37324 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to:

Richard R. Long, Director, Air &

Radiation Program (8P–AR), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for public

inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday at the following

office: United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, Air &

Radiation Program, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Houk, Air & Radiation Program (8P–

AR), United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466 ph. (303) 312–6446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: June 1, 2000.

Jack McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 00–14994 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NV–022–0022; FRL–6715–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Nevada—Las

Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area; PM–

10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to

disapprove the moderate and serious

nonattainment area state

implementation plans (SIPs) submitted

by the State of Nevada for attaining the

particulate matter (PM–10) national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

in the Las Vegas Valley. EPA is

proposing to disapprove the reasonably

available control measure/best available

control measure (RACM/BACM) and

rate of progress provisions in both the

moderate and serious area SIPs, and the

attainment demonstration provision in

the serious area SIP. EPA is also

proposing to deny the State’s request for

an extension to December 31, 2006 to

attain the PM–10 NAAQS in the area. If

EPA takes a final disapproval action, it

will trigger the 18-month clock for

mandatory application of sanctions and

the 2-year time clock for a federal

implementation plan (FIP) under the

Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by August 14,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the EPA contact below.

Copies of the State’s submittal and other

information are contained in the docket

for this rulemaking. The docket is

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following location:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

The docket can also be viewed at our

web site: www.epa.gov/region9/.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below: Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection, 333 West

Nye Lane, Carson City, Nevada, 89710;

and, Clark County Department of

Comprehensive Planning, 500 South

Grand Central Parkway, 3012, Las

Vegas, Nevada, 89155–1741.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Biland, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. (415)

744–1227, e-mail address:

biland.larry@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

1. Designation and Classification

On the date of enactment of the 1990

CAA Amendments, PM–10 areas,

including the Las Vegas Valley Planning

Area, meeting the qualifications of

section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act,

were designated nonattainment by

operation of law. See 56 FR 11101

(March 15, 1991). The boundaries of the

Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area

(Hydrologic Unit #212) are codified at

40 CFR 81.329.

Once an area is designated

nonattainment, section 188 of the CAA

outlines the process for classification of

the area and establishes the area’s

attainment deadline. In accordance with

section 188(a), at the time of

designation, all PM–10 nonattainment

areas, including the Las Vegas Valley,

were initially classified as moderate by

operation of law. Section 188(b)(1) of

the Act further provides that moderate

areas can subsequently be reclassified as

serious before the applicable moderate

area attainment date if at any time EPA

determines that the area cannot

‘‘practicably’’ attain the PM–10 NAAQS

by this attainment date.

Nevada submitted a moderate area

PM–10 plan for Las Vegas Valley on

December 6, 1991. Based on this

submittal, EPA determined on January

8, 1993, that the Las Vegas Valley could

not practicably attain both the annual

and 24-hour standards by the applicable

attainment deadline for moderate areas

(December 31, 1994, per section

188(c)(1) of the Act), and reclassified the

Las Vegas Valley as serious (58 FR

3334). In accordance with section

189(b)(2) of the Act, SIP revisions for

the Las Vegas Valley addressing the

requirements for serious PM–10

nonattainment areas in section 189(b)

and (c) of the Act were required to be

submitted by August 8, 1994 and

February 8, 1997.

2. Moderate Area Planning

Requirements

The air quality planning requirements

for PM–10 nonattainment areas are set

out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the

Clean Air Act. Those states containing

initial moderate PM–10 nonattainment

areas were required to submit, among

other things, the following provisions by

November 15, 1991:

(a) Provisions to assure that

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) (including such reductions in

emissions from existing sources in the

area as may be obtained through the

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably

available control technology (RACT))

shall be implemented no later than

December 10, 1993 (CAA sections

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C));

(b) Provisions to assure

implementation of RACT on major

stationary sources of PM–10 precursors

except where EPA has determined that

such sources do not contribute

significantly to exceedances of the PM–

10 standards (CAA section 189(e));

(c) Either a demonstration (including

a complete emissions inventory and air

quality modeling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994 or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable (CAA sections 188(c)(1)

and 189(a)(1)(B));

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37325

1See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498

(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

2See ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date

Waivers for PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;

Addendum to the General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16,

1994).

(d) For plan revisions demonstrating

attainment, quantitative milestones

which are to be achieved every 3 years

and which demonstrate reasonable

further progress (RFP) toward

attainment by December 31, 1994 (CAA

section 189(c)); and

(e) For plan revisions demonstrating

impracticability, such annual

incremental reductions in PM–10

emissions as are required by part D of

the Act or may reasonably be required

by the Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the PM–10

NAAQS by the applicable attainment

date (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and

171(1)).

Moderate area plans were also

required to meet the generally

applicable SIP requirements for

reasonable notice and public hearing

under section 110(l), necessary

assurances that the implementing

agencies have adequate personnel,

funding and authority under section

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280; and

the description of enforcement methods

as required by 40 CFR 51.111, and EPA

guidance implementing these sections.

3. Serious Area Planning Requirements

Moderate PM–10 areas that have been

reclassified to serious, such as the Las

Vegas Valley area, in addition to

meeting the moderate area requirements

outlined above, must submit a plan that

includes provisions addressing

additional requirements. The additional

serious area requirements that are

relevant to this proposed action include:

(a) A demonstration (including a

complete emissions inventory and air

quality modeling) that the plan provides

for attainment of the PM–10 standards

by December 31, 2001, or for any area

seeking an extension of that date, a

demonstration that attainment by 2001

is impracticable and a demonstration of

attainment by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable (CAA

sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));

(b) Provisions to assure that the best

available control measures (BACM)

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of best available control

technology (BACT)) for the control of

PM–10 shall be implemented no later

than 4 years after the area is reclassified

(CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));

(c) Provisions to assure

implementation of BACT on major

stationary sources of PM–10 precursors

except where EPA has determined that

such sources do not contribute

significantly to exceedances of the PM–

10 standards (CAA section 189(e)); and

(d) Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate RFP toward attainment by

the applicable attainment date (CAA

section 189(c)).

As discussed above in connection

with the moderate area plan

requirements, SIPs submitted to meet

the CAA’s serious area requirements

must conform to general requirements

applicable to all SIPs.

B. EPA Guidance

EPA has issued a ‘‘General

Preamble’’ 1 describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how the Agency

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the Act,

including those state submittals

containing moderate PM–10

nonattainment area SIP provisions. EPA

has also issued an Addendum to the

General Preamble (Addendum)

describing the Agency’s preliminary

views on how it intends to review SIPs

and SIP revisions containing serious

area plan provisions.2

1. RACM/BACM

Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)

read together require that moderate area

PM–10 SIPs include RACM and RACT

for existing sources of PM–10. These

SIPs were to provide for implementation

of RACM/RACT no later than December

10, 1993. Since the moderate area

deadline for the implementation of

RACM/RACT has passed, EPA has

concluded that the RACM/RACT

required in the State’s moderate plan

must now be implemented as soon as

possible. Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687,

691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted

this requirement to be ‘‘as soon as

practicable.’’ 63 FR 15920, 15926 (Apr.

1, 1998).

The methodology for determining

RACM/RACT is described in detail in

the General Preamble. 57 FR at 13540–

13541. In summary, EPA suggests

starting to define RACM with the list of

available control measures for fugitive

dust, residential wood combustion, and

prescribed burning contained in

Appendices C1, C2, and C3 of the

General Preamble and adding to this list

any additional control measures

proposed and documented in public

comments. The state can then cull from

the list any measures for insignificant

emission sources of PM–10 and any

measures that are unreasonable for

technological or economic reasons. The

General Preamble does not define

insignificant except to say that it would

be unreasonable to apply controls to

sources that are negligible (‘‘de

minimis’’) contributors to ambient

concentrations. However, in its serious

area plan guidance, EPA does establish

a presumption, for use in BACM

determinations, that a ‘‘significant

contributor’’ source category as one that

contributes 1 μg/m3 or more of PM–10

to a location of annual violation and 5

μg/m3 to a location of 24-hour violation.

Addendum at 42011. EPA has also used

this same definition to define

significance in determining which

source categories require the application

of RACM. See 63 FR 41326, 41331 (Aug.

3, 1998).

For any RACM that are rejected by the

state, the plan must provide a reasoned

justification for the rejection. Once the

final list of RACM is defined, each

RACM must be converted into a legally

enforceable vehicle such as a rule,

permit, or other enforceable document.

General Preamble at 13541.

Under CAA section 189(b)(2), for

moderate areas that have been

reclassified as serious under section

188(b)(1), the state must submit BACM

18 month after reclassification, i.e.,

August 8, 1994 for the Las Vegas Valley

area, and must implement those

measures four years after

reclassification, i.e., by February 8,

1997. As with the RACM/RACT

implementation deadline, the BACM/

BACT deadline has passed. Therefore

BACM/BACT must now be

implemented as soon as practicable.

BACM is defined as the ‘‘maximum

degree of emission reduction of PM–10

and PM–10 precursors from a

[significant] source [category] which is

determined on a case-by-case basis,

taking into account energy,

environmental, and economic impacts

and other costs, to be achievable for

such sources through application of

production processes and available

methods, systems, and techniques.

. . .’’ Addendum at 42010. BACM/

BACT must be determined and

documented consistent with the

Addendum (at 42012–14) and must be

applied, at a minimum, to each

significant source or source category.

Addendum at 42010. The state must

document its selection of BACM by

showing what control measures

applicable to each significant source

category were considered. Addendum at

42014. BACM should go beyond

existing RACM controls and can include

37326 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

3 1994 BACM Plan, pgs. 35–36 and 1995 RACM

Addendum, pg. 5.

4 1991 Moderate Plan, pg. 36.

5As noted previously, EPA is proposing no action

on these demonstrations as the moderate area

attainment requirements for the Las Vegas Valley

have been superseded by those applicable to serious

areas.

expanded use of RACM controls (e.g.,

paving more miles of unpaved roads).

Addendum at 42013.

2. RFP/Quantitative Milestones

Both PM–10 moderate and serious

area nonattainment SIPs demonstrating

attainment must include quantitative

milestones to be achieved every three

years until the area is designated

attainment and must demonstrate RFP

toward attainment by the applicable

date. CAA section 189(c)(1). EPA has

addressed these requirements in several

guidance documents. See the General

Preamble at 13539, the Addendum at

42015–42017, and the memorandum

from Sally Shaver, EPA, to EPA Division

Directors, ‘‘Criteria for Granting 1-Year

Extensions of Moderate PM–10

Nonattainment Area Attainment Dates,

Making Attainment Determinations, and

Reporting on Quantitative Milestones,’’

November 14, 1994 (Shaver

memorandum). Of these guidance

documents, the most comprehensive is

the Addendum which discusses both

the RFP annual incremental reduction

requirement and the appropriate

interpretation of the milestone

requirement as it relates to moderate

areas that have been reclassified to

serious. EPA has considerable discretion

in reviewing the SIP to determine

whether the annual incremental

emission reductions to be achieved are

reasonable in light of the statutory

objective of timely attainment.

Addendum at 42015.

With respect to the quantitative

milestone requirement, for initial

moderate areas, EPA concluded that the

SIP should initially address at least two

milestones and that the starting point

for the first 3-year period would be the

SIP submittal due date, i.e. November

15, 1991. EPA further concluded that

since the time lag between the first

milestone date (November 15, 1994) and

the December 31, 1994 attainment

deadline was de minimis, emission

reduction progress made between the

submittal date and December 31, 1994

would satisfy the first milestone. The

second milestone to be addressed by

these initial moderate area SIPs was

November 15, 1997. General Preamble at

131539, Addendum at 42016, and

Shaver memorandum. For moderate

areas that are reclassified as serious, the

third milestone achievement date is

November 15, 2000. Addendum at

42016. The quantitative milestones

should consist of elements that allow

progress to be quantified or measured,

e.g., percent compliance with

implemented control measures.

Addendum at 42016.

EPA will assess whether an area has

achieved RFP in conjunction with

determining compliance with the

quantitative milestone requirement.

Thus a state should address compliance

with both requirements in its RFP/

milestone reports. The contents of these

reports is discussed in the General

Preamble, the Addendum, and the

Shaver memorandum.

II. Evaluation of the State’s Submittals

A. Identification of SIPs

This proposal covers the PM–10

moderate area nonattainment plan titled

‘‘PM–10 Air Quality Implementation

Plan, Las Vegas Valley, Clark County,

Nevada’’, (1991 Moderate Plan)

submitted to EPA by the Nevada State

Department of Natural Resources and

Conservation on December 6, 1991; a

February 15, 1995 submittal of an

‘‘Addendum to the ‘Moderate Area’ PM–

10 State Implementation Plan for the

Las Vegas Valley’’ (1995 RACM

Addendum); a BACM analysis plan

titled ‘‘Providing for the Evaluation,

Adoption and Implementation of Best

Available Control Measures and Best

Available Control Technology to

Improve PM–10 Air Quality,’’ (1994

BACM Plan) submitted on December 6,

1994; and the PM–10 serious area

nonattainment plan for the Las Vegas

Valley nonattainment area titled

‘‘Particulate Matter (PM–10) Attainment

Demonstration Plan’’ (1997 Serious

Plan), submitted to EPA on August 25,

1997. ‘‘Moderate Area SIP’’ in this

proposal refers collectively to the 1991

Moderate Plan and the 1995 RACM

Addendum. ‘‘Serious Area SIP’’ refers

collectively to the 1994 BACM Plan and

the 1997 Serious Plan.

The Clark County Department of

Comprehensive Planning and the Clark

County Health District are the agencies

responsible for addressing PM–10

pollution in the Las Vegas Valley. The

Clark County Department of

Comprehensive Planning is responsible

for the development of the SIP. The

Clark County Health District is

responsible for development of rules

and regulations, air permits,

enforcement, and air monitoring.

1. The Las Vegas Valley Moderate Area

SIP

Since the moderate area attainment

deadline, December 31, 1994, has

passed, and the Las Vegas Valley has

been reclassified from a moderate to a

serious nonattainment area, EPA

believes that the moderate area

attainment demonstration requirements

have been superseded by the area’s

reclassification. See, e.g., 61 FR 54972,

54974 (October 23, 1996). Therefore,

EPA addresses only the RACM/RACT

and rate of progress provisions of the

Moderate Area SIP in this notice.

a. Evaluation of RACM/RACT. EPA is

proposing to disapprove the RACM

demonstration in the Moderate Area SIP

because, among other things, the control

measures are not comprehensive enough

to constitute RACM for any source

category identified in the Moderate Area

SIP as significant for the annual or 24-

hour standard. For example, the only

control measures submitted as RACM

for disturbed vacant land include

textual references to Clark County’s

efforts to encourage limits on off-road

motor vehicle use on public lands and

local government policies promoting

infill development.3 These measures do

not establish requirements that prevent

vacant land disturbances or mitigate

disturbed vacant land throughout the

PM–10 nonattainment area and thus do

not meet the RACM requirements of the

CAA.

EPA is also proposing to disapprove

the Moderate Area SIP with respect to

the RACT requirement for primary PM–

10 sources because existing sources are

not subject to controls as required by the

CAA 4. Furthermore, we cannot fully

approve Rule 34, New Source

Performance Standards for Nonmetallic

Mineral Mining and Processing, which

was submitted as RACT. For a more

detailed review of RACM/RACT, see the

Technical Support Document (TSD) that

is part of this docket.

b. Evaluation of RFP /Quantitative

Milestones. The 1991 Moderate Plan

includes a demonstration of attainment

for the annual standard and an

impracticablity demonstration for the

24-hour standard. See 1991 Moderate

Plan, pp. 54–58.5 PM–10 moderate area

nonattainment SIPs demonstrating

attainment must include quantitative

milestones to be achieved every three

years until the area is redesignated

attainment and must demonstrate RFP

toward attainment of both standards by

the applicable date. CAA sections

172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1). Section 171(1)

of the Act defines RFP as ‘‘such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by this part [part D of title I] or may

reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37327

6Natural sources are discussed further in the

TSD.

7 1997 Serious Plan, pp. 35–37.

8While County Ordinance 1541 was submitted as

BACM for stationary sources and it contains

requirements for unpaved parking lots located at

certain types of non-metallic mineral plants, there

are no measures to address other unpaved parking

lots throughout the PM–10 nonattainment area.

9 57 FR 13498, 13541 (April 16, 1992); Addendum

at 42014.

10Pg. 53.

11For example, a copy of a dust control permit

form for construction sites, containing boilerplate

requirements, was included in the 1997 Serious

Plan. However, these requirements should be

placed into a rule that Clark County Health District

adopts and submits to EPA.

national ambient air quality standard by

the applicable date.’’ For PM–10

moderate area nonattainment SIPs

demonstrating impracticability, sections

172(c)(2) and 171(1) apply. The

Moderate Area SIP for the Las Vegas

Valley does not contain any annual

emission reductions or quantitative

milestones. Therefore, EPA proposes to

disapprove the Moderate Area SIP for

failing to meet the CAA requirements

for RFP and quantitative milestones.

2. The Las Vegas Valley Serious Area

SIP

a. Emission Inventory. All emission

inventories must be current,

comprehensive, and complete. Section

172(c)(3). Current inventories present

emissions for a relatively recent year.

Comprehensive inventories desegregate

the emission sources into many.

Complete inventories address all of the

sources of emissions of the subject

pollutant in the area of concern.

The 1997 Serious Plan describes the

average annual emissions of directly

emitted PM–10 for the base and current

attainment years (1995 and 2001) and

the March 11, 1994 and 2001 design day

for the 1,500 square mile Las Vegas

Valley. The significant sources for the

24-hour standard were found to be

construction activities which contribute

48.5%, disturbed vacant land with

30.9%, and natural sources 6 with 14%

of the total. The total for these three

sources is 93.4%. The significant

sources for the annual standard were

found to be construction activities

which contribute 42.6%. Paved and

unpaved road dust contributes 11.1%,

disturbed vacant land with 6.4%, and

natural sources with 36.2% of the total.

The total for these four sources is

96.3%.7

Generally the inventory estimates in

the 1997 Serious Plan are well

documented, the inventory is

reasonably current and the

categorization of the inventory is fairly

complete. However, the 1997 Serious

Plan’s inventory has several significant

shortcomings:

• The plan does not address

inventories for condensible particulate

or PM–10 precursors, including volatile

organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and

ammonia (NH3). The insignificance of

these particulate sources is address in

the modeling section of this Notice.

Based on air quality analysis, these

sources would appear to have a de

minimis impact.

• The plan does not include emission

estimates for airport activities,

agricultural activities, various cooking

methods, off-road vehicle exhaust, and

lawn care equipment.

The plan acknowledges that primary,

condensible, and secondary PM–10

categorically constitute what is called

PM–10, but does not address

condensible and secondary PM–10 in

the inventory. The plan’s explanation

for not including emissions from

condensible and secondary PM–10 is

that these emission categories do not

contribute significantly to the emission

or air quality totals. Condensible and

secondary PM–10 generally are not

addressed in PM–10 inventories because

of their de minimis ambient air quality

contribution. Clark County will need to

include emissions from these source

categories of directly emitted PM–10 in

its revised inventories and cite evidence

of the triviality of those secondary and

condensible emissions contributions.

EPA proposes to disapprove the

emissions inventory given these

deficiencies.

b. Mobile Source Emissions Budget.

The 1997 Serious Plan did not establish

any PM–10 emission budgets for the

annual or 24-hour PM–10 standard.

Thus EPA determined in a letter dated

July 12, 1999, to the Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection, that the area

did not have adequate budgets for

purposes of transportation conformity.

c. Evaluation of BACM/BACT. As

discussed in the summary of CAA

requirements, the Serious Area SIP for

the Las Vegas Valley must include

control measures consistent with the

CAA requirements for BACM and

BACT. EPA has determined that,

collectively, the submitted rules,

ordinances, permits and other measures

do not meet the BACM requirements for

any significant source category for either

PM–10 standard. In summary, EPA is

proposing to disapprove the Serious

Area SIP for failure to provide for the

implementation of BACM based upon

the following four deficiencies:

• Failure to demonstrate that the

control measures in the Serious Area

SIP constitute BACM for significant

sources. EPA finds that the Serious Area

SIP either lacks BACM for some

significant sources without adequate

justification or the submitted measures

are not comprehensive enough to

provide for the implementation of

BACM. For example, no measures were

submitted as BACM to control vacant

lots, unpaved parking lots,8 or paved

road dust.

• Failure to provide an adequate

justification for available control

measures not being implemented. EPA’s

RACM guidance indicates that SIP

submittals should contain a reasoned

justification for partial or full rejection

of any available control measures;

similar principles apply to

consideration of BACM. 9 For example,

although the 1994 BACM Plan lists

controlling unpaved shoulders and

containing truck spillage as candidate

BACM for paved roads, the plan

indicates that an addendum will be

provided in 1997 that documents the

evaluation process and adoption and

implementation of specific control

measures. 10 However, no subsequent

BACM evaluation for paved roads was

submitted to EPA.

• Lack of sufficient stringency in

some submitted measures. Certain

requirements (or lack thereof) in rules,

ordinances, or permits require further

stringency to meet BACM, and/or have

not been properly justified by the

District as supporting a BACM level of

control. For example, EPA believes that

the standards established in Rule 41 for

construction sites and other sources

may be insufficiently protective in many

circumstances. Coupled with the fact

that construction site permits lack other

standards by which compliance can be

gauged, there is no assurance that the

required construction site controls will

be implemented to an extent that meets

BACM requirements. The 1994 BACM

Plan contains little discussion as to

whether or how the specific control

measures in the Las Vegas Valley are

stringent enough to meet the BACM

level of control.

• Failure of certain measures to be

fully enforceable. On a macro-scale, this

encompasses the concern that important

control measures have not been

submitted to EPA in a format that can

be approved into the SIP and enforced

as such.11 On a micro-scale, vague

language or the absence of appropriate

standards in permits, rules or

ordinances makes them difficult to

enforce in an equitable, repeatable,

accurate and practical manner to

achieve emission reductions. This, in

turn, lessens the ability of the control

37328 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

12 1997 Serious Plan, pg. 24.

13EPA’s guidance documents on fugitive dust

sources provide information on control efficiencies:

‘‘Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources’’, U.S. EPA,

September 1988 and ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background

Document and Technical Information Document for

Best Available Control Measures’’, U.S. EPA,

September 1992. 14 1997 Serious Plan, pp. 35–37.

15EPA memorandum ‘‘PM–10 SIP

Demonstrations for Small Isolated Areas With

Spatially Uniform Emissions’’—Robert Bauman &

Joseph Tikvart 7/5/90. 16PM–10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA–450/

2–86–001, June 1987, section 6.4.2.

measures to result in a BACM level of

control.

The BACM deficiencies summarized

in the preceding paragraphs reflect that

discussion of BACM in the Serious Area

SIP is limited and does not show that

the adopted PM–10 control measures for

any significant source category

collectively meet the CAA’s BACM

requirements. This may be due to a

belief expressed in the 1997 Serious

Plan that limitations in the accuracy of

PM–10 emission inventories and the

lack of specific information on control

efficiencies preclude a meaningful

application of the procedures for

determining BACM.12 However, EPA

does not view this statement as an

adequate reason for failure to implement

BACM or, alternatively, to provide a

justification for not implementing

BACM. Furthermore, general estimates

of control efficiencies are available 13

and are not required to be exact in order

to evaluate whether a candidate or

adopted measure meets the BACM

requirements.

EPA is also proposing to disapprove

the Serious Area SIP with respect to the

BACT requirement for primary PM–10

sources. This is because existing sources

are not subject to controls that are in

place for new and modified sources and

there is no justification for not

implementing those controls. Also, the

Serious Area SIP does not provide

sufficient information on stationary

source requirements for EPA to evaluate

whether BACT is being implemented.

Information to be submitted includes all

control equipment and/or emission

limit requirements, test method

requirements, and reporting/

recordkeeping requirements. For EPA’s

complete review of BACM/BACT, see

the TSD that is part of this docket.

d. Major Sources of PM–10 Precursors

Need BACT Rules. Under section 189(e),

BACT controls are required for all

existing major sources of VOC, NOX,

SOX, and ammonia in the Las Vegas

nonattainment area unless they do not

contribute significantly to PM–10 levels

which exceed the standards in the area.

The inventory does not quantify these

sources for their secondary PM–10

contribution and therefore EPA cannot

determine if controls are needed.

Therefore we are proposing to

disapprove the Serious Area SIP’s BACT

demonstration for failure to include

such controls or justify why they are not

required.

e. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)/

Quantitative Milestones. PM–10 serious

area nonattainment SIPs must include

quantitative milestones to be achieved

every three years until the area is

redesignated attainment and must

demonstrate RFP toward attainment of

both standards by the applicable date.

CAA section 189(c)(1). The 1997 Serious

Plan for the Las Vegas Valley does not

contain annual incremental emission

reductions or quantitative milestones for

either the annual or 24-hour standard.

Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove

the plan for failing to meet the CAA

requirement for RFP and quantitative

milestones.

f. Attainment Demonstration. Serious

area PM–10 SIPs must provide a

detailed demonstration (including air

quality modeling) that the specified set

of strategies will reduce PM–10

emissions so that the standards will be

attained as soon as practicable but no

later than December 31, 2001 or, for an

extension beyond that date, a

demonstration that attainment by

December 31, 2001 would be

impracticable and a demonstration of

attainment by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable. EPA

considers the area to be in attainment of

the NAAQS if 24-hour concentrations

are 150 μg/m3 or less and the annual

arithmetic mean is 50 μg/m3 or less.

The attainment demonstration in the

1997 Serious Plan applies to both the

24-hour and the annual NAAQS. The

plan does purport to demonstrate

attainment for the annual standard by

2001 with a modeled concentration of

49.79 μg/m3, 0.21 μg/m3 below the

annual standard. The plan does not

demonstrate attainment for the 24-hour

standard by 2001, since the modeled

concentration of 212.35 μg/m3 is 62.35

μg/m3 above the 24-hour standard.14

The submittal describes several

modeling approaches used to assess the

effect of control measures on ambient

PM–10 concentrations. This is in accord

with the spirit of EPA modeling

guidance, which recommends a

combination of dispersion and receptor

models. However, in the details of

implementation of the modeling, the

submittal falls short of this guidance.

The following discussion applies to

both the annual and the 24-hour

NAAQS, unless otherwise indicated.

The Chemical Mass Balance (CMB)

receptor modeling performed as part of

the submittal confirmed that around

90% of the PM–10 in the Las Vegas

Valley is due to fugitive dust, in general

agreement with the emission inventory.

Unfortunately CMB is not capable of

distinguishing emissions from particular

activities such as paved road dust,

unpaved road dust, construction

activities, etc., so it must be combined

with another approach. CMB also

showed that secondary particulates

(those not directly emitted but forming

in the atmosphere from precursors) and

vehicle exhaust are small contributors to

the area’s PM–10 concentrations, only a

few percent. The main modeling

approach used in the submittal was

proportional rollback, in which it is

assumed that a source category’s

contribution to observed PM–10

emissions is directly proportional to its

share of the area’s PM–10 emission

inventory. This is appropriate when no

other information is available, or if the

sources are uniform across the area

modeled.15 However, the sources are

not likely uniform. Though PM–10 can

have a regional component, generally a

particular fugitive dust source has a

fairly localized impact on air quality;

the ISCST3 dispersion modeling done as

part of the submittal confirmed that

individual sources have minimal impact

five miles away. Different areas will

have different mixes of sources

contributing to their PM–10

concentrations. Comparison of areawide and sub-area emissions inventories

shows many similarities in source

categories’ percent contributions, but

also some differences, especially for

paved road dust. Thus, a demonstration

that the PM–10 NAAQS are attained

should take into account differences

between sites. Ideally, dispersion

modeling would be done to explicitly

take into account different sources’

distances from modeled locations, in

order to show the effect of control

measures throughout the area. At a

minimum, proportional rollback should

have been performed for multiple

monitoring sites.16

Secondary particulates are not

addressed in the proportional rollback

modeling in the submittal. The effect of

this is to inappropriately assume that

control measures on primary

particulates decrease secondary

particulates at the same rate. Though

secondaries are only a few percent of

the PM–10 ambient concentrations, so

this is not a large effect, they should be

dealt with explicitly.

In summary, though some solid work

was done in preparing the modeling

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37329

17Section 188(e) further provides: ‘‘In

determining whether to grant an extension, and the

appropriate length of time for any such extension,

the Administrator may consider the nature and

extent of nonattainment, the types and numbers of

sources or other emitting activities in the area

(including the influence of uncontrollable natural

sources and transboundary emissions from foreign

countries), the population exposed to

concentrations in excess of the standard, the

presence and concentration of potentially toxic

substances in the mix of particulate emissions in

the area, and the technological and economic

feasibility of various control measures.’’

18EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

portion of the submittal, it does not

adequately account for differences in

PM–10 source contributions at different

locations. Additional dispersion and

receptor modeling work could help with

this, with a minimum being the use of

proportional rollback at multiple sites

representative of the varying mix of

sources across the Las Vegas Valley.

Lastly, secondary particulates should

not implicitly be assumed to decline.

The submittal’s technical approach is

inadequate for its goal of demonstrating

attainment of the annual NAAQS, and

also for demonstrating the

impracticability of attaining the 24-hour

NAAQS. The next SIP submittal should

use a different approach.

EPA concludes that, because the air

quality modeling is not consistent with

existing EPA guidelines, the

impracticability and attainment

demonstrations in the Serious Area SIP

are not approvable. The impracticability

demonstration is also not approvable

because the plan does not provide for

the implementation of BACM.

Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove

the 24-hour standard impracticability

demonstration and the annual standard

attainment demonstration.

g. Extension of the Attainment

Deadline. CAA section 188(e) allows

states to apply for up to a 5-year

extension of the serious area attainment

deadline of December 31, 2001. In order

to obtain the extension, the state must

demonstrate that: (1) attainment by 2001

would be impracticable, (2) the state

complied with all requirements and

commitments pertaining to the area in

the implementation plan for the area, (3)

the state demonstrates to the satisfaction

of the Administrator that the plan for

the area includes the most stringent

measures that are included in the plan

of any state or are achieved in practice

in any state, and can feasibly be

implemented in the area.17 The state’s

request for an extension must also

contain a demonstration of attainment

by the most expeditious alternative date

practicable. For a complete discussion

of EPA’s proposed interpretation of

section 188(e), see 65 FR 19964, 19967–

19969 (Apr. 13, 2000)(proposed

approval of the Maricopa County PM–10

serious area nonattainment plan). EPA

is proposing to deny the State of

Nevada’s request for an extension for

failing to adequately demonstrate that

the area cannot practicably attain the

24-hour PM–10 standard by December

31, 2001. Therefore, the area’s

attainment deadline for both standards

remains as soon as practicable but no

later than December 31, 2001.

h. Transportation Conformity

Budgets. EPA’s conformity rule, 40 CFR

part 93, requires that transportation

plans, programs, and projects conform

to the SIP and establishes the criteria

and procedures for determining whether

or not they do conform. Conformity to

a SIP means that transportation

activities will not produce new air

quality violations, worsen existing

violations, or delay timely attainment of

the NAAQS. The link between the SIP

and transportation planning activities is

the conformity emission budget(s)

contained in the SIP. On March 2, 1999,

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled

that submitted SIPs cannot be used for

conformity determinations unless EPA

has affirmatively found the conformity

budget adequate through a process

providing for public notice and

comment. Where EPA finds a budget

inadequate, it cannot be used for

conformity determinations. As

discussed in (2)(b), EPA determined that

the PM–10 mobile source emission

budgets for the Las Vegas Valley are

inadequate and thus cannot be used for

conformity determination. The criteria

by which we determine whether a SIP’s

motor vehicle emission budgets are

adequate for conformity purposes are

outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

3. General SIP Requirements

a. Adequate Public Process. On

November 5,1991, the Clark County

Board of County Commissioners

(CCBCC) adopted the Las Vegas Valley

PM–10 Air Quality Implementation Plan

(1991 Moderate Plan), after providing

public notice and opportunity to

comment. The State submitted the plan

as a revision to the Nevada PM–10 SIP

(letter from Bob Miller, Governor of

Nevada, to Daniel McGovern, EPA

Regional Administrator dated December

6, 1991). The SIP submittal includes

proof of publication for the notice of the

State public hearing. This submittal

became complete by operation of law

under CAA section 110(k)(1).18 We

believe that the public process

associated with the 1991 Moderate Plan

meets the procedural requirements of

CAA section 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR

51.102.

On December 6, 1994 CCBCC adopted

‘‘Providing for the Evaluation and

Implementation of Best Available

Control Measures and Best Available

Control Technology to Improve PM–10

Air Quality for the Las Vegas Valley’’

(1994 BACM Plan), after providing

public notice and opportunity to

comment. The State submitted the plan

as a revision to the Nevada SIP (letter

from L.H. Dodgion, Administrator, to

David Howekamp, EPA Director, Air

and Toxics Division, dated February 15,

1995). The SIP submittal includes proof

of publication for the notice of CCBCC

public hearing. This submittal became

complete by operation of law. We

believe that the public process

associated with the 1994 BACM Plan

meets the procedural requirements of

CAA section 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR

51.102.

On August 25, 1997, CCBCC adopted

the Las Vegas Valley Non-attainment

Area Clark County Nevada Serious Plan

(1997 Serious Plan), after providing

public notice and opportunity to

comment. The State submitted the plan

as a revision to the Nevada SIP (letter

from L.H. Dodgion, Administrator, to

Felicia Marcus, EPA Regional

Administrator, dated September 11,

1997). The SIP submittal includes proof

of publication for the notice of CCBCC

public hearing. This submittal became

complete by operation of law. We

believe that the public process

associated with the 1997 Serious Plan

meets the procedural requirements of

CAA section 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR

51.102.

b. Adequate Personnel and

Funding.—Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the

Clean Air Act requires that

implementation plans provide necessary

assurances that the state (or the general

purpose local government) will have

adequate personnel and funding to carry

out the plan. Requirements for resources

are further defined in 40 CFR part 51,

subpart L (51.230–232) and for

resources in 40 CFR 51.280. States and

responsible local agencies must

demonstrate that they have the legal

authority to adopt and enforce

provisions of the SIP and to obtain

information necessary to determine

compliance. SIPs must also describe the

resources that are available or will be

available to the State and local agencies

to carry out the plan, both at the time

of submittal and during the 5-year

period following submittal. The 1997

Serious Plan does not adequately

address personnel and funding for the

37330 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

air program in the Las Vegas Valley. The

plan needs to detail the number of

personnel needed to carry out the air

program as well as the funding level and

commit to these levels for five years.

c. Adequate Legal Authority.—Section

110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Clean Air Act

requires that implementation plans

provide necessary assurances that the

state (or the general purpose local

government) will have authority under

state or local law to carry out the plan.

Requirements for legal authority are

further defined in 40 CFR 51.230–232.

States and responsible local agencies

must demonstrate that they have the

legal authority to adopt and enforce

provisions of the SIP and to obtain

information necessary to determine

compliance. EPA finds that the State of

Nevada has the legal authority to

regulate air pollution as evidenced by

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)

445B.100 through NRS 445B.845.

d. Description of Enforcement

Methods.—Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires

SIPs to include a program to provide for

the enforcement of SIP measures. The

implementing regulation for this section

is found at 40 CFR 51.111(a) and

requires a control strategy to include a

description of enforcement methods

including (1) procedures for monitoring

compliance with each of the selected

control measures, (2) procedures for

handling violations, and (3) the

designation of the agency responsible

for enforcement. Procedures for

monitoring compliance with existing

regulations are missing from the 1997

Serious Plan.

III. Summary of Proposed Action

A. Proposed Disapproval

EPA is proposing to disapprove

certain provisions of the Moderate Area

SIP and Serious Area SIP submitted by

the State of Nevada for attaining the

PM–10 NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to

disapprove the RACM/BACM and RFP/

milestone provisions for both the annual

and 24-hour PM–10 standards in both

the Moderate Area SIP and Serious Area

SIP, and the emission inventory,

transportation conformity budgets, and

attainment demonstration provisions for

both standards in the Serious Area SIP.

EPA is also proposing to deny the

State’s request for an extension to

December 31, 2006 to attain the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS in the area. If finalized

in a subsequent EPA notice, these

disapprovals will trigger the 18-month

time clock for mandatory application of

sanctions and 2-year time clock for a

federal implementation plan under the

Act as discussed below.

B. Consequences of the Proposed

Disapproval

The CAA establishes specific

consequences if EPA disapproves a

State plan. Section 179(a) sets forth four

findings that form the basis for

application of mandatory sanctions,

including disapproval by EPA of a

State’s submission based on its failure to

meet one or more required CAA

elements. EPA has issued a regulation,

codified at 40 CFR 51.31, interpreting

the application of sanctions under

section 179 (a) and (b). If EPA has not

approved a SIP revision correcting the

deficiency within 18 months of the

effective date of a final rulemaking,

pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and 40

CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified

in CAA section 179(b) will be applied

in the affected area. If EPA has still not

approved a SIP revision correcting the

deficiency 6 months after the offset

sanction is imposed, then the highway

funding sanction will apply in the

affected area, in accordance with 40

CFR 52.31. In addition, CAA section

110(c)(1) provides that EPA must

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years

after a finding under section 179(a)

unless EPA takes final action to approve

a revised plan correcting the deficiency

within 2 years of EPA’s findings. For

more details on the timing and

implementation of the sanctions, see 59

FR 39859 (August 4, 1994),

promulgating 40 CFR 52.31, ‘‘Selection

of sequence of mandatory sanctions for

findings made pursuant to section 179

of the Clean Air Act.’’ There are,

however, certain exceptions to the

general rule for the application of

sanctions described above. The reader is

referred to 40 CFR 52.31(d) for the

circumstances under which the

application of sanctions may be stayed

or deferred.

One of the conformity consequences

of the overall plan disapproval is

commencement of a conformity freeze.

Under a conformity freeze, the area can

only move forward on transportation

projects included in the first three years

of the transportation plan and no new

transportation plans can be adopted

until the freeze is lifted. If the area

submits a new PM–10 SIP with PM–10

budgets, once the PM–10 budgets are

deemed adequate by EPA, the freeze is

lifted. If the area is in a conformity

freeze and a conformity lapse occurs,

the area can not come out of the lapse

until the freeze is lifted. Note that the

conformity freeze would not begin until

the effective date of the final plan

disapproval. Today, EPA is proposing to

disapprove portions of the PM–10 plans

for the Las Vegas Valley and therefore

the above mentioned time frames for

imposing sanctions will not start until

the effective date of any final

disapproval.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37331

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This

proposed rule is not subject to E.O.

13045 because it is does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s proposed rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because disapprovals of SIP

revisions under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Federal

disapproval of the State SIP submittal

will not affect State-enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal would not impose any new

Federal requirements. Therefore, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed disapproval action does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. The proposed

disapproval will not change existing

requirements and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing new

regulations. To comply with NTTAA,

the EPA must consider and use

‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS)

if available and applicable when

developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this proposed action.

Today’s proposed action does not

require the public to perform activities

conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, 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 et seq.

Dated: June 5, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–15032 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL–6715–5]

RIN 2040–AA97

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations; Ground Water Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Public

Comment Period for the Proposed

Ground Water Rule.

SUMMARY: Today, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is providing

notice to extend the public comment

period for the proposed Ground Water

Rule (GWR). The proposed GWR was

published in the Federal Register on

May 10, 2000 (65 FR 30194). The

proposed GWR requirements provide a

meaningful opportunity to reduce

public health risk associated with the

consumption of waterborne pathogens

from fecal contamination for a

substantial number of people served by

ground water sources.

DATES: EPA must receive public

comments, in writing, on the proposed

regulations by August 9, 2000.

Comments provided electronically will

be considered timely if they are

submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.

(Eastern time), August 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may send written

comments to the GWR, W–98–23

Comments Clerk, Water Docket (MC–

4101); U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments

may be hand-delivered to the Water

Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; 401 M Street, SW., East Tower