Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5085

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order, because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

system practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ (CED) are not 

required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.763 to read as follows:

§ 165.763 Moving and Fixed Security Zone, 

Port of Fredericksted, Saint Croix, U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

(a) Location. A moving and fixed 

security zone is established that 

surrounds all cruise ships entering, 

departing, mooring or anchoring in the 

Port of Fredericksted, Saint Croix, U.S. 

Virgin Islands. The security zone 

extends from the cruise ship outward 

and forms a 50-yard radius around the 

vessel, from surface to bottom. The 

security zone for a cruise ship entering 

port is activated when the vessel is 

within one nautical mile west of the 

Fredericksted Pier lights. The security 

zone for a vessel is deactivated when 

the cruise ship is beyond one nautical 

mile west of the Fredericksted Pier 

lights. The Fredericksted Pier lights are 

at the following coordinates: 17°42′55′′

N, 64°42′55′′ W. All coordinates are 

North American Datum 1983 (NAD 

1983). 

(b) Regulations. (1) Under general 

regulations in § 165.33 of this part, 

entering, anchoring, mooring, or 

transiting in these zones is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port San Juan or 

designated representative. 

(2) Persons desiring to transit through 

a security zone may contact the Captain 

of the Port San Juan who can be reached 

on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 

(156.8 Mhz) or by calling (787) 289–

0739, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port or 

designated representative. 

(3) Sector San Juan will attempt to 

notify the maritime community of 

periods during which these security 

zones will be in effect by providing 

advance notice of scheduled arrivals 

and departures of cruise ships via a 

broadcast notice to mariners. 

(c) Definition. As used in this section, 

cruise ship means a passenger vessel 

greater than 100 feet in length that is 

authorized to carry more than 150 

passengers for hire, except for a ferry. 

(d) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 

1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority 

for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.

Dated: January 24, 2005. 

D. P. Rudolph, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port.

[FR Doc. 05–1754 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R10–OAR–2004–WA–0001; FRL–7866–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Wallula, 

Washington PM10 Nonattainment Area; 

Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the 

Annual and 24-Hour PM10 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Washington’s State Implementation 

Plan for the Wallula, Washington 

serious nonattainment area for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (PM10). Initially Wallula 

was classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area for PM10 pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

In 2001, it was reclassified as a serious 

nonattainment area for PM10. As a 

result, Washington was required to 

submit a serious area plan for bringing 

the area into attainment. This action 

5086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

proposes to approve the Wallula serious 

area plan dated November 15, 2004 and 

submitted to EPA on November 30, 

2004.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. R10–OAR–

2004–WA–0001, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web Site: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

3. E-mail: r10.aircom@epa.gov.

4. Mail: Office of Air Quality, Attn: 

Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: 

Donna Deneen, Mailcode: OAQ–107, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

5. Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 10, Attn: 

Donna Deneen (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

EPA’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. R10–OAR–2004–WA–

0001. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The EPA EDOCKET and the 

Federal regulations.gov Web site are an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, such as 

CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 

from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Please contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Deneen, Office of Air Quality, 

Region 10, AWT–107, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Ave., 

Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553–

6706; fax number: (206) 553–0110; email address: deneen.donna@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. What Action Are We Taking? 

II. What Is the Background for This Action? 

A. Description of the Wallula PM10 Serious 

Nonattainment Area 

B. Nonattainment History of Wallula 

C. Wallula Monitoring Network 

D. Monitored PM10 Air Quality in the 

Wallula Nonattainment Area 

III. What Are the Clean Air Act’s Planning 

Requirements for Serious Nonattainment 

Areas? 

A. Moderate Area Requirements Under 

Section 189(a) 

B. Serious Area Requirements Under 

Section 189(b) 

IV. How Does the Wallula Serious Area Plan 

Meet Clean Air Act Planning 

Requirements? 

A. Plan Overview 

B. Emissions Inventory 

C. Implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures 

D. Major Source Definition 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

F. Implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures on Major Stationary 

Sources of PM10 Precursors 

G. Contingency Measures 

H. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 

Quantitative Milestones 

I. Transportation Conformity

I. What Action Are We Taking?

On November 30, 2004, the State of 

Washington, Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) submitted a State 

Implementation Plan revision entitled 

‘‘A Plan for Attaining Particulate Matter 

(PM10) Ambient Air Quality Standards 

in the Wallula Serious Nonattainment 

Area’’ (Wallula serious area plan or 

Plan). This plan was submitted to meet 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) planning 

requirements for a PM10 serious 

nonattainment area. We have completed 

a review of the technical and 

administrative adequacy of this plan 

and presented the results in a Technical 

Support Document (TSD). The TSD 

provides the basis for our approval of 

the plan and discusses in more detail 

the air quality planning requirements 

for serious and moderate PM10

nonattainment areas in subparts 1 and 4 

of title I of the CAA. We are proposing 

to approve the Wallula serious area plan 

based on a determination that the plan 

complies with the CAA requirements for 

serious PM10 nonattainment area plans. 

This preamble describes our proposed 

action on the Wallula serious area plan 

and provides a summary of our 

evaluation of the Plan. 

II. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

A. Description of the Wallula PM10

Serious Nonattainment Area 

The Wallula nonattainment area lies 

in eastern Washington just north of the 

Oregon border in the southern portion 

of the Columbia Plateau. The 

nonattainment area includes parts of 

Walla Walla and Benton Counties and a 

small portion of Sacajawea State Park in 

Franklin County. 

The Wallula area is located in the 

lowest and driest section of eastern 

Washington, receiving as little as seven 

to nine inches of precipitation each 

year. Summer precipitation is usually 

associated with thunderstorms and it is 

not unusual for four to six weeks to pass 

without measurable rainfall in the 

summer. The Columbia Plateau is also 

known for prolonged periods of strong 

winds which carry dust particles for 

hundreds of miles downwind. Wind 

erosion is a particular problem in the 

area because of the natural dustiness of 

the region due to its dry environments, 

scant vegetation, unpredictable high 

winds, and soils which contain 

substantial quantities of PM10. See 

‘‘Farming with the Wind: Best 

Management practices for Controlling 

Wind Erosion and Air Quality on 

Columbia Plateau Croplands’’ (1998). 

The Wallula nonattainment area is 

generally rural and agricultural. 

Prominent land uses include dryland 

and irrigated cropland, industrial sites 

and natural vegetation. There is only 

one major stationary source in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5087

1The 1990 Amendments to the CAA made 

significant changes. See Public Law No. 101–549, 

104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to the CAA 

as amended in 1990. The Clean Air Act is codified, 

as amended, in the United States Code at 42 U.S.C. 

7401, et seq.

2The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth 

in section 189(a) of the CAA.

nonattainment area, a large pulp and 

paper mill and its associated compost 

facility and landfill. There is also a large 

beef cattle feedlot, a beef processing 

plant, a natural gas compressor station, 

grain storage silos and a few other minor 

sources. The population of the area is 

approximately 4800. Two-thirds of the 

population live in the northwest portion 

of the nonattainment area in the 

unincorporated town of Burbank.

B. Nonattainment History of Wallula 

The Wallula area was designated 

nonattainment for PM10 and classified 

as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) 

and 188(a) of the CAA upon enactment 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990.1 See 40 CFR 81.348 

(PM10 Initial Nonattainment Areas); see 

also 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). 

Under subsections 188(a) and (c)(1) of 

the CAA, all initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas had the same 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 1994.

States containing initial moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas were required 

to develop and submit to EPA by 

November 15, 1991, a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

providing for, among other things, 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT), and a demonstration of 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by 

December 31, 1994. See section 189(a) 

of the CAA.2 In response to this 

submission requirement, Ecology 

submitted a SIP revision for Wallula on 

November 15, 1991. Subsequently, 

Ecology submitted additional 

information indicating that 

nonanthropogenic sources may be 

significant in the Wallula nonattainment 

area during windblown dust events. 

Based on our review of the State’s 

submissions, we deferred action on 

several elements in the Wallula SIP, 

approved the control measures in the 

SIP as meeting RACM/RACT, and, 

under section 188(f) of the CAA, granted 

a temporary waiver to extend the 

attainment date for Wallula to December 

31, 1997. See 60 FR 63109 (December 6, 

1995)(proposed action); 62 FR 3800 

(January 27, 1997) (final action). The 

temporary waiver was intended to 

provide Ecology time to evaluate further 

the Wallula nonattainment area and to 

determine the significance of the 

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic 

sources impacting the area. Once these 

activities were complete or the 

temporary waiver expired, EPA was to 

make a decision on whether the area 

was eligible for a permanent waiver 

under section 188(f) of the CAA or 

whether the area had attained the 

standard by the extended attainment 

date. See 62 FR at 3802.

On February 9, 2001, EPA published 

a Federal Register notice making a final 

determination that the Wallula area had 

not attained the PM10 standard by the 

attainment date of December 31, 1997. 

See 66 FR 9663 (February 9, 2001) (final 

action); (65 FR 69275 (November 16, 

2000) (proposed action). EPA made this 

determination based on air quality data 

for calendar years 1995, 1996, and 1997. 

As a result of that finding, the Wallula 

PM10 nonattainment area was 

reclassified by operation of law as a 

serious PM10 nonattainment area 

effective March 12, 2001 with an 

attainment date of December 31, 2001. 

See 188(b)(2)(A) and 188(c)(2). On 

October 22, 2002, EPA found that the 

Wallula nonattainment area attained the 

NAAQS for PM10 as of December 31, 

2001. EPA’s finding was based on EPA’s 

review of monitored air quality data 

reported for the years 1999 through 

2001. EPA’s finding included a 

determination that exceedances that 

occurred in the area on June 21, 1997, 

July 10, 1998, June 23, 1999, and August 

10, 2000 were due to high winds and, 

consistent with EPA policy, not 

considered in determining the area’s air 

quality status. See Memorandum from 

EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation to EPA Regional Air 

Directors entitled ‘‘Areas Affected by 

Natural Events,’’ dated May 30, 1996 

(EPA’s Natural Events Policy). EPA has 

stated that it will treat ambient PM10

exceedances caused by dust raised by 

unusually high winds as due to 

uncontrollable natural events (and thus 

excludable from attainment 

determinations) if either (1) the dust 

originated from nonanthropogenic 

sources or (2) the dust originated from 

anthropogenic sources controlled with 

best available control measures (BACM). 

See EPA’s Natural Events Policy, pp. 4–

5. 

After EPA made its finding of 

attainment, Ecology continued to 

investigate the one remaining 

exceedance on July 3, 1997 that led to 

the area’s reclassification to serious. 

Meteorological information indicated 

that this exceedance was not due to high 

winds. Ecology concluded that the 

exceedance was likely attributable to a 

one time non-recurring activity 

involving the transportation of 130 

truckloads of finished compost near the 

monitor on July 1–3, 1997. Although 

this activity was non recurring and EPA 

subsequently determined that the area 

attained the standards as of December 

31, 2001, the Wallula area remains 

classified as a serious nonattainment 

area. As a result, a second 

nonattainment serious SIP revision—in 

addition to the moderate area SIP 

revision required under section 189(a)—

is required under section 189(b). 

C. Wallula Monitoring Network

For most of the period since 1986, 

Ecology’s monitoring network for the 

Wallula nonattainment area has 

consisted of a single monitoring site. 

This site is referred to in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database as the 

Nedrow Farm/Wallula Junction 

monitoring site (site id no: 53–071–

1001). This monitoring site was 

discontinued pursuant to an agreement 

with the landowner to stop using the 

monitoring location by October 31, 

2003. 

In anticipation of the closure of the 

Nedrow Farm/Wallula Junction 

monitoring site, Ecology provided EPA 

Region 10 with an analysis of the two 

potential replacement sites and a 

recommendation of Burbank for the 

replacement site on the grounds that the 

monitor at the Burbank site measured 

the same air mass as the Wallula 

monitoring site. Based on EPA’s 

determination that there was a strong 

correlation in data measured at the two 

sites, EPA agreed that the Burbank 

monitor was an appropriate replacement 

site to the original Wallula monitoring 

site. Ecology discontinued the Wallula 

Port monitoring site in April 2004. The 

Burbank monitor is now the sole PM10

monitoring location in the 

nonattainment area, with a sampling 

frequency of once every three days. 

D. Monitored PM10 Air Quality in the 

Wallula Nonattainment Area 

There are two separate NAAQS for 

PM10: an annual standard of 50 ug/m3 

and a 24-hour standard of 150 ug/m3. 

The area has never violated the annual 

PM10 NAAQS but it has violated the 24-

hour PM10 NAAQS. Currently the area 

is in compliance with both PM10

NAAQS. A thorough discussion of the 

area’s compliance with the 24-hour 

PM10 standard as of December 31, 2001 

is contained in EPA’s attainment 

determination. See 67 FR at 64816. In 

short, the area had one exceedance that 

resulted in a violation of the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS in 1997. All other 

exceedances that occurred from 1995 

through 2001 were determined to be due 

5088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

3 ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

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

4 ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10

Nonattanment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers 

for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

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

1994).

to uncontrollable high wind natural 

events and, consistent with EPA’s 

Natural Events Policy, not considered in 

determining the air quality status of the 

area. 

Since December 31, 2001, additional 

exceedances of the 24-hour standard 

have occurred on September 29, 2002, 

October 30, 2003, November 11, 2003, 

and April 27, 2004. All were flagged by 

Ecology as due to high wind events 

under EPA’s Natural Events Policy. 

Based on the information provided by 

Ecology about these events, other 

information provided by Ecology 

regarding control measures being 

implemented at the time of the events, 

and the area’s soil and climate 

characteristics, we conclude that the 

exceedances that occurred on 

September 29, 2002, October 30, 2003, 

November 11, 2003, and April 27, 2004 

were due to high wind natural events 

and that, on those dates, anthropogenic 

sources contributing to the exceedances 

were controlled with Best Available 

Control Measures. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to exclude the exceedances on 

all four dates from consideration in 

determining whether the Wallula PM10

nonattainment area is currently 

attaining the standards. Excluding these 

exceedances, the Wallula PM10

nonattainment area is attaining both the 

24-hour and annual average PM10

NAAQS. 

III. What are the Clean Air Act’s 

Planning Requirements for Serious 

Nonattainment Areas? 

Wallula is a PM10 nonattainment area 

that was reclassified to serious because 

it failed to attain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS by the moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 1997. 

Such an area must submit revisions to 

its implementation plan that address 

requirements for serious PM10

nonattainment areas under CAA section 

189(b). In addition, the area must satisfy 

requirements for initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas under section 

189(a). 

A. Moderate Area Requirements Under 

Section 189(a) 

Under section 189(b)(1) of the CAA, 

the Wallula serious area plan must meet 

requirements for a moderate area plan in 

addition to requirements for a serious 

area plan. EPA approved some but not 

all of the SIP revision Ecology submitted 

initially on November 15, 1991 to meet 

these moderate area planning 

requirements. See 62 FR 3800 (January 

27, 1997). The approved elements 

included those pertaining to RACM, the 

monitoring network, consultation and 

public notification, provisions for 

revising the plan, prohibiting sources 

from impacting other states, adequacy of 

personnel, funding and authority, 

enforceability of control measures, and 

the control of precursors. In addition, 

EPA approved a permitting program for 

the permitting of new major sources in 

nonattainment areas. See 60 FR 28726 

(June 2, 1995). EPA has not previously 

approved the emissions inventory, the 

attainment demonstration, contingency 

measures, and quantitative milestones. 

These remaining requirements must be 

met for both an approvable moderate 

and serious area plan. EPA believes all 

of the remaining requirements for a 

moderate area plan are covered by the 

serious area plan requirements, which 

are discussed more fully below. 

B. Serious Area Requirements Under 

Section 189(b) 

The Wallula nonattainment areas is 

required to meet the following 

requirements that apply to serious PM10

nonattainment areas: 

• A comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of PM10 (CAA section 

172(c)(3)). 

• A demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan will 

provide for attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable by no later than December 

31, 2001 or, where the State is seeking 

an extension of the attainment date 

under section 188(e), a demonstration 

that attainment by December 31, 2001 is 

impracticable and that the plan provides 

for attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable (CAA 

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

• Assurances that the BACM, 

including best available control 

technology (BACT) for stationary 

sources, for the control of PM10 shall be 

implemented no later than 4 years after 

the area is reclassified (CAA section 

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

• A requirement, under section 

189(b)(3) , that the terms ‘‘major source’’

and ‘‘major stationary source,’’ used in 

implementing a new source permitting 

program under section 173 and control 

of PM10 precursors under section 189(e), 

include any stationary source or group 

of stationary sources located within a 

contiguous area and under common 

control that emits, or has the potential 

to emit, at least 70 tons per year of PM10. 

• Assurances that BACT on major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors 

shall be implemented no later than 4 

years after the area is reclassified except 

where EPA has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to exceedences of the PM10 standards 

(CAA section 189(e)). 

• Quantitative milestones which are 

to be achieved every 3 years and which 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

(RFP) toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)). 

• Contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to make 

RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. 

These contingency measures are to take 

effect without further action by the State 

or EPA. CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Furthermore, PM10 serious area plans 

must meet the general requirements 

applicable to all SIPs including 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(l), necessary 

assurances that the implementing 

agencies have adequate personnel, 

funding and authority under section 

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

description of enforcement methods as 

required by 40 CFR 51.111. 

We have issued a General Preamble 3

and Addendum to the General 

Preamble 4 describing our preliminary 

views on how EPA intends to review 

SIPs submitted to meet the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 plans. The 

General Preamble mainly addresses the 

requirements for moderate areas and the 

Addendum, the requirements for serious 

areas.

IV. How Does the Wallula Serious Area 

Plan Meet Clean Air Act Planning 

Requirements? 

A. Plan Overview 

The Wallula serious area plan 

describes the efforts to determine the 

cause of PM10 exceedances in Wallula 

and concludes that all of the PM10

exceedances have been due to fugitive 

dust. Analysis of the filters from the 

PM10 monitors, on high and low wind 

days and when high and low levels of 

PM10 are recorded, reveals that dust is 

the primary material on the monitors. 

The emissions inventory identifies 

agricultural dust as the predominant 

source of PM10 emissions in the area.

Ecology has presented information 

showing that all but one of the 

exceedances since January 1, 1995 were 

caused by dust due to unusually high 

winds and that, to the extent the dust 

was attributable to anthropogenic (manmade) sources, such sources are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5089

5The Wallula serious area plan does not identify 

significant source contributors to violations of the 

PM10 annual standard because, as discussed above, 

the area has never violated the annual standard.

controlled with best available control 

measures. As discussed above, EPA 

agrees with the information presented 

by Ecology with respect to these 

exceedances and therefore believes such 

exceedances are appropriately excluded 

in determining whether the area is 

attaining the PM10 standards. 

As also discussed above, 

meteorological information indicated 

that the exceedance that occurred on 

July 3, 1997 was not due to high winds. 

In its investigation Ecology determined 

that dust was the predominant material 

found on the monitor that day. After 

analyzing the PM10 filter, the 

meteorology, the results of dispersion 

modeling, the emissions inventory, and 

chemical mass balance modeling for 

that day, as well as for other days, 

Ecology concluded that the most likely 

primary cause of the exceedance was 

dust raised by the transport of 130 truck 

loads of compost on unpaved roads 

from the compost facility to a nearby 

fiber farm from July 1–3, 1997, an 

unusual and nonrecurring activity. 

The Wallula serious area plan 

demonstrates attainment with the PM10

standards by showing that agricultural 

activities in the area are employing best 

management practices to reduce PM10

emissions, and that the feedlot, compost 

facility and other sources of fugitive 

PM10 emissions are employing best 

available control measures. This 

includes measures to ensure the fugitive 

dust impacts of unusual or 

extraordinary activities are considered 

and minimized so as to prevent a 

recurrence of the type of exceedance 

that occurred on July 3, 1997. 

The following sections present a 

discussion of how the Wallula serious 

area plan meets the CAA requirements 

for serious PM10 nonattainment areas. 

B. Emissions Inventory 

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

requires that nonattainment area plans 

include a comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources in the nonattainment 

area in the designated base year and a 

future attainment year. Ecology chose 

1997 as the base year because the area’s 

redesignation to serious was based on a 

recorded exceedance of the 24-hour 

PM10 standard that occurred in 1997. 

The inventory focused on emissions for 

a typical day during the summer, the 

time of year when PM10 emissions tend 

to be highest. Ecology excluded 

emissions associated with the recorded 

exceedance on July 3, 1997 (involving 

the one-time transport of 130 truckloads 

of finished compost near the monitor) 

because those emissions were the result 

of a nonrecurring activity and therefore 

not appropriately included in a baseline 

inventory. It also excluded 

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic 

emissions associated with high wind 

days because the exceedances 

associated with such events are 

addressed under EPA’s Natural Events 

Policy and Ecology’s Natural Events 

Action Plan. The 1997 baseline 

emissions inventory represents not only 

baseline emissions but current 

emissions as well. This is because the 

nature of the emissions and the small 

number of sources in this rural, 

agricultural nonattainment area have 

changed little since 1997. 

Based on our review of the Wallula 

serious area plan, we believe that the 

emissions estimates for all of the 

identified sources and source categories 

are based on emissions factors and 

methodologies recommended by EPA, 

or are derived from a specific study or 

data collected from a source category in 

the area (e.g., vacant lots). We therefore 

propose to find that the methodologies 

and calculations used by Ecology to 

develop the emissions inventory rely 

upon reasonable assumptions and 

provide a sufficient basis upon which to 

assess the impact of control measures on 

future PM10 emissions in the Wallula 

area. EPA is therefore proposing to 

approve the emissions inventory in the 

Wallula serious area plan as meeting the 

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

C. Implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures 

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires that 

a PM10 serious area plan provide for the 

implementation of BACM within four 

years of reclassification to serious. The 

CAA does not define what level of 

control constitutes a BACM-level of 

control. In guidance, we have defined it 

to be, among other things, the maximum 

degree of emission reduction achievable 

from a source or source category which 

is determined on a case-by-case basis, 

considering energy, economic and 

environmental impacts. Addendum at 

42010. 

Under our applicable guidance, 

BACM is applied to each significant 

(i.e., non-de minimis) source category. 

EPA has established a presumption that 

a ‘‘significant’’ source category is one 

that contributes 5 ug/m3 or more of 

PM10 to a location of 24-hour violation 

and 1 ug/m3 or more for the annual 

standard. Addendum at 42011. EPA 

follows a four-step process for 

evaluating BACM in PM10 serious area 

plans. Addendum at 42010–42014. The 

steps are: 

1. Develop a detailed emissions 

inventory of PM10 sources and source 

categories; 

2. Model to evaluate the impact on 

PM10 concentrations over the standards 

of the various sources and source 

categories to determine which are 

significant; 

3. Identify potential BACM for 

significant source categories and 

evaluate their reasonableness, 

considering technological feasibility, 

costs, and energy and environmental 

impacts; and 

4. Provide for the implementation of 

the BACM or provide a reasoned 

justification for rejecting any potential 

BACM. 

When the process is complete, the 

individual measures should then be 

converted into a legally enforceable 

vehicle (e.g., a regulation or permit 

process). CAA sections 172(6) and 

110(a)(2)(A). Also, the regulations or 

other measures should meet EPA’s 

criteria regarding the enforceability of 

SIPs and SIP revisions. General 

Preamble at 13541.

The development of the emissions 

inventory is discussed in the preceding 

section. EPA believes that the base-year 

emissions inventory contains a 

sufficient level of detail to enable 

appropriate evaluation of the control 

measures for BACM purposes in the 

Wallula serious area plan. Using a 

combination of chemical analysis, 

source apportionment, and its base 

emissions inventory, the plan identifies 

the following source categories as being 

significant contributors to violations of 

the 24-hour PM10 standard in the 

Wallula area: 5

1. Agricultural tilling. 

2. Boise Paper Solutions—Composting 

Facility and Landfill. 

3. Unpaved road dust. 

4. Tyson Fresh Meats (formerly IBP, 

Inc.), a beef processing facility. 

5. Simplot Feeders Limited 

Partnership, a beef cattle feedlot 

(Simplot feedlot). 

Based on EPA’s review of the 

modeling and other analyses described 

in the plan, we believe Ecology 

appropriately evaluated the impact of 

various PM10 sources and source 

categories on PM10 levels in the area and 

derived a comprehensive list of 

significant sources and source categories 

for the area. Ecology included sources of 

fugitive emissions, and not sources of 

combustion, in its list of source 

categories to be evaluated because no 

significant contribution from 

combustion products was detected on 

sampling filters. The following 

5090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

discussion contains a summary of the 

results of the BACM analysis for 

Wallula and the control measures 

adopted by Ecology. 

1. Agricultural tilling. In finding that 

the Wallula area attained the 24-hour 

PM10 standards by the applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2001, 

EPA determined that sources of 

agricultural windblown dust in the 

Wallula area were implementing BACM. 

See 67 FR 64815 (October 22, 2002). The 

BACM demonstration for the area relied 

on best management practices (BMPs) 

identified in ‘‘Farming with the Wind: 

Best Management Practices for 

Controlling Wind Erosion and Air 

Quality on Columbia Plateau 

Croplands,’’ (1998), the Columbia 

Plateau Natural Events Action Plan 

(1998) (Columbia Plateau NEAP), and 

data collected by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). In the 

same action, we noted that 

identification and application of BACM 

for agricultural lands is evolving and 

that we expect Ecology to continue 

efforts in identifying and implementing 

BACM on sources of agricultural 

windblown dust in the Wallula area in 

order for future exceedances caused by 

high winds to be characterized as 

‘‘natural events’’ and excluded in 

attainment determinations. 

Since our attainment determination, 

both ‘‘Farming with the Wind’’ and the 

Columbia Plateau NEAP have been 

revised to include updated information 

on the best management practices, their 

effectiveness, and special projects being 

implemented in the area to reduce 

emissions from agricultural sources. In 

its 2003 Columbia Plateau NEAP, 

Ecology defines BACM for agricultural 

fields to be conservation programs and 

practices that reduce or minimize wind 

erosion, and specifically, USDA 

Conservation Title Programs 

supplemented by incentive-based 

implementation of wind-erosion 

conservation practices or best 

management practices (BMPs). 2003 

Columbia Plateau NEAP, pgs. 18 and 19. 

In its 2003 annual status report on 

agricultural BACM implementation, 

Ecology reports that BMP use has 

increased in the Columbia Plateau. The 

document also identifies several 

ongoing projects specific to the Wallula 

area to reduce agricultural dust 

emissions in the Wallula area. This 

increase in BMPs in the Columbia 

Plateau, in combination with the 

ongoing emission reduction projects 

specific to the Wallula area, indicate an 

overall upward trend in the widespread 

use of BMPs in the Wallula area. 

In light of the progress in identifying 

new BMPs and refining existing ones, 

better information about their associated 

effectiveness, a continued upward trend 

in the widespread use of BMPs, 

Ecology’s commitment in its 2003 

Columbia Plateau NEAP to continue 

activities supporting the increased use 

of BMPs, and the area’s soil and climate 

characteristics, EPA concludes that the 

BACM requirement for agricultural 

sources is being met. Note, however, 

that identification and application of 

BACM for agricultural lands is still 

evolving and we expect Ecology to 

continue efforts in identifying and 

implementing BACM on sources of 

agricultural windblown dust and to 

revise periodically its Columbia Plateau 

NEAP, which covers the Wallula area. 

2. Boise Paper Solution—Composting 

Facility and Landfill. This source 

category includes emissions from 

vehicular traffic, windrow turning, 

materials handling and conveyance, and 

wind associated with the Boise Paper 

Solutions composting and landfill. 

Ecology has issued a title V Air 

Operating Permit (No. 000369–7) 

containing a fugitive dust control plan 

incorporating the measures that were 

determined as BACM for this facility. 

The plan requires road watering, rubber 

drapes on the windrow turning 

machine, compost row watering, no 

windrow turning on high wind days, 

minimization of active face of the 

landfill, and a prohibition on the 

placement of materials in the landfill 

during high wind days. In light of 

Ecology’s evaluation of BACM and its 

issuance of an Air Operating Permit 

containing a dust control plan for the 

facility, EPA concludes that the BACM 

requirement for this facility is being 

met. 

3. Unpaved roads: Although 

emissions from unpaved roads 

contributed only 2.2% to the baseline 

inventory, quantitative analyses found 

that dust on the Wallula filters could be 

attributed to unpaved roads or 

agricultural fields. Analysis was unable 

to distinguish between the two sources. 

Therefore, both unpaved roads and 

agricultural fields were evaluated for 

BACM in the Wallula serious area plan. 

Based on criteria in EPA’s Fugitive Dust 

Background Document and Technical 

Information Document for Best 

Available Control Measures (1992), 

unpaved roads with a length less than 

0.5 mile or with less than 20 vehicle 

trips per day did not receive further 

consideration for BACM and were not 

included in the inventory. Ecology put 

most focus on unpaved roads near the 

monitor. The focus on these roads 

recognizes that the truck transport 

activity associated with the exceedance 

on July 3, 1997, which led to a violation, 

took place near the monitor.

Normal traffic on these roads has 

consisted of staff traveling to service the 

monitoring site and meteorological 

station and Ecology staff visiting the 

monitoring site. The owner of land 

surrounding these roads has taken steps 

to limit access to these roads, and the 

monitoring site has been moved to a site 

in Burbank, both reducing the amount 

of travel on the roads. Ecology 

concluded that no additional controls to 

reduce PM10 on unpaved roads in the 

Wallula nonattainment area are 

required. Based on Ecology’s evaluation 

and in light of the nature and limited 

use of unpaved roads in the area, EPA 

believes that no further controls on 

unpaved roads are needed to meet 

BACM requirements. 

4. Tyson Fresh Meats (formerly IBP, 

Inc.). On December 6, 2002, Ecology 

issued Administrative Order No. 

02AQER–5074 to reduce IBP, Inc.’s 

potential to emit below the 70 tons per 

year threshold for major sources in 

serious PM10 nonattainment areas. The 

permit includes hourly and annual 

limits on throughput and hours of 

operation to achieve this reduction. In 

the Order, Ecology determined that the 

control equipment at IBP constitutes 

BACT. Based on Ecology’s evaluation of 

BACM/BACT at the facility and the 

Order limiting the facility’s potential to 

emit, EPA concludes that the BACM/

BACT requirement for this facility is 

being met. 

5. Simplot feedlot. WAC 173–400–040 

requires air pollution sources to take 

‘‘reasonable precautions’’ to prevent the 

release of fugitive emissions. To clarify 

what constitutes ‘‘reasonable 

precautions’’ for fugitive dust emissions 

from feedlots, Ecology developed a 

guidelines document entitled ‘‘Fugitive 

Dust Control Guidelines for Beef Cattle 

Feedlots and Best Management 

Practices’’ (Feedlot Guideline 

Document). These guidelines are 

intended to be used in conjunction with 

WAC 173–400–040 and are 

implemented through flexible, sitespecific fugitive dust control plans 

developed by each feedlot and approved 

by Ecology or the appropriate local air 

authority. Simplot submitted a revised 

Feedlot Dust Control Plan to Ecology in 

December 2003. The revised plan 

reflects the outcome of Ecology’s BACM 

evaluation, which looked at control 

measures such as increased water 

application, valve adjustment, addition 

of sprinklers to improve coverage, 

irrigation scheduling changes, water 

trucks to control roadway dust and 

manure management as potential 

emissions reduction methods. Ecology 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5091

approved Simplot’s Feedlot Dust 

Control Plan on December 18, 2003, 

finding that the plan meets the 

requirements in the Feedlot Guideline 

Document and constitutes BACM for 

this source. Based on Ecology’s 

evaluation of BACM, the Feedlot 

Guideline Document, the provisions in 

WAC 173–400–040, and Ecology’s 

approval of Simplot’s Feedlot Dust 

Control Plan, EPA concludes that the 

BACM requirement for this facility is 

being met. 

Based on the demonstration of BACM 

submitted by Ecology for sources in the 

Wallula area and our discussion above, 

EPA believes the serious area plan 

provides for implementation of both 

RACM and BACM for all source 

categories that contribute significantly 

to PM10 standard violations in the 

Wallula nonattainment area. EPA 

therefore proposes to approve the plan 

as meeting the RACM and BACM 

requirements. 

D. Major Source Definition 

CAA section 189(b)(3) requires that 

the terms ‘‘major source’’ and ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ used in 

implementing the major new source 

permitting program in serious PM10

nonattainment areas under section 173 

and for the control of PM10 precursors 

under section 189(e) must include any 

stationary source or group of stationary 

sources located within a contiguous area 

and under common control that emits, 

or has the potential to emit, at least 70 

tons per year of PM10. To meet this 

requirement, Ecology revised the 

definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’

in WAC 173–400–112. Specifically 

WAC 173–400–112(1)(b)(i)(A) lowers 

the PM10 threshold in nonattainment 

areas from 100 to 70 tons per year. EPA 

is proposing to approve this change 

because it meets the requirements of 

CAA section 189(b)(3). 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

CAA section 189(b)(1)(A) requires a 

demonstration that the area will attain 

the NAAQS by December 31, 2001. As 

discussed above, EPA has already 

determined that the Wallula 

nonattainment area attained the PM10

NAAQS by December 31, 2001 (67 FR 

64815, November 22, 2002). As 

discussed below, the Wallula serious 

area plan provides further 

documentation in support of that 

finding.

To demonstrate attainment, Ecology 

focused on the 24-hour PM10

exceedance of 210 ug/m3 that occurred 

at the Nedrow Farm/Wallula Junction 

monitor on July 3, 1997. Although there 

have been other exceedances recorded 

in Wallula after July 3, 1997, EPA 

concluded in 2002 that all subsequent 

exceedances through December 31, 

2001, qualified as natural events under 

EPA’s Natural Events Policy. As 

discussed above and in our finding of 

attainment, these natural event 

exceedances are not considered in 

determining the area’s air quality status. 

Since December 31, 2001, there have 

been four additional exceedances of the 

24-hour PM10 standard. As also 

discussed above, however, we are 

proposing in this notice that these 

exceedances should also qualify as 

natural events under EPA’s Natural 

Events Policy. Hence, it is reasonable for 

Ecology to focus on July 3, 1997 since 

it is the last time an exceedance not 

attributed to a natural event has 

occurred in the area and it is this 

exceedance that led to the area’s 

reclassification to serious. 

1. Investigation of the July 3, 1997 

Exceedance 

To determine the cause of the 

exceedance on July 3, 1997, Ecology 

relied on a combination of filter 

analyses, chemical mass balance 

modeling, dispersion modeling, and 

analysis of meteorological and air 

quality monitoring data. After Ecology’s 

initial analysis, it was not immediately 

apparent what caused the exceedance. 

Therefore, Ecology conducted an 

investigation into whether there were 

any unusual activities in the area on 

July 3, 1997, that could have 

contributed significantly to the 

measured concentration. This effort led 

to information that 130 truckloads of 

finished compost had been transported 

over unpaved roads near the monitor 

from July 1–3, 1997. The trucks were 

loaded at the Boise Paper SolutionsWallula Mill composting facility and the 

material was transported over unpaved 

roads to a fiber farm for use in 

enhancing cottonwood production. 

Based on the results of this 

investigation, Ecology determined that 

this was an unusual and nonrecurring 

activity and that it would have resulted 

in additional PM10 emissions in the 

area. This determination, combined 

with the results of technical analyses, 

led Ecology to conclude that unpaved 

road dust caused by truck transport was 

the primary cause of the July 3, 1997 

exceedance. A summary of evidence 

supporting this conclusion is presented 

in the TSD. 

2. Prevention of Future Exceedances 

The transport of finished compost 

from the compost facility to the fiber 

farm was a unique event that has not 

been repeated. The expected benefit for 

cottonwood production did not 

materialize and Boise Paper SolutionsWallula Mill is now putting all finished 

compost in the compost cell of the 

landfill at the facility. To ensure that 

similar events do not occur in the 

future, Boise Paper Solutions—Wallula 

Mill developed a dust control plan that 

is part of its title V air operation permit. 

The plan covers normal and customary 

composting operation and also contains 

a provision specifying that dust effects 

must be considered in the event of any 

extraordinary activities outside of 

normal operations. This provision 

would have applied to the truck 

transport of finished compost to the 

fiber farm on July 1–3, 1997. 

3. Attainment Demonstration 

Based on the information provided by 

Ecology, EPA believes that Ecology has 

thoroughly investigated the exceedance 

on July 3, 1997. EPA further believes 

that based on the results of the 

investigation, which included filter 

analysis, chemical mass balance and 

dispersion modeling, it is reasonable to 

conclude that the truck transport of 

compost on unpaved roads near the 

monitor caused the exceedance on July 

3, 1997. The truck transport activity was 

a one-time event that is not expected to 

recur. Other control measures are now 

in place to prevent both customary and 

unusual activities from causing a similar 

exceedance in the future. 

In light of the results of Ecology’s 

investigation, the control measures 

addressing the July 3, 1997 exceedance, 

the control measures discussed in 

section IV.B. above that address air 

quality in Wallula generally, the 

application of EPA’s Natural Event 

Policy, including implementation of 

BACM on agricultural sources to 

minimize the impacts of windblown 

dust during natural event exceedances, 

the attainment determination already 

made for the area through January 31, 

2001, and more recent monitoring data 

showing continuing attainment, EPA 

proposes to approve the submitted 

attainment demonstration for the 

Wallula serious nonattainment area. 

F. Implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures on Major Stationary 

Sources of PM10 Precursors

CAA section 189(e) requires BACT to 

be applied to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors if these sources 

contribute significantly to PM10

exceedances in the area. Analysis of the 

PM10 filters on two days with 

exceedances, two days with elevated 

concentrations, and two days with low 

concentrations revealed that dust was 

the primary material on the PM10 filters. 

5092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Based on this information, EPA does not 

believe major stationary sources of PM10

precursors contribute significantly to 

PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in 

the nonattainment area. 

G. Contingency Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that implementation plans 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make RFP or attain by 

its attainment deadline. These 

contingency measures are to take effect 

without further action by the State or 

EPA. 67 FR at 64816. 

The contingency measures in the 

serious area plan focus on mitigation of 

the impacts of windblown dust. The 

focus is on windblown dust rather than 

on the circumstances of the July 3, 1997 

exceedance because, as discussed above, 

the circumstances of the July 3, 1997 

exceedance were determined to be 

unusual and unlikely to recur. In 

contrast, windblown dust events occur 

regularly in the Columbia Plateau and 

are the most likely cause of future 

exceedances. Because of the likelihood 

of future wind blown exceedances, the 

plan does not include a PM10 trigger 

level for implementing the contingency 

measures. Rather, the measures are to be 

implemented on a regular basis 

regardless of the PM10 levels measured. 

The plan’s contingency measures 

include improvements to Ecology’s 

process for identifying source 

contributors when high wind events are 

occurring, certain PM10 reduction 

projects included in Ecology’s 2003 

NEAP, and Ecology’s BACM 

demonstration and our accompanying 

review every time a windblown dust 

exceedance occurs. In light of these 

measures to mitigate the impacts of high 

wind events and increase BMP 

implementation, along with regular 

evaluation of these measures during 

review of natural event claims and 

during attainment determinations, we 

believe the plan meets the contingency 

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

H. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

and Quantitative Milestones 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires 

nonattainment plans to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP). 

Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP 

as ‘‘such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part (part D of 

title I) or may reasonably be required by 

the Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ CAA section 

189(c) also requires PM10 plans 

demonstrating attainment to contain 

quantitative milestones which are to be 

achieved every 3 years until the area is 

redesignated attainment and which 

demonstrate RFP. These quantitative 

milestones should consist of elements 

that allow progress to be quantified or 

measured. Addendum at 42016. 

As discussed above, in 2002, EPA 

determined that Wallula nonattainment 

area was meeting the 24-hour and 

annual PM10 standards as of December 

31, 2001. Since then, monitoring data 

show that Wallula is continuing to meet 

the standards. Because the area is 

already in attainment of the standards, 

the emissions inventory is believed to 

have changed little since 1997, and 

control measures are being implemented 

as a part of the Wallula serious area plan 

to ensure the Wallula area maintains the 

standards, EPA believes no further 

showing of RFP or quantitative 

milestones are necessary. For these 

reasons, we propose to find that the 

plan meets the RFP and milestone 

requirement in CAA section 189(c)(1). 

I. Transportation Conformity 

CAA section 176(c) requires that 

federally-funded or approved 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects in nonattainment areas 

‘‘conform’’ to the area’s air quality 

implementation plans. Conformity 

ensures that federal transportation 

actions do not worsen an area’s air 

quality or interfere with its meeting the 

air quality standards. We have issued a 

conformity rule that establishes the 

criteria and procedures for determining 

whether or not transportation plans, 

programs, and projects conform to a SIP. 

See 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

One of the primary tests for 

conformity is to show transportation 

plans and improvement programs will 

not cause motor vehicle emissions 

higher than the levels needed to make 

progress toward and meet the air quality 

standards. The motor vehicle emissions 

levels needed to make progress toward 

and meet the air quality standards are 

set in an area’s attainment and/or RFP 

plans and are known as the ‘‘motor 

vehicle emissions budget.’’ Emissions 

budgets are established for specific 

years and specific pollutants. See 40 

CFR 93.118(a). 

Ecology’s analysis shows that mobile 

sources are an insignificant source of 

PM10 emissions in the Wallula 

nonattainment area. As a result, a motor 

vehicle emissions budget is not required 

as part of the Wallula serious area plan 

and transportation conformity does not 

apply in this area. See 40 CFR 93.109(k). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5093

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: January 21, 2005. 

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

10.

[FR Doc. 05–1867 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 122 

[OW–2003–0063; FRL–7866–5] 

RIN 2040–AE72 

Application of Pesticides to Waters of 

the United States in Compliance With 

FIFRA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking and notice 

of interpretive statement. 

SUMMARY: On August 13, 2003, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register soliciting public comment on 

an Interim Statement and Guidance to 

address issues pertaining to coverage 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 

pesticides regulated under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) that are applied to or over 

waters of the United States. The 

interpretation addressed two sets of 

circumstances for which EPA has 

determined that the application of a 

pesticide to waters of the United States 

consistent with all relevant 

requirements of FIFRA does not 

constitute the discharge of a pollutant 

that requires a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit under the CWA. EPA is 

announcing today the interpretive 

statement developed after consideration 

of public comments. In this notice, EPA 

is also proposing to revise the NPDES 

permit program regulations to 

incorporate the substance of the 

interpretive statement.

DATES: Comments on this action must be 

received or postmarked on or before 

midnight April 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OW–2003–

0063, by one of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(2) Agency Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(3) E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov,

Attention Docket ID No. OW–2003–

0063. 

(4) Mail: Send the original and three 

copies of your comments to: Water 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW–

2003–0063. 

(5) Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 

Attention Docket ID No. OW–2003–

0063. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OW–2003–0063. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section B.1. 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Water Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information contact Louis 

Eby, Water Permits Division, Office of 

Wastewater Management (4203M), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–6599, e-mail address: 

eby.louis@epa.gov; or William Jordan, 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 

305–1049, e-mail address: 

jordan.william@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you apply pesticides to or