Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules 34173

effect of the modification, alteration, or repair

on the unsafe condition addressed by this

AD; and, if the 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 of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Inspections

(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of

this AD, perform structural inspections to

detect corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain

structural elements of the airplane, in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletins listed under ‘‘Service Bulletin

Number, Revision, and Date’’ in Tables I and

II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–51–040,

Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997. Perform

the initial inspections at the later of the times

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 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–51–

040, Revision 1, as applicable.

(2) Within one repetitive interval after the

effective date of this AD, as specified in the

individual service bulletin listed in Table I

or II of Lockheed 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 of Lockheed Service

Bulletin 093–51–040, Revision 1, dated

October 1, 1997; are not required by this AD.

The inspections specified in these service

bulletins are required by AD 99–08–20,

amendment 39–11128.

Corrective Action

(c) If any cracking is detected during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the

actions specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2),

(c)(3), or (c)(4) of this AD.

(1) Repair in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin referenced in

Table I or II of Lockheed Service Bulletin

093–51–040, Revision 1, dated October 1,

1997.

(2) Repair in accordance with the

applicable section of the Lockheed L–1011

Structural Repair Manual.

(3) Accomplish the terminating

modification in accordance with the

applicable service bulletin referenced in

Table I or II of Lockheed 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 of Lockheed 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 as provided by paragraph

(e) of this AD, install each modification at the

later of the times specified in paragraphs

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this AD. Such installation

constitutes terminating action for the

applicable structural inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD.

Note 2: Installation of the 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 of AD 99–

08–20, amendment 39–11128.

(1) Prior to the threshold specified in the

applicable service bulletin listed in Table II

of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–51–040,

Revision 1.

(2) Within 5 years or 5,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first.

(e) At the later of the times specified in

paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD: Install

the terminating modification listed in

Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–57–215, as

referenced in Table II of Lockheed Service

Bulletin 093–51–040, Revision 1, dated

October 1, 1997. Such installation constitutes

terminating action for the inspections

required by AD 98–10–14, 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 of this AD, whichever

occurs first.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, 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

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18,

1999.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 99–16157 Filed 6–24–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 20

RIN 1076–AD95

Financial Assistance and Social

Services Programs

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The comment period on the

Bureau of Indian Affairs’ proposed rule

to govern the Financial Assistance and

Social Services Program is hereby

extended to provide additional

opportunity for public comment. In

response to tribal requests for additional

time, the comment period is extended

for 60 days. The proposed rule was

published in the Federal Register on

May 6, 1999 (64 FR 24296).

DATES: The comment period is extended

from July 6, 1999 to September 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Bureau

of Indian Affairs, Division of Social

Services, 1849 C Street, NW, MS–4660–

MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or

telephone number (202) 208–2479.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Blair, Chief, Division of Social

Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 202–

208–2479.

Dated: June 19, 1999.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 99–16251 Filed 6–24–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–221–158; FRL–6366–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California—

Owens Valley Nonattainment Area;

PM–10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submitted by the State of California for

attaining the particulate matter (PM–10)

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) in the Owens Valley Planning

Area, along with the State’s request for

an extension to December 31, 2006 to

attain the PM–10 NAAQS in the area.
34174 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules

1EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards

for total suspended particulates with new standards

applying only to particulate matter up to 10

microns in diameter (PM–10). At that time, EPA

established two PM–10 standards. The annual PM–

10 standard is attained when the expected annual

arithmetic mean of the 24–hour samples averaged

over a 3-year period 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 per year, averaged over 3

years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 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 for PM, 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.

A recent 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 other things, vacated the new

standards for PM–10 that were published on July

18, 1997 and became effective September 16, 1997.

However, the PM–10 standards promulgated on July

1, 1987 were not an issue in this litigation, and the

Court’s decision does not affect the applicability of

those standards in this area. Codification of those

standards continues to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6.

In the notice promulgating the new PM–10

standards, the EPA 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 CFR 50.6(d) are met. See 62 FR

38701. EPA has not taken any action under 40 CFR

50.6(d) for the Owens Valley Planning Area.

2Owens Valley PM–10 Planning Area

Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation

Plan (‘‘1998 SIP’’), pp. S–5 and S–3.

3 1998 SIP, pp. S–3 and 3–12.

4 1998 SIP, pp. 3–13 through 3–15.

5A 24-hour PM–10 concentration of 3,929 ug/m3

was recorded at Keeler on April 13, 1995 (1998 SIP,

p. A1–27).

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP

revision and extension request under

provisions of the 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 by July 9,

1999.

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.

Copies of the 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 of a chain of lakes formed during

the late Pleistocene Epoch. In 1913, the

Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power (LADWP) completed an aqueduct

system and began diverting the waters

of the Owens River to the City of Los

Angeles. By 1930, these diversions had

drained Owens Lake almost completely

dry.

Strong winds over the dry, alkaline

bed of Owens Lake have produced

among the highest measured

concentrations of PM–10 ever recorded,

more than 25 times the federal 24–hour

standard. 1 Analysis of meteorological

data and PM–10 samples in the Owens

Valley Planning Area during days when

violations are recorded shows that 94

percent of PM–10 concentrations come

from the Owens Lake bed 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 of the 24–hour PM–10

NAAQS more than 40 miles 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: the Lone Pine Paiute/Shoshone

Tribe, the Fort Independence 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 at risk. Moreover, the dust

from the lake bed contains carcinogenic

compounds, including arsenic, nickel,

and cadmium. 3

Elevated levels of Owens Valley

particulate matter harm visibility and

vegetation as far as 150 miles away.

Included in the impact area are 3

national parks (Death Valley, Kings

Canyon, and Sequoia), 4 wilderness

areas (Domeland, Golden Trout, John

Muir, and South Sierra), 1 national

historic site (Manzanar), and 2 national

forests (Inyo and Sequoia). Finally,

Owens Lake dust events adversely affect

operations at China Lake Naval Air

Weapons Station, since many of the

Navy’s operations require good

visibility. 4

2. The Owens Valley PM–10 Plan

On November 16, 1998, after over a

decade of planning, 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 of Attainment State

Implementation Plan (‘‘the 1998 SIP’’ or

‘‘the plan’’). While the District was

principally responsible for the plan,

there were many participants in the

planning process, including the

California Air Resources Board (CARB),

LADWP, the City of Los Angeles, the

tribal governments, Federal land

managers, the Navy, the State Lands

Commission, and members of the

public.

In preparing the 1998 SIP, the District

and the other plan participants

confronted one of the 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. 5 While the origin of the PM–10

problem was well understood—the

draining of Owens Lake by the City of

Los Angeles in the early part of this

century, and continued LADWP

withdrawals from Owens River—the

solution to the problem, particularly

over the relatively short time allowed

under the CAA, proved controversial.

Among the unique complexities of the

Owens Valley PM–10 planning process

are the competing authorities and

responsibilities of the District to protect

Owens Valley residents from the

harmful effects of air pollution and the

City of Los Angeles to provide its

residents with an adequate water

supply.

In 1983, the California Legislature

attempted to resolve these contentious

issues by enacting Senate Bill 270

(California Health and Safety Code

section 42316). This law has the

following provisions:

(a) it exempts water-gathering

operations from State air quality permit

regulations;
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules 34175

6 Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control

District Board Order #981116–01, November 16,

1998, adopted as part of Governing Board

Resolution No. 98–05. The order and control

measures are discussed in more detail below, in

section I.F.

7The SIP control measures are discussed in detail

in section I.F., below.

8EPA 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).

(b) it provides that the City of Los

Angeles must fund control measure

development and must implement

reasonable measures ordered by the

District to mitigate the impacts of its

water diversion activities at Owens

Lake, on the basis of substantial

evidence establishing that the City’s

activities cause or contribute to

violations of federal or State air quality

standards;

(c) it prevents 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 by the District.

Before settling on the 3 primary

control measures in the plan, the

District examined many strategies but

found them not to be feasible or

effective in significantly reducing dust

emissions from the lake bed. Rejected

measures include use of sprinklers,

chemical dust suppressants, surface

compaction, sand fences, and brush

fences.

In cooperation with LADWP, the

District designed and issued a unique

order to the City. 6 The order requires

the City to implement 3 measures:

shallow flooding, managed vegetation,

and application of gravel cover. The

order further provides that

implementation will proceed in 2

increments, each divided into 3 phases,

and covering the period 1999 through

2006.

Although small scale tests have been

performed, the plan’s technically

difficult dust controls have never been

applied over an area the size of the

Owens Lake project—a 35-square mile

control area within the 110-square mile

lake bed. 7 For this reason, the order

provides that the District will

periodically assess the actual

effectiveness of the controls, and will

revise the SIP by December 31, 2003, to

incorporate the knowledge gained by

previous implementation of control

measures, in order to 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 of the area’s

challenging control strategies and

unique emission reduction

requirements.

As discussed below, EPA proposes to

approve this SIP as a critically

important blueprint for clean air in one

of the 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 of the

public and the State’s air pollution

professionals should also be

commended for assisting in the

identification and refinement of the

control approaches included in the

plan, and their continued involvement

will be vital as the plan is carried

forward and evolves in the future.

B. CAA Requirements

The Federal CAA was substantially

amended in 1990 to establish new

planning requirements and attainment

deadlines for the NAAQS. The most

fundamental of these nonattainment

area provisions applicable to Owens

Valley is the requirement that the State

submit a SIP demonstrating attainment

of the PM–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 of the

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 the Agency’s preliminary

views on how EPA intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the 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 FR 41998

(August 16, 1994). The reader should

refer to these documents for a more

detailed discussion of EPA’s

preliminary interpretations of Title 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. Designation and Classification

On the date of enactment of the 1990

CAA Amendments, PM–10 areas,

including the Owens 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

Owens Valley nonattainment area

(Hydrologic Unit #18090103) are

codified at 40 CFR 81.305.

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 date. In accordance with

section 188(a), at the time of

designation, all PM–10 nonattainment

areas, including Owens 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.

CARB submitted a moderate area PM–

10 SIP for Owens Valley on January 9,

1992. Based on this submittal, EPA

determined on January 8, 1993, that

Owens Valley could not practicably

attain by the applicable attainment

deadline for moderate areas (December

31, 1994, per section 188(c)(1) of the

Act), and reclassified Owens Valley as

serious (58 FR 3334). In accordance

with section 189(b)(2) of the Act, the

applicable deadline for submittal of a

SIP for Owens Valley addressing the

requirements for serious PM–10

nonattainment areas in section 189(b)

and (c) of the Act is February 8, 1997—

4 years after the effective date of the

reclassification (58 FR 3340–1).

D. Adoption and Submittal of the 1998

SIP

Because of controversy regarding

appropriate control requirements, the

plan was not adopted until November

16, 1998. Following adoption by the

District, CARB also adopted the 1998

SIP and submitted it to EPA on

December 10, 1998. On February 2,

1999, EPA deemed the submittal

complete.8

Both the District and CARB satisfied

applicable statutory and regulatory

requirements for reasonable public

notice and hearing prior to adoption of

the plan. The District conducted

numerous public workshops and

properly noticed the public hearing at

which the plan was adopted. The SIP

submittal includes proof of publication

for notices of the public hearing.

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the

1998 SIP as meeting the public notice

and involvement requirements of

section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
34176 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules

9PM–10 Emission Inventory Requirements (EPA–

450/2–93), USEPA 1993.

E. Emissions Inventories

The plan includes 1995 baseline

emissions inventories for peak 24-hour

and annual emissions in tons per day.

The inventory covers the expected

control area for the plan, the southern

half of the nonattainment area, which

includes all sources that have 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

of lake 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

(0.15 tpd unpaved roads, 0.19 paved

roads), residential wood burning (0.24

tpd), and industrial facilities (0.23 tpd,

plus a proposed soda ash project

projected to emit 0.51 tpd). Secondary

aerosols are also insignificant PM–10

sources in Owens Valley, and so the

inventories are for primary 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

of the 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.9 EPA

proposes to approve the emissions

inventories as meeting the requirements

of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

F. Control Measures

1. Description of Control Measures

The plan includes 3 control measures,

each of which is designed to reduce

emissions from the Owens Lake bed.

They are shallow flooding, managed

vegetation, and gravel cover. The

following is a brief summary of each of

the measures, which are described at

more length in Chapter 5 of the 1998

SIP.

a. Shallow Flooding

This control measure consists of

releasing water along the upper edge of

the Owens Lake bed and allowing it to

spread and flow down-gradient toward

the center of the lake. To attain the

required PM–10 control efficiency, the

District concludes that at least 75

percent of each square mile of the

control area must be wetted to produce

standing water or surface saturated soil,

between September 15 and June 15 of

each year. The District estimates that a

maximum of 4 acre-feet of water is

required annually to control PM–10

emissions from an acre of lake bed.

To maximize project water use

efficiency, flows to the control area will

be precisely regulated so that only the

exact amount of water is released to

keep the soil wet. Although the quantity

of excess water will be minimized

through system operation, any water

that does reach the lower end of the

control area will be collected in berms

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

after flooding. The project will include

a program to remove any salt cedar

(Tamarix ramosissima) and other

undesirable non-native plant and grass

species that invade wet playa areas. The

City must also prevent disruption of

shorebird breeding activities when

water delivery is reduced on June 15 of

each year. Finally, the City will design

and implement mosquito abatement

programs, including the erection of bat

roosting structures, and will monitor the

impact of any pesticide usage to ensure

that mosquito control activities do not

result in unacceptable rates of egg

thinning and failure.

b. Managed Vegetation

This control measure consists of

creating a farm-like environment

containing a mosaic of small

(approximately 4 to 20 acre) confined

fields constructed of saltgrass (Distichlis

spicata) that are irrigated with shallow

pulses of water. The City will need to

carefully monitor release of water to

leach soils to within a level suitable for

saltgrass. Saltgrass will be the only plant

species to be introduced to the fields. It

is tolerant of relatively 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 of applied 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 of earthen infrastructure

for water distribution, including

ditches, berms, channels, and reservoirs

that allow for level border irrigation

strategies that leach and drain readily

through the fractured structure of the

soil. The drainage system will be

designed and constructed to allow for

mixing of fresh water and saline drain

water to achieve an ideal irrigation

salinity. This will serve to maintain a

downward gradient of salts in the

rooting column of the soil in order to

prevent salt from the shallow water

table from rising into the rooting zone

by capillary action. The drainage system

must also be managed to prevent the

rise of the water table into the rooting

zone. Finally, the project will involve

construction of special areas for

saturated evaporite deposits.

c. Gravel Cover

A 4-inch layer of coarse gravel laid on

the surface of the Owens Lake playa will

prevent PM–10 emissions by: (1)

preventing the formation of efflorescent

evaporite salt crusts, because the large

spaces between the gravel particles

interfere with the capillary forces that

transport the saline water to 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 of the

particles is not possible by wind speeds

typical of the Owens Lake area.

Gravel blankets can work effectively

on essentially any type of soil surface.

Under certain limited conditions of

sandy soils combined with high

groundwater levels, it may be possible

for some of the gravel blanket to settle

into lake bed soils and thereby lose

effectiveness in controlling PM–10

emissions. To prevent the loss of any

protective gravel material into lake bed

soils, a permeable geotextile fabric may

be placed between the soil and the

gravel where necessary. This will

prevent the loss of any gravel.

Gravel areas must be protected from

water- and wind-borne soil and dust.

The gravel blanket will be the last

control measure to be implemented in

order to eliminate wind-borne

depositions. Gravel areas will be
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules 34177

10Because the statutory BACM implementation

deadline has passed, the plan must assure that

BACM will 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.’’ 55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9,

1990).

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 of all areas

designated for gravel must be covered

with a layer of gravel 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 of its choosing on 3.5 square

miles of the 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 of the 3 identified measures,

modified versions of these 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 2 increments. The first

increment will take place between

November 16, 1998, and December 31,

2003. This requires the implementation

of control measures on 16.5 square

miles of the Owens Lake bed, unless the

District finds that attainment is

achieved by placing controls on a

smaller area. During this time the

emphasis will be on controlling those

portions of the lake bed that are most

emissive in terms of the frequency and

severity of emissions. The focus will be

on improving control measure

efficiencies and on identifying those

remaining areas of the 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 of any additional

control measures necessary to provide

for attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS by

December 31, 2006.

The District commits to revise the SIP

in 2003 to incorporate new knowledge

and provide for attainment of the PM–

10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006. If the

District determines that additional or

fewer controls are required to meet the

NAAQS by December 31, 2006, the 2003

SIP will provide for implementation of

the appropriate control measures for the

final step of the 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 are de 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 of emissions reduction of PM–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, to be

achievable for such source through

application of production processes and

available methods, systems, and

techniques for control of each such

pollutant.’’ General Preamble

Addendum, 59 FR 42010 (August 16,

1994). EPA exempts from the BACM

requirement de minimis 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 shall be implemented 4 years

after the effective date of the

reclassification, or by February 8,

1997.10

In the plan and in the appendices to

the plan, the District has provided

extensive documentation on both the

control measures included in the plan

and those rejected. The documentation

quantifies the costs of construction,

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 are uniquely vast in scale,

materiel, and required construction

activity. The District’s order to the City

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 PM–

10 violations in the area and, hence,

applying BACM 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

BACM requirement in terms of the

timing, degree, and extent of the control

program; and

(c) There is insufficient evidence, at

this time, to support the economic and

technological feasibility of any

alternative or additional measures for

the control of wind erosion emissions in

Owens Valley, even assuming the high

degree of control stringency associated

with the BACM requirement.

EPA therefore proposes to approve the

control measures contained in the SIP

under CAA section 110(k)(3), as meeting

the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)

and 189(b)(1)(B).

G. Reasonable Further 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, of the phase 1

control of 10 square miles. The order

requires control of an additional 3.5

square miles by 2002; 3 square miles by

2003; and 2 square miles in each of the

remaining 3 years through 2006.

EPA proposes to approve this

aggressive and enforceable annual

schedule as meeting the RFP

requirements of CAA section 189(c).

H. Contingency Measures

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 by 2006. If in 2006 the

District determines that the area will not

attain by the end of that year, the

District order requires the City to
34178 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules

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 but also 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 and Robert Bauman dated July 5, 1990.

implement controls on an additional 2

square miles of the Owens Lake bed

each year. Implementation of this

contingency measure is automatic, and

requires no further action by the District

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. 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, there must be a showing

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, and

(3) the state demonstrates that the plan

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 that the implementation

schedule for the control measures is as

expeditious as practicable, considering

the massive projects that must be

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. Attainment Demonstration

The SIP must provide a detailed

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) that the specified control

strategy will reduce PM–10 emissions so

that the standards will be attained as

soon as practicable but no later than

December 31, 2006, assuming final EPA

approval of the attainment deadline

extension. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).

EPA considers the area to be in

attainment of the NAAQS if 24-hour

concentrations are 150 ug/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 most recent

period (1996–1998) is 37.0 ug/m3.11

Air quality modeling techniques were

applied to assess control scenarios

developed by the District to reduce PM–

10 concentrations and bring the airshed

into attainment. The specific computer

model used by the District is called the

Industrial Source Complex Short-Term

Version 3 model or ISCST3. ISCST3 is

the EPA recommended dispersion

model for regulatory assessment of

fugitive dust sources (40 CFR part 51,

appendix W). The modeling analysis

itself comports with existing modeling

guidelines.12

A performance evaluation was also

conducted to determine the uncertainty

and reliability of these modeling

methods based on a comparison of

model predictions with ambient PM–10

measurements. Chapter 6 of the 1998

SIP contains a detailed description of

the air quality modeling used for the

Owens Valley.

The objectives of the 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 of the

proposed dispersion modeling

techniques using 2 years of ambient 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 of the modeling

procedures.

(3) To assess and refine control

strategies until the modeling approach

demonstrates attainment of the PM–10

NAAQS.

The air quality model shows that the

proposed set of control strategies would

reduce ambient PM–10 impacts at

shoreline almost 97 percent. After

implementation of the control strategies,

the number of PM–10 exceedances at

the shoreline will be less than one per

year, which complies with the PM–10

standard.

To achieve the emission reductions

necessary to meet the PM–10 standard,

the controlled emission rate must be

1.25 metric tons of PM–10 per square

kilometer per day (approximately 1.4

tons per 250 acres per day). This is

based on the emissions for the design

day meteorology on March 12, 1994.

The 3 control measures (shallow

flooding, managed vegetation and

gravel) each would result in emissions

below this controlled emission rate.

EPA concludes that the air quality

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. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the

serious area PM–10 SIP submitted by

the State of California for the Owens

Valley PM–10 nonattainment area.

Specifically, EPA is proposing 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 of sections 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 of the

attainment date from December 31, 2001

to December 31, 2006, under CAA

section 188(e).

III. 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 12875

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 of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules 34179

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, 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) of E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

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

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 rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it 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 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

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

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 of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 approval

action promulgated 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. This Federal 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, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: June 18, 1999.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 99–16227 Filed 6–24–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[FRL–6367–2]

List of Regulated Substances and

Thresholds for Accidental Release

Prevention; Flammable Hydrocarbon

Fuel Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: On May 28, 1999, the

Environmental Protection Agency

proposed to modify the rule listing

regulated substances and threshold

quantities for the Risk Management

Program (RMP) issued under section

112(r) of the Clean Air Act as amended.

EPA proposed that regulated flammable

hydrocarbon substances need not be

considered in determining whether

more than a threshold quantity is

present when the substance is intended

for use as a fuel and does not exceed

67,000 pounds in a process that is not

manufacturing the fuel, does not contain

greater than a threshold quantity of

another regulated substance, and is not

collocated or interconnected to another

covered process. This notice extends the

public comment period for the proposed

rule.

DATES: The comment period for the

proposed rule is extended from the