# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 64 Fed. Reg. 34173 1999
Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 16 17:38:44 2010
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

effect ofthemodification, alteration, orrepair

on theunsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, ifthe unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance:Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity ofthe airplane, accomplish the following: Inspections

(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this AD, perform structural inspections to detect corrosion orfatigue cracking ofcertain structural elements ofthe airplane, in accordance with the applicable service bulletins listed under "Service Bulletin Number, Revision, and Date" in Tables Iand I ofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997. Perform the initial inspections at thelater ofthetimes specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat each inspection at

an interval not to exceed that specified in the applicable service bulletin.

(1) Prior to the threshold specified in the individual service bulletin listed in Table I

or II ofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1, as applicable.

(2)Within one repetitive interval after the effective date ofthisAD, as specified in the individual service bulletin listed in Table I

or II ofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1, as applicable.

(b) The structural inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletins 093 53 268, Revision 1, dated July 2, 1996, and 093 53 272, Revision 1, dated March 17, 1997; as listed in Table II ofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997; are not required by thisAD. The inspections specified inthese service bulletins are required by AD 99 08 20, amendment 39 11128.

Corrective Action

(c) Ifany cracking is detected during any inspection required byparagraph (a) ofthis AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) ofthis AD.

(1) Repair in accordance with the applicable service bulletin referenced in Table I or IIofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997.

(2) Repair in accordance with the applicable section oftheLockheed L 1011 Structural Repair Manual.

(3) Accomplish the terminating modification in accordance with the applicable service bulletin referenced in Table I or IIofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997.

(4)Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. Terminating Action

(d) Install the terminating modification referenced in each service bulletin listed in Table II ofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040,Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997; in accordance with the applicable service bulletin listed under "Service Bulletin Number, Revision, and Date" in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1. Except asprovided by paragraph (e) ofthis AD, install each modification at the later ofthe times specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) ofthis AD. Such installation constitutes terminating action for the applicable structural inspection required by paragraph (a) ofthis AD.

Note 2: Installation ofthe terminating modifications specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093 53 268, Revision 1, dated July 2, 1996, and Lockheed Service Bulletin 093 53 272, dated November 12, 1996, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements ofAD 99 08 20, amendment 39 11128.

(1) Prior to the threshold specified in the applicable service bulletin listed in Table II ofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040, Revision 1.

(2)Within 5 years or 5,000 flight cycles after the effective date ofthis AD, whichever

occurs first.

(e) At the later ofthe times specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) ofthis AD: Install the terminating modification listed in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093 57 215, as referenced in Table IIofLockheed Service Bulletin 093 51 040,Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997. Such installation constitutes terminating action for theinspections required by AD98 10 14, amendment 39 10526.

(1) Prior to the threshold specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093 57 203, Revision 5, dated April 22, 1996.

(2)Within 2 years or 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date ofthis AD, whichever

occurs first.

Alternative Methods ofCompliance

(f)An alternative method ofcompliance or adjustment ofthe compliance time that provides an acceptable level ofsafety may be used if approved by theManager, Atlanta ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add
comments and then send itto theManager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the existence ofapproved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, ifany, may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO. Special Flight Permits

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 oftheFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where therequirements ofthis AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 1999. Kalene C.Yanamura,
ActingManager,Transport A irplane Directorate, A ircraftCertificationService. [FR Doc. 99 16157 Filed 6 24 99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-U 

### DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs
25CFR Part 20 RIN 1076-AD95
Financial Assistanceand Social Services Programs
AGENCY: Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
commentperiod.
SUMMARY: The commentperiod on the Bureau ofIndian Affairs' proposed rule
to govern the Financial Assistance and Social Services Program is hereby extended to provide additional opportunity forpublic comment. In response to tribal requests for additional time, the comment period is extended for 60 days. The proposed rule was published in theFederalRegister on May 6, 1999 (64 FR24296). DATES: The comment period is extended from July 6, 1999 to September 7, 1999. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Division ofSocial Services, 1849 CStreet, NW, MS-4660- MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or telephonenumber (202)208-2479. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Blair, Chief,Division ofSocial Services, Bureau ofIndian Affairs, 202- 208-2479.

Dated:June 19, 1999. Kevin Gover,
AssistantSecretary-Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. 99 16251 Filed 6 24 99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-02-M



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40CFR Part 52 [CA-221-158; FRL-6366-6] Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plans;CaliforniaOwens Valley Nonattainment Area; PM-10
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA isproposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State ofCalifornia for 

### attainingthe particulate matter (PM-10) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) inthe Owens Valley Planning Area, along with the State's request for
an extension to December 31, 2006 to attain the PM-10 NAAQS inthe area. 

## 34173

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34173 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision and extension request under provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received byJuly 9, 1999. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the EPA contact below. Copies ofthe 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.

Copies ofthe SIP materials are also available for inspection at the addresses listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, 157 Short Street, Suite 6, Bishop, CA 93514. 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Executive Summary

1.The Particulate Matter Problem in Owens Valley

Owens Lake is located in Inyo County in eastern-central California. The lake is part ofa chain oflakes formed during the late Pleistocene Epoch. In 1913, the Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power (LADWP) completed an aqueduct system and began diverting the waters ofthe Owens River to the City ofLos Angeles. By 1930, these diversions had drained Owens Lake almost completely dry.

Strong winds over the dry, alkaline bed ofOwens Lake have produced amongthe highest measured concentrations ofPM-10 everrecorded,

more than 25 times the federal 24-hour standard. IAnalysis ofmeteorological

1EPArevisedtheNAAQS forparticulate matter
on July 1,1987 (52FR24672), replacing standards fortotal suspended particulates withnew standards applying onlytoparticulatematterup to 10 microns in diameter(PM 10).Atthattime,EPA established two PM 10standards. Theannual PM 10 standard isattained when theexpected annual arithmetic mean ofthe24 hour samples averaged data and PM-10 samples in the Owens Valley Planning Area during days when violations are recorded shows that 94 percent ofPM-10 concentrations come from the Owens Lakebed and another 5 percent come from reentrained Owens Lake dust already deposited in the area. Annual PM-10 emissions from Owens Lake may exceed 400,000 tons, and dust transport from the Lake can result in violations ofthe 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS more than 40miles to the South. 2

Approximately 40,000 permanent residents live in the area affected by Owens Lake particulate emissions. Included in this number are members of 4 tribes: theLone Pine Paiute/Shoshone Tribe, the FortIndependence Tribe, the Big Pine Tribe, and the Bishop Tribe. Residents and visitors to the area suffer the health effects from high PM-10 concentrations, including lung damage, increased respiratory disease, and premature death. Children, the elderly, and people suffering from heart and lung disease, such as asthma, are especially atrisk. Moreover, the dust from the lake bed contains carcinogenic compounds, including arsenic, nickel, and cadmium. 3

Elevated levels ofOwens Valley particulate matter harm visibility and vegetation asfar as 150 miles away. Included in the impact area are 3 national parks (Death Valley, Kings

over a 3-yearperiod does not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).The 24 hour PM 10 standard of 150 ug/m3 is attained if samples taken for 24 hour periods have no more than one expected exceedance peryear, averaged over 3 years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFRpart 50, appendix K.

On July 18, 1997, EPA reaffirmed the annual PM 10 standard, and slightly revised the 24 hour PM 10 standard (62 FR 38651). In the same action, EPA also established two new standards forPM, both applying only to particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5).

This SIP submittal addresses the 24 hour and annual PM 10 standards as originally promulgated. Arecent opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., Inc., et al. v. USEPA, No. 97 1440 (May 14, 1999), among otherthings, vacated the new standards for PM 10 that were published on July 18, 1997 andbecame effective September 16, 1997 However, the PM 10 standards promulgated on July 1, 1987 were not an issuein this litigation, and the Court's decision does not affect the applicability of those standards in this area. Codification ofthose standards continues to berecorded at40 CFR 50.6. In the noticepromulgating the new PM 10 standards, theEPA Administrator decided that the previous PM 10 standards that were promulgated

on July 1, 1987, and provisions associated with them, would continue to apply in areas subject to the 1987 PM 10 standards until certain conditions specified in 40 CFR50.6(d) aremet. See 62FR 38701. EPAhas not taken any action under 40CFR 50.6(d) for the Owens Valley Planning Area.

2Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration ofAttainment State Implementation Plan ("1998 SIP"),pp. S 5 and S 3.

3 1998SIP,pp.S 3and3 12. Canyon, and Sequoia), 4 wilderness

areas (Domeland, Golden Trout, John Muir, and South Sierra), 1national historic site (Manzanar), and 2national forests (Inyo and Sequoia). Finally, Owens Lake dust events adversely affect operations at ChinaLake Naval Air Weapons Station, since many ofthe Navy's operations require good visibility.4

2.The Owens Valley PM-10 Plan

On November 16, 1998, after over a decade ofplanning, research, analysis, and negotiation, the Governing Board of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District ("the District") unanimously adopted the 1998 Revision
to the Owens Valley PM-10 Planning Area Demonstration ofAttainment State Implementation Plan ("the 1998 SIP" or "the plan").While the District was principally responsible for theplan, there were many participants in the planning process, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB), LADWP, the City ofLos Angeles, the tribal governments, Federal land managers, theNavy, the State Lands Commission, and members ofthe public.

In preparing the 1998 SIP, theDistrict and the other plan participants confronted one ofthe most challenging air quality problems: how to reduce peak PM-10 concentrations from almost 4000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/ m3) to the 24-hour NAAQS of 150 ug/ m3. 5While the origin ofthe PM-10 problem was well understood-the draining ofOwens Lake by the City of Los Angeles in the earlypart ofthis century, and continued LADWP withdrawals from Owens River-the solution to the problem, particularly

over therelatively short time allowed under the CAA, proved controversial.

Among the unique complexities ofthe Owens Valley PM-10 planningprocess
arethe competing authorities and responsibilities ofthe Districtto protect Owens Valleyresidents from the harmful effects ofair pollution and the City ofLos Angeles to provide its residents with an adequate water supply.

In 1983, the California Legislature attempted toresolve these contentious issues byenacting Senate Bill 270 (California Health and Safety Code section 42316). This law has the followingprovisions:

(a) it exempts water-gathering operations from State air quality permit regulations;

41998 SIP, pp. 3 13 through 3 15. 5A 24-hour PM 10 concentration of3,929 ug/m3

was recorded at Keeler on April 13, 1995 (1998 SIP, p. A1 27). 

## 34174

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34174 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

(b) itprovides that the City ofLos Angeles must fund control measure development and must implement reasonable measures ordered by the District to mitigate the impacts ofits water diversion activities at Owens Lake, on the basis ofsubstantial evidence establishing that the City's activities cause or contribute to violations offederal or State air quality standards;

(c) itprevents the District from mandating measures that affect the City's right to produce, divert, store, or convey water; and

(d) it provides opportunities for the City to appeal to CARB any measures or fees imposed bythe District.

Before settlingon the 3 primary control measures in theplan, the District examined many strategies but found them not tobe feasible or effective in significantly reducing dust emissions from the lake bed. Rejected

measures include use ofsprinklers, chemical dust suppressants, surface compaction, sand fences, and brush fences.

In cooperation with LADWP, the District designed and issued aunique order to the City.6The orderrequires the City to implement 3 measures: shallow flooding, managed vegetation, and application ofgravel cover. The order further provides that implementation willproceed in 2 increments, each divided into 3 phases, and covering the period 1999 through 2006.

Although small scale testshave been performed, the plan's technically difficult dust controls have neverbeen applied over an area the size ofthe Owens Lake project-a 35-square mile control area within the I10-square mile lake bed. 7 Forthis reason, the order provides that the District will periodically assess the actual effectiveness ofthe controls, and will revise the SIP by December 31, 2003, to incorporate the knowledge gained by previous implementation ofcontrol
measures, in orderto ensure sufficient reductions to attain the NAAQS by 2006. EPA agrees with the District and the City that this empirical approach is appropriate in view ofthe area's challenging control strategies and unique emission reduction requirements.

6Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Board Order #981116 01, November 16, 1998, adopted aspart ofGoverningBoard Resolution No. 98 05. The order and control

measures are discussed in moredetail below, in section I.F.

7The SIPcontrol measures are discussed in detail in section I.F., below. As discussed below, EPAproposes to approve this SIP as a critically important blueprint for clean air in one ofthe country's most difficult PM-10 nonattainment areas. Primary credit for this remarkable achievement is shared by the District and LADWP, and successful plan implementation will require that both agencies continue to work effectively together. However, the other participating members ofthe public and the State's air pollution professionals should also be commended for assisting in the identification and refinement ofthe control approaches included in the plan, and their continued involvement will be vital asthe plan is carried forward and evolves in the future.

B. CAA Requirements

The Federal CAA was substantially amended in 1990to establish new planning requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. The most fundamental ofthese nonattainment

area provisions applicable to Owens Valley is the requirement that the State submit a SIP demonstrating attainment ofthePM-10 NAAQS. This demonstration must be based upon enforceable measures to achieve emission reductions leading to emissions at or below the level predicted to result in attainment ofthe NAAQS throughout the nonattainment

area. The measures must meet the standard for Best Available Control Measures (BACM), and the measures must be implemented expeditiously and

ensure attainment no later than the applicable CAA deadline.

EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing theAgency's preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under Title Iofthe Act. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). EPA later issued

an Addendum to the General Preamble providing guidance on SIP requirements for serious PM-10 areas. 59 FR41998 (August 16, 1994). The reader should refer to these documents for amore detailed discussion ofEPA's preliminary interpretations ofTitle I requirements. In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA applies these policies to the Owens Valley PM-10 SIP submittal, taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented.

C.DesignationandClassification

On the date ofenactment ofthe 1990 CAA Amendments, PM-10 areas, including the Owens Valley Planning Area, meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) ofthe amended Act,

were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw. See 56 FR 11101 

### (March 15, 1991).The boundaries ofthe Owens Valley nonattainment area (Hydrologic Unit#18090103) are codified at 40CFR 81.305.

Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 oftheCAA outlines theprocess forclassification of the area and establishes the area's attainment date.In accordance with section 188(a), at thetime of designation, all PM-10 nonattainment areas, includingOwens Valley, were initiallyclassified asmoderate by operation oflaw. Section 188(b)(1) of theAct further provides that moderate

areas can subsequently bereclassified as seriousbefore the applicable moderate

area attainment date ifat any time EPA determines that the area cannot "practicably" attain thePM-10 NAAQS by this attainment date.

CARB submitted a moderate area PM10 SIP for Owens Valleyon January 9, 1992. Based on this submittal,EPA determined onJanuary 8, 1993, that Owens Valley could notpracticably attain by the applicable attainment deadline formoderate areas (December 31, 1994,per section 188(c)(1) ofthe Act), and reclassified Owens Valley as serious (58 FR3334). In accordance with section 189(b)(2) oftheAct, the applicable deadline for submittal ofa SIP forOwens Valley addressing the requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas in section 189(b) and (c) oftheAct isFebruary 8, 1997- 4 years after the effective date ofthe reclassification (58FR3340-1).
D.Adoption andSubmittalofthe1998 SIP

Because ofcontroversy regarding appropriate control requirements, the plan was not adopted untilNovember 16, 1998. Following adoption by the District, CARB also adopted the 1998 SIP and submitted itto EPAon December 10, 1998. On February 2, 1999, EPA deemed the submittal complete.8



### Both theDistrict and CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements forreasonable public notice andhearing priorto adoption of theplan. The District conducted

numerous public workshops and properly noticed thepublichearing at which theplan was adopted. TheSIP submittal includes proofofpublication for noticesofthepublichearing. Therefore,EPA proposes to approve the 1998 SIP as meetingthepublic notice and involvement requirements of section 110(a)(1) ofthe CAA.

8EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56FR 42216). 

### 34175

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34175 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

E.EmissionsInventories

The plan includes 1995 baseline emissions inventories forpeak 24-hour and annual emissions in tonsper day. The inventory covers the expected control area for theplan, the southern halfofthe nonattainment area, which includes all sources thathave been found to contribute to PM-10 violations. Because future emissions are not expected to change significantly in this rural and relatively undeveloped area, the attainment year inventories are assumed to be identical to the 1995 inventories.

The peak 24-hour PM-10 inventory includes 8,346 tons per day (tpd)from wind erosion on the exposed Owens dry lake bed; 516 tpd from off-lake sources oflake bed dust; and 42 tpd from prescribed burning. The Owens Valley inventory has insignificant emissions from major source categories in typical PM-10 nonattainment areas, including reentrained dust from motor vehicles (0.15tpd unpaved roads, 0.19paved roads), residential wood burning (0.24 tpd), and industrial facilities (0.23 tpd, plus aproposed soda ash project projected to emit 0.51 tpd). Secondary aerosols are also insignificant PM-10

sources in Owens Valley, and so the inventories areforprimary particulate only.

Where appropriate, the District used EPA emission factors (Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors, AP-42, USEPA, 1985). The District relied on permitted emissions for the area's 4 industrial facilities. Finally, the District developed specific emission algorithms for wind erosion based on wind tunnel studies (1998 SIP, section 4-3). The plan provides adequate documentation ofthe wind erosion emission factor development and validation.

EPA concludes that the emissions inventories are comprehensive, accurate, and current, and that they are consistent with EPA's guidance. 9EPA proposes to approve the emissions inventories asmeeting therequirements ofsection 172(c)(3) ofthe CAA.

F. ControlMeasures
1.Description ofControl Measures

The plan includes 3 control measures, each ofwhich is designed to reduce emissions from the Owens Lake bed. They are shallow flooding,managed vegetation, and gravel cover. The following is abrief summary ofeach of the measures, which are described at

more length in Chapter 5 ofthe 1998 SIP.

9PM 10Emission Inventory Requirements (EPA 450/2 93), USEPA 1993. a. Shallow Flooding
This control measure consists of releasing water alongthe upper edge of the Owens Lake bed and allowing itto spread and flow down-gradient toward the center ofthe lake. To attain the required PM-10 control efficiency, the District concludes that at least 75 percent ofeach square mile ofthe control area must be wetted to produce standingwater or surface saturated soil, between September 15 and June 15 of each year. The District estimates that a maximum of4 acre-feet ofwater is required annually to control PM-10 emissions from an acre oflake bed.

To maximize project water use efficiency, flows to the control area will be precisely regulated so that only the exact amount ofwater isreleased to keep the soil wet. Although the quantity ofexcess water will be minimized through system operation, any water that does reach the lower end ofthe control area will be collected inberms keyed into lake bed sediments and pumped back to the outlets to be reused. Shallow flooding will require the City
to construct a large-scale water transmission, distribution, and outlet infrastructure; electrical power lines;

access roads; and water control berms. The City will take appropriate steps to minimize adverse environmental impacts during this construction and afterflooding. The project will include

aprogram to remove any saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) and other undesirable non-native plant and grass species that invade wetplaya areas. The City must also prevent disruption of shorebird breeding activities when water delivery is reduced onJune 15 of each year.Finally, the City will design and implement mosquito abatement programs, including the erection ofbat roosting structures, and will monitor the impact ofany pesticide usage to ensure that mosquito control activities do not result in unacceptable rates ofegg thinning and failure.
b. Managed Vegetation

This control measure consists of creating a farm-like environment containing a mosaic of small (approximately 4to 20 acre) confined fields constructed ofsaltgrass (Distichlis spicata)that are irrigated with shallow pulses ofwater. The City will need to carefully monitor release ofwater to leach soils to within a level suitable for saltgrass. Saltgrass will be the onlyplant species tobe introduced to the fields. It is tolerant ofrelatively high soil salinity, spreads rapidly via rhizomes, and provides good protective cover yearround even when dead or dormant. Saltgrass stands can subsist with minimal amounts ofapplied water during the summer. Dust control effectiveness should remain undiminished, provided that adequate irrigation has stimulated plant growth and has delivered stored water in the rooting zone during the spring months. Biological, mechanical, and chemical control methods will be used to remove pest plants and noxious grasses.

Program implementation will require construction ofearthen infrastructure for water distribution, including ditches,berms, channels, and reservoirs that allow forlevel border irrigation strategies that leach and drain readily through the fractured structure ofthe soil. The drainage system will be designed and constructed to allow for mixing offresh water and saline drain water to achieve an ideal irrigation salinity. Thiswill serve to maintain a downward gradient ofsalts in the rooting column ofthe soil in orderto prevent saltfrom the shallow water table from risinginto therooting zone by capillary action. The drainage system must also be managed to prevent the rise ofthe water table into the rooting

zone. Finally, the project will involve construction ofspecial areas for saturated evaporite deposits.

c. Gravel Cover

A 4-inch layer ofcoarse gravel laid on the surface ofthe Owens Lake playa will prevent PM-10 emissions by: (1) preventing the formation ofefflorescent evaporite saltcrusts, because the large spaces between the gravel particles interfere with the capillary forces that transport the saline waterto the surface where it evaporates and deposits salts; and (2) raising the threshold wind velocity required to lift the large gravel particles so that transport ofthe particles is not possible by wind speeds typical ofthe Owens Lake area.

Gravel blankets can work effectively

on essentially any type ofsoil surface. Under certain limited conditions of sandy soils combined with high groundwater levels, itmay be possible for some ofthe gravel blanket to settle into lake bed soils and thereby lose effectiveness in controlling PM-10 emissions. To prevent the loss ofany protective gravel material into lake bed soils, apermeable geotextile fabric may be placed between the soil and the gravel where necessary. This will prevent the loss ofany gravel.

Gravel areas mustbe protected from
water- and wind-borne soil and dust. The gravel blanket willbe the last control measure to be implemented in orderto eliminate wind-borne depositions. Gravel areas will be 

### 34176

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34176 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

protected from flood deposits with flood control berms, drainage channels and desiltation and retention basins, which will ensure that the gravel blanket will remain an effective PM-10 control

measure for many years.

To attain the required PM-10 control efficiency, 100 percent ofall areas designated for gravel mustbe covered with a layer ofgravel 4 inches thick. All gravel material shall be screened to a size greater than 3/8-inch in diameter.
d. Additional Measures

In addition to these three control
measures, the City is authorized to implement one or more control

measures ofits choosing on 3.5 square miles ofthe lake bed in the "Dirty Socks" area, at the southern boundary of the lake and near State Highway 190. The controls placed in this area may be

one ofthe 3 identified measures, modified versions ofthese measures, or other unidentified measures. The control measures placed in this area do not need to be approved by the District. However, if the City elects to apply controls in the Dirty Socks area, the City is responsible for assuring that the Dirty Socks control measures are integrated into an entire control strategy that meets the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006.
2. Implementation Schedule

The proposed control strategy will be implemented in 2increments. The first increment will take placebetween November 16, 1998, and December 31, 2003. This requires the implementation ofcontrol measures on 16.5 square miles ofthe Owens Lake bed, unless the District finds that attainment is achieved by placing controls on a smaller area. During this time the emphasis willbe on controlling those portions ofthe lake bed that are most emissive in terms ofthe frequency and severity ofemissions. The focus willbe

on improving control measure efficiencies and on identifying those remaining areas ofthe lake bed that will continue to contribute to PM-10 NAAQS violations, if any.

The second increment will take place between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2006. This will require implementation ofany additional control measures necessary to provide for attainment ofthePM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006.

The District commits to revise the SIP in 2003 to incorporate new knowledge and provide for attainment ofthe PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006. Ifthe District determines that additional or fewer controls arerequired to meet the NAAQS by December 31, 2006, the 2003 SIP will provide for implementation of the appropriate control measures for the final step ofthe control strategy.
3. BACM Requirement

The Owens Valley serious area SIP must include control measures consistent with the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), BACM, and Best Available Control Technology (BACT). RACM and RACT are control technology requirements applicable to moderate

areas. The requirements for RACT and BACT, which apply to stationary and

area sources, are generally not applicable within the Owens Valley
area, in which all PM-10 sources except for wind erosion arede minimis. The 1998 SIP's BACM provision for wind erosion sources is more stringent than the RACM mandate.

EPA defines BACM as "the maximum degree ofemissions reduction ofPM-10 and PM-10 precursors from a source * * * which is determined on a caseby-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, tobe achievable for such source through application ofproduction processes and available methods, systems, and techniques for control ofeach such pollutant." General Preamble Addendum, 59 FR42010 (August 16, 1994). EPA exempts from theBACM requirement deminimis source categories, which do not contribute significantly to nonattainment. 59 FR 42011. CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires that the plan contain provisions to assure that BACM for the control of PM-10 shallbe implemented 4years afterthe effective date ofthe reclassification, or byFebruary 8, 1997.10

In the plan and in the appendices to the plan, the District hasprovided extensive documentation on both the control measures included in the plan and those rejected. The documentation quantifies the costs ofconstruction, materials, operation, and maintenance, and examines other factors, including energy and environmental impacts. EPA agrees that adequate time must be allowed to carry out the control

measures successfully, since the

measures areuniquely vast in scale, materiel, and required construction activity. The District's order to the City

10Because the statutory BACM implementation deadline has passed, the plan must assure that BACM willbe implemented "as soon as possible." Delaneyv. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this requirement to be "as soon

as practicable." 55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 1990). establishes an aggressive, but phased, implementation schedule, which is shown to be as expeditious as practicable.
4. EPA Proposed Action on Control Measures

EPA concludes that the plan demonstrates that:

(a) Only wind erosion emissions from the lake bed cause or contribute to PM10 violations in the area and, hence, applyingBACM to other source categories would not contribute significantly to achieving the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable;

(b) The plan's 3 control measures for wind erosion are consistent with the BACMrequirement in terms ofthe timing, degree, and extent ofthe control program; and (c) There is insufficient evidence, at this time, to support the economic and technological feasibility ofany alternative or additional measures for the control ofwind erosion emissions in Owens Valley, even assuming the high degree ofcontrol stringency associated with the BACMrequirement.

EPA therefore proposes to approve the control measures contained in the SIP under CAA section 110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements ofCAA sections 110(a) and 189(b)(1)(B).

G.ReasonableFurther Progress(RFP)
The plan must also include measurable milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years and show RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment deadline. The District order to the City includes enforceable schedules for annual implementation of the specified control measures, beginning with the completion, by December 31, 2001, ofthe phase 1 control of 10 square miles. The order requires control ofan additional 3.5 square miles by 2002; 3 square miles by 2003; and 2 square milesin each ofthe remaining 3 years through 2006.

EPA proposes to approve this aggressive and enforceable annual schedule as meeting the RFP requirements ofCAA section 189(c).

H. ContingencyMeasures

The CAA requires that the SIP include contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet progress requirements or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable deadline. As discussed above, the District commits to revise the SIP in 2003 to implement additional controls if necessary to attain the NAAQS by2006. Ifin 2006 the Districtdetermines that the area will not attain by the end ofthat year, the Districtorder requires the City to

### 34177

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34177 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

implement controls on an additional 2 square miles ofthe Owens Lake bed each year. Implementation ofthis contingency measure is automatic, and requires no further action by theDistrict

or any other agency.

EPA concludes that the plan satisfies the contingency requirements, and proposes to approve the SIP's contingency provisions under section 172(c)(9).

I.ExtensionoftheAttainmentDeadline

CAA section 188(e) allows states to apply for up to a 5-year extension ofthe serious area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001. In order to obtain the extension, there must be a showing that: (1) Attainment by 2001 would be impracticable, (2) the state complied with allrequirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan for the area, and (3) the state demonstrates that theplan for the area includes the most stringent

measures that are included in the SIP of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.

The 1998 SIP has demonstrated that the plan includes all feasible and effective control measures for wind erosion, and thatthe implementation schedule for the control measures is as expeditious as practicable, considering the massive projects that mustbe undertaken. EPA agrees that no other SIP contains measures and no other area implements measures for control of wind erosion that would be feasible and effective in the Owens Valley area. Finally, EPA believes that attainment could not feasibly be achieved before 2006. Therefore, EPA proposes to grant, under CAA section 188(e), a 5-year attainment date extension to December 31, 2006.

J AttainmentDemonstration

The SIP must provide a detailed demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the specified control strategy willreduce PM-10 emissions so that the standards willbe attained as
soon as practicable but no later than December 31, 2006, assuming final EPA approval ofthe attainment deadline extension. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). EPA considers the area tobe in attainment ofthe NAAQS if 24-hour concentrations are 150ug/m3 or less and the annual arithmetic mean is 50 ug/m3 or less. See footnote 1.The attainment demonstration in the Owens Valley area focuses on the 24-hour NAAQS, since the area does not violate the annual NAAQS. The 3-year annual arithmetic mean for the mostrecent period (1996-1998) is 37.0 ug/m3.11

Air quality modeling techniques were applied to assess control scenarios developed bythe District to reduce PM10 concentrations and bring the airshed into attainment. The specific computer model used bythe District is called the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Version 3 model or ISCST3. ISCST3 is the EPArecommended dispersion model forregulatory assessment of fugitive dust sources (40 CFRpart 51, appendix W). The modeling analysis itselfcomports with existing modeling guidelines. 12

A performance evaluation was also conducted to determine the uncertainty and reliability ofthese modeling methods based on acomparison of model predictions with ambient PM-10 measurements. Chapter 6 ofthe 1998 SIP contains adetailed description of the air quality modeling used for the Owens Valley.

The objectives ofthe air quality modeling are: (1) To conduct the dispersion modeling in accordance with the regulatory guidance for PM-10 SIPs using EPA recommended modeling tools and procedures. (2) To perform an evaluation ofthe proposed dispersion modeling techniques using 2years ofambient data and focus the evaluation on the higher observed 24-hour PM-10 concentrations. The performance evaluation was used to assess model uncertainty and aid in the selection of several aspects ofthe modeling procedures. (3) To assess and refine control strategies until the modeling approach demonstrates attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS.

The airquality model shows that the proposed setofcontrol strategies would reduce ambient PM-10 impacts at shoreline almost 97 percent. After implementation ofthe control strategies, the number ofPM-10 exceedances at the shoreline will be less than oneper year, which complies with thePM-10 standard.

To achieve the emission reductions necessary to meet the PM-10 standard,

11Preliminary information from EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).The 1998 SIP's wind erosion control measures should be effective in reducing not only 24-hour PM 10 concentrations butalso annual concentrations, since primary and secondary wind erosion is 99 percent of the anthropogenic PM 10 emissions on

an annual basis, and 99.5 percent on a 24-hour basis.

12PM 10 SIP Development Guideline (USEPA 450/2 86 001, 6/87); Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised); Memorandum from Joseph Tikvart andRobert Bauman dated July 5, 1990. the controlled emission rate must be 1.25 metric tons ofPM-10 per square kilometer per day (approximately 1.4
tonsper 250 acres per day). Thisis based on the emissions forthe design day meteorology on March 12, 1994. The 3 controlmeasures (shallow flooding,managed vegetation and gravel) each would result in emissions below this controlled emission rate.

EPA concludes that the airquality modeling and attainment demonstration contained in the 1998 SIP are consistent with existing EPA guidelines. EPA proposes to approve the attainment demonstration under CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).


### II. SummaryofEPA'sProposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the serious area PM-10 SIP submitted by the State ofCalifornia for the Owens Valley PM-10 nonattainment area. Specifically, EPA isproposing to approve the 1998 SIP with respect to the CAA requirements for public notice and involvement under section 110(a)(1); emissions inventories under section 172(c)(3); control measures under section 110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements ofsections 110(a) and 189(b)(1)(B); RFP and rate-of-progress milestones under section 189(c); contingency measure(s) under section 172(c)(9); and demonstration of attainment under section 189(b)(1)(A). EPA is also proposing to approve the State's request for an extension ofthe attainment date from December 31, 2001
to December 31, 2006, under CAA section 188(e). 

### Il. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature oftheir
concerns, copies ofany written 

## 34178

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34178 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 122/Friday, June 25, 1999/Proposed Rules

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue theregulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives ofState, local and tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates." Today's rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) ofE.O. 12875 do not apply
to thisrule.
C.Executive Order13045

Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to anyrule 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 hasreason tobelieve 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 theplanned regulation is preferable to otherpotentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D.Executive Order13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue aregulation 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. IfEPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section ofthe preamble to the rule, a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives ofaffected tribal governments, a summary ofthenature oftheir concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue theregulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives ofIndian 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 rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities ofIndian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 3(b) ofE.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. RegulatoryFlexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, smallnot-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Moreover, due
to thenature oftheFederal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation offlexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. UnfundedMandates

Under section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPAmust prepare abudgetary 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 oftherule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that maybe significantly oruniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that mayresult in estimated annual costs of$100 million

or more to either State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. ThisFederal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,or tribal governments, orto the private sector, result from this action.
ListofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides ofnitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated:June 18, 1999. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX. [FR Doc. 99 16227 Filed 6 24 99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40CFR Part 68 [FRL-6367-2]

Listof Regulated Substances and ThresholdsforAccidental Release Prevention; Flammable Hydrocarbon Fuel Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of commentperiod.
SUMMARY: On May 28, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed to modify the rule listing regulated substances and threshold quantities for the RiskManagement Program (RMP) issued under section 112(r) ofthe Clean AirAct as amended. EPA proposed thatregulated flammable hydrocarbon substances need not be considered in determining whether

more than a threshold quantity is present when the substance is intended foruse as a fuel and does not exceed 67,000pounds in a process that is not manufacturing the fuel, does notcontain greater than a threshold quantity of anotherregulated substance, and is not collocated or interconnected to another covered process. This notice extends the public commentperiod for theproposed rule. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule is extended from the 

### 34179

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 34179 1999