
to major stationary sources ofPM-10 precursors except where the Administratordetermines that such

sources do not contribute significantly
toPM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections t12(c), 188, and 189 ofthe Act.

Some provisions 

### are due at 

### a later date. States with initial moderate 

### PM10nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit program for the construction and operation ornew and modified major stationary sources of PM-10by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such states also must submit contingency measuresby November 15, 1993 which become effective without further action bythe state orEPA, upon

a determination byEPA that the area has failed to achieve 

### RFP orto attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (see section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-44).

II.

### Today'sAction

Section llO(k) ofthe Act sets out provisions governingEPA's review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In 

### today's action, EPA is 

### proposing to approve the plan revision certified by the Lieutenant Governor on June 21, 1991 and submitted to EPA on October 15, 1991 because it 

### meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe Act.



### A. Analysis of State Submissicn

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to EPA. Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(1) ofthe Act provides that each implementation plan submittedby a state mustbe adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. 3



### EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore
warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565}. EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 56 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). EPA attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation oflaw ifa completeness

. determination is not made byEPA six months after receipt ofthe submission.**~Section** 17Z(c)(7) oftheAct requires that plan provisions for nonaltalnment areas meellhe applicable provisions ofsection 110(a)(2).

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 58, 

### No. 47 

### I Friday, March 

### 12, 1993 

### I Proposed Rules 

### 13573

After providing adequate public notice, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) held a public hearing on November 21, 1989.to entertain publiccomment on the implementation plan for the Eagle River nonattainment. Following the public hearing the plan was adoptedby the state and signed by the Governor on July 15, 1990, and submitted to EPA as

a proposed revision to the SIP on July 17, 1990. The state subsequently readopted the SIP revisions and resubmitted them to EPA on October 15, 1991.

The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as amendedby 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be complete and a letter dated February 19, 1992, was forwarded to the Director of ADEC indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be taken in the review process.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) ofthe Act requires that nonattainment plan provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources ofrelevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. Because the submission ofthe emissions inventory is a necessary adjunct to an area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emission!! inventory mustbereceived with the demonstration (see 57 FR 13539).

ADEC submitted an emissions inventory for base year 1987. Eagle River's base year emissions inventory identified the major source categories as fugitive dust from paved and unpaved
streets and windblown dust. Since the PM-10 sources in the area are seasonal in nature and worst case emissions from .different sources may not occur concurrently, a separate inventory was compiled for each ofthe four seasons. The primary source offall seasonal PM10 is locally generated road dust. Windblown dust, sanding material and vehicle-generated dust from paved roads are·significant sources of springtime PM-10. The combined contribution of all other sources was estimated to be less than ten percent oftotal emissions in boththe spring and fall seasons.

EPA is proposingto approve the emissions inventory because itgenerally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a sufficientbasis for determining the adequacy ofthe attainment demonstration for this area.4 For further details see theTechnical Support Document (TSD) corresponding with

. this action, which is available at the address indicated above.

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(l)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion ofEPA's interpretation ofthe RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539'-13545 and 1356G13561). ThePM-10problem in the area is more severe in the fall and for this
reason, separate design concentrations

were determinedfor fall and spring. The fall 24·hour design value of238**~g/m:t** and the spring design value of 166**~g/** m3 are based on monitored values. (The design value, which reflects high PM-10 concentrations in the area, is the basis for determining the amount ofreduction needed to attain the NAAQS). Spring

season emissions are presently below the threshold emission rate necessary to

ensure attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS

as a result ofthe completion ofpaving projects. Fall season PM-10 levels are projected to be in attainment after completion ofanticipated projects by the end of 1992.

· In light ofthe PM-10 sources in the_

area described in the emissions inventory discussion above, the Eagle River attainment plan targeted controls offugitive dust from unpaved and

. paved streets for PM-10 emission reductions. 5 The Municipality of Anchorage has identified funds that will be devoted to implementing the road paving and surfacing proj9cts intended
to address the resuspended road dust problem in the area. EPA views these

measures as enforceable control

measures as required by sections 10(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) ofthe Act. The

4 ThoEPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior to the enacbnent oftho Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidanct1 provided in this document appears to be consistent with the Act.

'Where sources ofPM-10 contribute

. insignificantly to the PM-10 problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would beunreaaonable(and would not constituteRACM) to require the sources to implement potentially available control

, measures. 57 FR 13540. As indicated, thecombined contribution ofall other aourct1s Is estimated to be less than ten percent oftotal emissions. For this

reason. EPA believes it would be unreasonable to require these other sources to Implement potentially available control measures. Further, EPA believes Implementation of such additional controls In this case would not expedite attainment and, therefore. suchmeasures are not "reasonably" required. 57 FR 13543. ·

HeinOnlinc --58 Fed. Reg 13573 1993 Municipality and ADEC should inform EPA ifthey believe the commitment to Implement these measures Is not enforceable. The measures intended to address resuspended road dust are described in further detail below. Note that most ofthe measures in question

were scheduled for completion prior to today's action. Therefore, in taking final action on this SIP, EPA intends to considerany comments addressing tbe
progress that has been made in implementing the measures.

A 40 percent reduction in fall emissions is required to attain the NAAQS. The plan uses a fall emission reduction of56 percent from controls on resuspended road dust. A significant reduction in fall PM-10 emissions occurred between 1987 and 1991 as a result ofroad paving and surfacing projects in Eagle River. Ofthe 22 miles ofunpaved roads in the nonattainment (NA) area, 3.4 miles were strip-paved by mid-1989. In addition to these paving projects, 3.2 miles ofrecycled asphalt paving (RAP) has been applied to gravel roadways in the NA area. RAP is a product salvaged from road construction projects. To achieve the emission reduction goals, the Eagle River Rural Road Service Board (ERRRSB) has included 8.6 miles ofexisting gravel roadway within the PM-10 NA area on

a priority list for paving or recycled asphalt improvements. Tho ERRRSB received $1.5 million in FY 92 capital furids for road projects. A significant portion is allocated for strip paving and approximately halfis designated for RAP projects which would surface about 25 additional miles ofroad. This would include all areas in the NA area and a few outlying areas. The Municipality expected to complete most ofthe road surfacing projects in the May through October 1992 construction

season. A small numberofthe hot asphalt paving projects may be delayed

one year for pavement engineering. The Municipality ofAnchorage expects to complete all8.6 miles ofroad surfacing _by the end of 1993.

· By the end of 1989, fall PM-10 omissions were estimated to have been reduced by 32 percent. An additional 24 percent omission reduction is projected
to result from planned 1992-93 projects. A total omission reduction of 12 percent from paving, 28 percent hom recycled asphalt projects and 15 percent from reduced track out ofdirt onto paved
streets results in a projected overall emission reduction of56 percent This estimated reduction exceeds the 40 percent reduction required to reach attainment.

. ·

An 11 percent reduction is required for spring emissions to yield compliance

## 13514 li'MuaJ llegistet 

### I 'Vol. sa, No

.. 

### 41 

### I .Friday, Mardt· 12, 1883 

### I Proposed 

### Rttles

with theNAAQS.

### The plan. uses " sprmg emissiou r.duet!OD! oftz.

### pncent from contnlis 

### anresuspended

## roectdust.. Spring emissions have abaadybeea reduced by 8% asa resultof

. improvements in 

### wintarsanding**~d** street

### cl81111·up 

### practlcea instituted 

### In thewinterof 1987-1988.Tfte 

### A.lasb DepartmentofTransportation has estimated,that the quutity ofroad sand appljJ!d to state and municipalroads 

### has been cut 

### from 17,000

### to 10,000tons during a typical winter. Furthennore,by tightening material specifications, the silt fraction (grain size less than 75 microns) ofthe sanding material 

### has beenreduced. 

### Inaddition to reductions achieved

### through improved winter sandingmethods, road paving and · recycled asphalt projects are 8$limated
to reduce spr.lng emissioasbyan additional 4 percent Implementation of these two measures reS'IIlts in a 

### total estimated reduction 

### of 12 perceut in spring emissions.

Changes in thequantity

### ofroad sanding material applied during winter, the tighteatlng ofsanding material specifications and road surfacing projects have sufficiently reduced emissions to achieve NAAQS attainment in the &):!ring season.

EPA 

### has reviewe<l 

### the ADEC's explanationBlld associated documentation and coacluded that 

### it adequ&tely Justifies the control

measurestobe imflemented.

### The implementation o ADEC's l'llQderate PM-10 nonattainment plan control strategy will.provide 

### for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQSin 

### the Eagle River, Alaska nonattaimnentarea by December 31, 1992, By thisnetice, EPA is proposing to approve the ADE(::'s control strategy as Satisfying the

### RACM (lncludinz 

### RACT) requirement.

4. Demonstratioil

As. noted,the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainmentareas must submit

### a demonstration(including airquality modeling) showin& thattheplan wi.ll provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable

### INtno Jeterthan. December 31, 1994 (s&e' section 189(a)(1)(B)Ii) ofthe Act}. ThtiGeneral Preamble setsout EPA'sguidance on the

use ofmodelingfor moderate area attainment demonstrations (57 FR 13539). Altamatively, if,ft.DEC does not submit a demonstlatioasfattainment, ADEC 

### must show

### thatattainment by Decembell31, 

### t994 is impracticable (section**189(a)(1)(B){ii)~** ·

The Mumeipality of

### Ancllorage-Air PollutionControlAgency (AAPCA).In· consultation with**th~** Alaska DeparlmantofEnviroomentol ConservaUen (1\DEC) condue:ta6an 

### attainment delnonetratiOR using receptor mod.

### eling rorEagle River, Alaska and a "grid-by-grid

### rollback" approach.

### This**d&~~~onstJetion** indicates that the NAAQS for PM-10 will

### be attained by**19~2** 

### inthe Eagle River

. nonattainment 

### area and maintained in future years. The 24-bourPM-10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (vg/m3), and the standard is attained when the expected numberofdays per calendaryear with a 24-bouraverage concentration above 150tJs/m3 is equal
to or Jess than one (see 40 CFR section 50.6), The annual PM-10 NAAQS Is 50 vg/m3

, and the standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic·

mean concentration 

### is less than orequal · to 50 vg/m3 (id). The demonstration predicted that the 24-hourdesign concentration in the attainment yearof 1992 will 

### be below 150 pglm1

, thus demonstrating attainment ofthe 24-hour PM-10NAAQS. Ambient data show that the area has never approached an exceedance ofthe annual standard. Since no violations oftheannual NAAQS have

### been noted with the
current emissions inventory and since

. the inventory was "rolled'back" to show·

attainment- ofthe 24-hourNAAQS, no violatitlns ofthe annual NAAQS are likely. TherefOre, EPA believesthat ADEC has adequately demonstrated'that the annual standard hasbeen attainedIn the Eagle River nonattalnment area.

Tbe control strategy used to achieve these design concentrations is summarized in 

### the section titled "RACM (including RACf)." Fore more detailed description ofthe attainment demonstration and thecontrol strategy used, see the TSD.

5. PM-10 Precursors

The.controlrequirements which 

### are applicable to major stationary sources of PM-10, also apply to major stationary

sources ofPM-10 precursors unless EPA detennines such sources 

### do not contributesignificantly to PM-10 levels in excess ofthe NAAQS in that area (see section 189(e) ofthe Act).

The emissionsinventory for the Eagle Rivernonattainment area did notreveal · any significant stationary source& of PM-10 precursors, and stationary

sources as a whole provide an insignificantcontribution to Eagle River's ambientPM-10 concentrations.

as demonstrated through receptor modeling for the area. Thus, ambient PM-10 precursorconcentrations in 

### tbe Eagle. River nonattainmant areaare considered to

### ba de mwmis aad**EP~** is proposinl'tO srantl'be are&· the exclusfan from PM-10 precursorcontrol' requirements authorized**Wldin~** 

### sactiOR• 189(e) ofthe Act.

HeinOnline

-- 58 Fed. Reg. 13574 1993 6. 

### QuantitativeMilestonesand Reasonable Further Progress 

### (RFPJ

The PM-10 nonattainment 8J'8a 

### plo revisions demonstratinsattainment.
must containquantitative milestone& which are tobe achieved avery

### three
years

### until the area i11redesiguated attainmentand which demonstrate RFP,

as defined 

### in section 171·(1), 

### toward· attainmea.tbyDecember31, 1994 (see section 189(c} ofthe

### Act}. 

### RFP is defined in section 171(1) as such annual. incremental reductions in emissionsof the relevant air pollutant as 

### are required. by part 

### D or may 1'8880nably 

### be·required by theAdministzatorfor the purpose of ensuringattainment of

### the applicable NAAQS by tbe applicable date.



### In implementing

### RFP (Qrthis 

### initial moderate area, EPA has 1'8viewedthe attainment demonstrati-on.and control strategy for the areato determine whether annual incremental MductiollS

are different from those provided 

### in the SIP and shouldbe required

### in order

### to

ensure attainment of

### the PM-10NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). Eagle River demonstrates attainment in 1992 and maintenance through 1·994, and therefore &&tisfies the initial quantitative·milestone· requirement (see 51 FR 13539tand RFP for the area.

7. Enforceability Issues

All measures and othereleJOents in the SIP must be enforceabl'vby the-state and EPA (see sections t72(c)(&). 110(a)(2)(A) and 57

### FR**13551~** 

### EPA criteria eddreSBingthe enforceabilityof SIP's and SIP ruvisions were

### stated in a September23, 1987 memorandum fwitbattachments} from 

## J. CraigPotter, Assistant Administrator for Airend Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR t354t:f.' Nonattainmentarea plan provisions
must also containa program 

### that provides for enforcement ofthecontrol

measures and other**elemen~** in the 

### SIP (see section llO(a)(2)(C)}'. ·

The particularcontrofmeeSttres contained in the SIP are addressed above under thesectionheaded "RACM (including 

### RACO." These cont'rol

measures apply ta the types ofactivities Identified inthat discusskm including, for example, fugitive dust 

### from paved and unpaved streets. 

### The SIPprovides that the affected activities willbe controlled throughout tbe·ent:lre nonattainment area;

As discussed previously, a state grant' hasbeen allocated by

### the munid

### polity

to finance various road surfacing and paving measuresto address 

### PM-

### to·**emission~r**from road dusr.

# rn addition,. both the state and local municipality have legal authority to adopt levy taxes,

### Federal Register I 

### Vol. 58, No. 47 I Friday, 

### March 12, 1993 I 

### Proposed Rules 

### 13575

adopt annual budgets andborrow funds. EPA believes the SIP measures to address PM-10 emissions are enforceable. Further, the ADEC has a program that will ensure that control

measures contained in the Eagle River PM-10 SIP (i.e., Title 21 ofthe Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC), sections 21.85.030 and 21.45.0BO.w.7) ·
are adequately enforced.

B. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) ofthe Act, all moderate nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include contingency measures (see 

### generally 57 

### FR 13543-13544). These

measures must be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial moderate nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other available measures that are not part ofthe area's control strategy. These

measures must take effect without further action by the state or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. Since contingency

measures were not due with the November 15, 1991 moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements, EPA is not taking any action on this requirement in today's proposal.

Ill.

### Implications ofToday's Action

EPA is proposing to approve the plan revision submitted to EPA on November 15, 1991, for the Eagle River nonattainment area. Among other things, ADEC has demonstrated that the Eagle River moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1992.

As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM-10 · nonattainment areas are due at later dates. EPA will detennine the adequacy ofany such submittal as appropriate.

IV. RequestrorPublic Comments

EPA is requesting comments on all aspects oftoday's proposal. As indicated at the outset ofthis notice, EPA will consider any comments postmarked by April12, 1993.

V. Administrative Review

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofSection 3 ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction

over populations ofless than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter 

### I, Part D ofthe

### CAA do not create any new requirements, but·

. simply approve requirements that the
state is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-approval does
not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant · impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due tQ the nature ofthe federal-state relationship under the 

### CAA, preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The 

### CAA forbids EPA to base iis actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 

### 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic and environmental factors and In relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

List ofSubjects in40 

### CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

### February 18, 1993.

Dana A. Rasmll858n, RegionalAdministrator. (FR Doc. 93-5660 Filed 3-11-93; 8:45 ami

BILUNG CODE IJ560.-5CI...4'

40 CFA Part 52
[WA&-1-5519; AD-FRL-4603-4j)
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Washington

AGENCY: 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: 

### Notice ofproposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: 

### TheEPA proposes approval of the state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State ofWashington for the purpose ofbringing about the attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for

HeinOnline --58 Fed. Reg. 13575 1993 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted by the·State to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements for an approvable moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP for Thurston County.Washington.
DATES: 

### Commenta on this proposed action must be postmarked by April12. 1993.
ADDRESSES: 

### Comments shouldbe addressed to: George Lauderdale, EJJvironmental Protection Agency. Air and Radiation Branch, Docket No. WA6-1-5519,1200 Sixth Avenue, AT082, Seattle, Washington 98101.

Copies ofthe State's submittal and other infonnation are available for inspection during nonnal business hours at the following location: Air and Radiation Branch (WA6-1-

5519), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1200 Sixth Avenue, AT--082, Seattle, Washington 98101. State ofWashington Department of

Ecology, College Street Building, 4550 Third Avenue Southeast, Olympia, Washington 98504.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### George Lauderdale, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Branch, Docket No. WA6-1-5519, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-082, Seattle, Washington 98101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### I. Background

The Thurston County, Washington,

area (i.e. cities ofOlympia, Tumwater, and Lacey) was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified

as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) arid 1BB(a) ofthe Clean AirAct, upon enactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 1 

### See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 ofPart D. Title I of the Act. 2 

### The EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted under Title I ofthe Act, including those State

1The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant changes lo the Act. Sae Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended ("the Act"). The Clean Air Act Is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code at n U.S.C. sactions ?401, et seq. ·

2 Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment aroas generally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM-

. 10 nonattainmenl areas. At times. subpart 1 and

subpart 4 overlap or connlct. EPA has attempted to clartry the relationship among these provisions In the "General Preamble" and, as appropriate, in today's nolico and supporting informalion.