Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 63019

1The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the Act. See Pub. L.

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to

the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The

Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S.

Code at 42 U.S.C. sections 7401, et seq.

2Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to

nonattainment areas generally and subpart 4

contains provisions specifically applicable to PM–

10 nonattainment areas. At times, subpart 1 and

subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to

clarify the relationship among these provisions in

the ‘‘General Preamble’’ and, as appropriate, in

today’s notice and supporting information.

under the governing regulations with

each prior lessee and operating rights

owner holding an interest when the

obligation was accruing.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–29864 Filed 12–07–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WA7–1–5542; FRL–5343–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this action, Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) invites public

comment on its proposed granting of a

temporary waiver of the attainment date

for the Wallula, Washington particulate

nonattainment area. This is based on

EPA’s review of the State

implementation plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Washington

for the purpose of bringing about

attainment of the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PM–10). The

implementation plan was submitted by

the State to satisfy certain federal Clean

Air Act requirements for an approvable

moderate nonattainment area PM–10

SIP for a geographic area referred to as

Wallula, Washington due on November

15, 1991.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be postmarked by January 8,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch

(AT–082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of the State’s submittals and

other information supporting this

proposed action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air, 1200 Sixth

Avenue (AT–082), Seattle, Washington

98101, and the State of Washington

Department of Ecology, 4450 Third Ave.

SE, Lacey, Washington 98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Lauderdale, Office of Air (AT–

082), US Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206) 553–6511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Wallula, Washington, area was

designated nonattainment for PM–10

and classified as moderate under

sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the

Clean Air Act, by operation of law upon

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694

(Nov. 6, 1991) (official designation

codified at 40 CFR 81.348). The air

quality planning requirements for

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas

are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Part

D, Title I of the Act.2 The EPA has

issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’ describing

EPA’s preliminary views on how EPA

intends to review SIP’s and SIP

revisions submitted under Title I of the

Act, including those State submittals

containing moderate PM–10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

[see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)]. Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of Title I advanced

in this proposal and the supporting

rationale. In this rulemaking action on

the Washington moderate PM–10 SIP for

the Wallula nonattainment area, EPA is

proposing to apply its interpretations,

taking into consideration the specific

factual issues presented. Additional

information supporting EPA’s action on

this particular area is available for

inspection at the address indicated

above. EPA will consider any timely

submitted comments before taking final

action on today’s proposal.

Those States containing initial

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas

(those areas designated nonattainment

under section 107(d)(4)(B)) were

required to submit, among other things,

the following provisions by November

15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably

available control measures (RACM)

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology—RACT) shall be

implemented no later than December

10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including

air quality modeling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994, or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward attainment by December

31, 1994; and

4. Provisions to assure that the control

requirements applicable to major

stationary sources of PM–10 also apply

to major stationary sources of PM–10

precursors except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM–10 levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c),

188, and 189 of the Act.

Some provisions were due at a date

later than November 15, 1991. States

with initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM–10 by June 30, 1992 (see section

189(a)). Such States also were to submit

contingency measures by November 15,

1993 which become effective without

further action by the State or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the

PM–10 NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline (see section 172(c)(9)

and 57 FR 13543–44).

II. Today’s Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA’s review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–66).

For PM–10 nonattainment areas Section

188(f), Waivers for Certain Areas, can

apply as well.

In this action, EPA is proposing to

grant a temporary waiver of the

attainment date for the Wallula

nonattainment area. Discussion of EPA’s

requirements for a temporary waiver are

detailed in 59 FR 41998–42017 (August

16, 1994). In this guidance EPA

provides certain flexibility for areas

where the significance of anthropogenic

and nonanthropogenic sources is

unknown. The Washington Department

of Ecology (Ecology) has presented

preliminary data, based on a crude

emission inventory of eastern

Washington, indicating that

nonanthropogenic sources may be

significant in the Wallula situation. EPA
63020 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

3 Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2).

proposes to accept this preliminary

information and grant a temporary

waiver of the moderate area attainment

date to allow Ecology and EPA to

evaluate further the Wallula

nonattainment area. Once the evaluation

is completed, and/or the temporary

waiver expires, EPA will make a final

determination on the plan for the

Wallula nonattainment area, including

the applicability of a permanent waiver

for the area.

The preliminary information

presented by Ecology to date indicates

that windblown dust from both

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic

sources are impacting the Columbia

Plateau geographic area which includes

most of eastern Washington as well as

northern Idaho and northeastern

Oregon. In addition, the primary sources

causing exceedences of the PM–10

standard may be many miles outside of

the currently designated nonattainment

areas in the Columbia Plateau region.

Additional monitoring has been

initiated in the region to evaluate

further the extent of the problem.

Extensive analysis is being done to

distinguish anthropogenic sources from

nonanthropogenic sources.

If granted, the proposed temporary

waiver will extend the attainment date

to December 31, 1997. The temporary

three-year waiver will provide Ecology

and EPA sufficient time to determine

conclusively the significance of

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic

PM–10 sources that are impacting the

area. As required in the EPA guidance,

Ecology and EPA are proceeding under

a written agreement which sets out the

protocol for both technical analysis

(emission inventory, emission factor

development, dispersion modeling,

receptor modeling, etc.) and evaluation

of alternative control measures,

including Best Available Control

Measures. The activities required under

the protocol are generally referred to as

the Columbia Plateau PM–10 Project

funded by EPA, Ecology and USDA.

Cooperating agencies include USDA’s

Agricultural Research Service and

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

as well as several local conservation

districts, Washington State University

the University of Idaho, and others.

Once the technical information from

this project is finalized, EPA will

determine if a permanent waiver of the

attainment date is appropriate for the

Wallula area or if the area should be

reclassified as a serious PM–10

nonattainment area.

The temporary waiver of the

attainment date, if finalized by EPA,

will defer approval/disapproval actions

on several otherwise required elements

of the moderate area plan for Wallula.

The submission of the attainment

demonstration, emission inventory, and

contingency measures will be deferred.

EPA will take final action on these

elements after the analysis is completed

and/or the expiration of the temporary

waiver along with a decision on the

eligibility of the area for a permanent

waiver. EPA’s reasoning for this

approach is described in more detail

under the various SIP element headings

of this notice.

The Wallula plan was submitted to

EPA on November 15, 1991. Ecology

also submitted additional information

on May 18, 1993 which further

described the control measures being

implemented in the area (letter from

Joseph R. Williams to Jim McCormick,

forwarding a report titled, ‘‘Addendum

to the State Implementation Plan for the

Wallula PM–10 Nonattainment Area,

Reasonably Available Control Measure

Analysis’’, undated). Additional

information describing the status of the

control measures and forwarding an

analysis of windblown dust in the area

was submitted on June 23, 1994 (letter

from Joseph R. Williams to Jim

McCormick). In a June 1, 1995, letter

Ecology provided information on

allowable emissions. Finally, Ecology

forwarded a revised emission inventory

for point sources within the

nonattainment area on September 6,

1995 (letter from Joseph R. Williams to

Michael A. Bussell).

EPA is proposing to approve the

exclusion from precursor controls as

described in part II. 5 below. EPA

invites public comment on the proposed

action described in this section.

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing. The EPA also must

determine whether a submittal is

complete and therefore warrants further

EPA review and action (see section

110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA’s

completeness criteria for SIP submittals

are set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix

V (1992). The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made

by EPA six months after receipt of the

submission.

Ecology held a public hearing to

receive public comment on the Wallula

implementation plan on October 23,

1991. WDOE adopted the

implementation plan for the area on

November 14, 1991 and the plan was

submitted to EPA on November 15,

1991. The SIP submittal was reviewed

by EPA to determine completeness in

accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V. A letter dated May 5, 1992,

was forwarded to the WDOE indicating

the completeness of the submittal and

the next steps to be taken in the review

process.

2. PM–10 Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires

that nonattainment plan provisions

include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of relevant pollutants in

the nonattainment area. Because the

submission of the emissions inventory

is a necessary adjunct to an area’s

attainment demonstration (or

demonstration that the area cannot

practicably attain) the emissions

inventory must be received with the

demonstration (see 57 FR 13539).

In the 1991 plan Ecology submitted an

emissions inventory of estimated actual

emissions for the base year of 1990 and

the attainment year of 1994, and the 3-

year maintenance year of 1997. Ecology

sent a letter to EPA on September 6,

1995, partially amending that 1991

inventory. The amended inventory adds

an additional point source and revises

emission from one area source. EPA

considers the changes as minor and they

do not significantly impact the overall

inventory for the area. Based on the

1995 letter the base year (1990)

inventory the major source of

particulate matter impacting the area

was wind blown dust (98%, an average

of 1,553,334 kilograms/day). The

remainder of the emission inventory

included point sources (less that 1%,

693 kilograms/day) and other area

sources (less than 1%, 1215 kilograms/

day).

A report titled ‘‘An Analysis of the

Impact of Biogenic PM–10 Sources on

the Spokane PM–10 Nonattainment

Area’’, prepared by the Washington

State Department of Ecology, February

1992, presents the most recent
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 63021

4The EPA issued guidance on PM–10 emissions

inventories prior to the enactment of the Clean Air

Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM–10

SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided

in this document appears to be consistent with the

Act.

information on the emission sources in

the Columbia Plateau region of eastern

Washington (which includes both the

Spokane and Wallula nonattainment

areas). The report attempts to determine

gross annual emissions from

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic

sources of PM–10. Preliminary

information is presented indicating that

about 40% of the annual emissions in

eastern Washington are from

anthropogenic sources and 60% from

nonanthropogenic sources. No attempt

was made to estimate the highest 24-

hour emissions which, depending on

the location, is expected to vary greatly.

As discussed previously, the emission

inventory information suggests, but does

not conclusively show, that

nonanthropogenic sources contribute

significantly to the Wallula

nonattainment area.

The emissions inventory estimating

actual emissions generally appears to be

accurate and comprehensive consistent

with the requirements of section

172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act and

national guidance.4 Although, recent

information from studies being

conducted in eastern Washington

indicate that the emission factors used

for wind blown dust in the SIP revision

are probably inappropriate, EPA thinks

that the assumptions were the best

available at the time the plan was

prepared. The Columbia Plateau PM–10

Project will include the development of

emission factors specifically for eastern

Washington and preparation of regional

emission inventories that will be used to

update the Wallula plan.

One additional emission inventory

issue relates to the actual and allowable

emissions from stack sources. Ecology

used highest actuals in the 1991 SIP

submission. For one of the point

sources, a papermill, allowable

emissions are much greater (by a factor

of 9) from the actual emissions used in

the plan. However, by using the higher

allowable emission estimates submitted

in the September 6, 1995, letter, the

papermill still only represents less than

1% of the emission inventory.

EPA proposes to take no approval or

disapproval action on the emission

inventory at this time. EPA is requiring,

as well as participating in, the

development of a detailed emission

inventory as part of the Columbia

Plateau project. When completed the

detailed emission inventory will be

used to supplement the current one.

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, the initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas must submit

provisions to assure that RACM

(including RACT) are implemented no

later than December 10, 1993 (see

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The

General Preamble contains a detailed

discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the

RACM (including RACT) requirement

(see 57 FR 13539–45 and 13560–61).

The current Wallula emission

inventory identified wind blown dust as

the dominant contributor of PM–10

emissions. There are two principal

sources of windblown dust:

Undisturbed land and agricultural

fields. Ecology submitted an analysis of

RACM for agricultural sources of PM–10

based on soil conservation measures

required by the federal government’s

implementation of the United States

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, in the

Wallula nonattainment area and

surrounding areas. EPA Title I preamble

guidance suggests states ‘‘rely upon the

soil conservation requirements (e.g.

conservation plans, conservation

reserve) of the Food Security Act to

reduce emissions from agricultural

operations’’ (see 57 FR 18072).

EPA proposes to accept Ecology’s

RACM analysis and concludes that

RACM is being applied to agricultural

sources not only in the nonattainment

area but throughout the region

surrounding Wallula. Ecology did not

evaluate the application of reasonable

controls on undisturbed lands. This

analysis will be accomplished as part of

the Columbia Plateau PM–10 Project.

The 1991 SIP revision contained a

commitment from Ecology to adopt

provisions of the FSA into state

regulation. Ecology has not developed

such a regulation. EPA proposes to

determine that Ecology need not

develop, adopt and submit state

regulations that accomplish the same

results as the current federal law and

regulations. Such action would be

unnecessary since the federal

government (USDA) has the primary

responsibility for implementation, and

enforcement, of provisions of the FSA.

Where sources of PM–10 contribute

insignificantly to the PM–10 problem in

the area, EPA’s policy is that it would

be unreasonable (and would not

constitute RACM) to require the

implementation of potentially available

control measures. 57 FR 13540. Further,

EPA has indicated that for some sources

in areas which demonstrate attainment,

RACM does not require the

implementation of otherwise available

control measures that are not

‘‘reasonably’’ available because their

implementation would not expedite

attainment (See 57 FR 13543).

In the Wallula situation, RACM for

agricultural windblown dust is

necessary and all other sources

combined do not meet the de minimus

guidance for requiring RACM. Even

though not required under PM–10 SIP

development guidance, Ecology did

justify that RACM (including RACT)

requirements were being met for two

additional sources in the Wallula

nonattainment area. Boise Cascade

paper mill and the Simplot Feeders

Limited Partnership cattle feedlot were

evaluated by Ecology and found to be

implementing RACM.

The only major (greater than 100 tons

per year) stationary source facility

within the nonattainment area, the

Boise Cascade paper mill, was evaluated

in the 1991 SIP submittal. Ecology

concluded and documented that RACT

is being applied to all stack sources in

the facility. The SIP revision does not

include any additional control of stack

emissions. However, Ecology’s RACT

analysis did note that one unpaved road

needed paving to meet RACT for

fugitive dust sources within the facility.

Ecology’s June 23, 1994 letter

documented that the road was paved,

thus meeting the final RACT

requirement. EPA proposes to accept

Ecology’s determination and considers

the papermill to be at RACT.

The second source, the cattle feedlot,

was determined by Ecology as meeting

RACM in the 1991 SIP submittal. In

1992, new owners of the feedlot

implemented an additional dust

abatement measure, a sprinkler system

to further reduce fugitive emissions.

EPA proposes to accept Ecology’s

determination of RACM being applied at

the feedlot.

EPA is proposing to grant a temporary

waiver of the attainment date to

December 31, 1997, which will allow

Ecology and EPA to determine

conclusively the significance of

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic

sources impacting Wallula. This action

does not relieve the area from the

requirement to implement RACM. In the

Wallula situation EPA thinks the

significant source, as well as the two

less significant sources, of PM–10 in the

area have been reasonably controlled.

Thus, EPA thinks it would be

unreasonable to require other smaller

sources of PM–10 in the area to

implement potentially available control

measures or technology. Further, EPA

believes implementation of such

additional controls in this area would

not expedite attainment.
63022 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

A more detailed discussion of the

individual source contributions, their

associated control measures and an

explanation as to why certain available

control measures were not

implemented, can be found in the TSD.

EPA has reviewed the State’s

explanation and associated

documentation and is proposing to

conclude that it adequately justifies the

control measures to be implemented.

4. Demonstration

As noted, the initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas must submit a

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) showing that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994 (see section

189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). The General

Preamble sets out EPA’s guidance on the

use of modeling for moderate area

attainment demonstrations (57 FR

13539). Alternatively, if the State does

not submit a demonstration of

attainment, the State must show that

attainment by December 31, 1994 is

impracticable (section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii).

In the 1991, Wallula SIP submission,

Ecology demonstrated attainment of the

annual and 24-hour PM–10 standards by

1994. The SIP utilized simple rollback

modeling for the demonstration. As

with the emission inventory discussion

above, EPA finds the attainment

evaluation is inadequate. The emission

inventory does not adequately

document the anthropogenic and

nonanthropogenic mix in the dominant

emission source, windblown dust.

However, since EPA is proposing to

grant a temporary, three year, waiver of

the attainment date, the approval or

disapproval of the attainment

demonstration will be deferred until

after expiration of the temporary waiver.

EPA proposes to make a final decision

on the attainment status and

classification of the area soon after the

temporary waiver expires on December

31, 1997. The alternative decisions

include reclassifying the area to a

serious PM–10 nonattainment area or

granting the area a permanent waiver.

EPA invites comments on this approach.

5. PM–10 Precursors

The control requirements which are

applicable to major stationary sources of

PM–10, also apply to major stationary

sources of PM–10 precursors unless

EPA determines such sources do not

contribute significantly to PM–10 levels

in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see

section 189(e) of the Act). The General

Preamble contains guidance addressing

how EPA intends to implement section

189(e) (see 57 FR 13539–40 and 13541–

42).

Ecology submitted the emission

inventory for PM–10 from the one major

stationary source and several small

sources. Due to the small contribution of

stationary sources to the Wallula

nonattainment area, EPA believes that

stationary sources of precursors provide

an insignificant contribution to the

Wallula, Washington, ambient PM–10

concentration and EPA is proposing to

grant the area an exclusion from PM–10

precursor control requirements

authorized under section 189(e) of the

act. Note that while EPA is proposing to

make a general finding for this area, this

proposed finding is based on the current

character of the area including, for

example, the existing mix of sources in

the area. It is possible, therefore, that

future growth could change the

significance of precursors in the area.

EPA intends to issue future guidance

addressing such potential changes in the

significance of precursor emissions in

an area.

6. Quantitative Milestones and

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM–10 nonattainment area plan

revisions demonstrating attainment

must contain quantitative milestones

which are to be achieved every three (3)

years until the area is redesignated

attainment and which demonstrate RFP,

as defined in section 171(1), toward

attainment by December 31, 1994 (see

section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable

further progress is defined in section

171(1) as such annual incremental

reductions in emissions of the relevant

air pollutant as are required by Part D

or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

As stated earlier, EPA is proposing to

grant a temporary waiver of the

attainment date for the Wallula area. If

granted, the area would not be required

to meet RFP because in 1998 EPA would

determine if the area would receive a

permanent waiver or be reclassified to

serious.

7. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by Ecology

and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). EPA

criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIP’s and SIP revisions were stated in a

September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541).

Nonattainment area plan provisions

must also contain a program that

provides for enforcement of the control

measures and other elements in the SIP

(see section 110(a)(2)(C)).

WDOE’s control measures and

regulations for control of Particulate

Matter, which are contained in the SIP,

are addressed above under the section

headed ‘‘RACM (including RACT).’’

These control measures apply to the

types of activities identified in that

discussion including, for example,

fugitive emissions from agricultural

sources. The SIP provides that the

affected activities will be controlled

throughout the entire nonattainment

area.

The SIP requires that all the

applicable SIP provisions be

implemented by December 10, 1993

(section 189(a)(1)(C). In addition to the

applicable control measures, this

includes the applicable record-keeping

requirements which are addressed in

the supporting technical information

document (TSD).

The TSD contains further information

on enforceability requirements

including enforceable emission

limitations; a description of the rules

contained in the SIP and the source

types subject to them; test methods and

compliance schedules; malfunction

provisions; excess emission provisions;

correctly cited references of

incorporated methods/rules; and

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. Ecology has the primary

responsibility for implementing the

measures in the plan. Ecology has

compliance inspectors and EPA

considers the staffing level adequate to

assure that the RACM provision in the

Wallula attainment plan are fully

implemented. As a necessary adjunct of

its enforcement program, Ecology also

has broad powers to adopt rules and

regulations, issue orders, require access

to records and information, and receive

and disburse funds.

8. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the

Act, all moderate nonattainment area

SIP’s that demonstrate attainment must

include contingency measures (see

generally 57 FR 13543–44). These

measures must be submitted by

November 15, 1993 for the initial

moderate nonattainment areas.

Contingency measures should consist of

other available measures that are not

part of the area’s control strategy. These

measures must take effect without

further action by the State or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to make RFP or attain the

PM–10 NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline. Since the action

proposed in this Federal Register notice
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 63023

allows for a temporary extension of the

attainment date, EPA proposes to take

no action on the contingency measures

until after the temporary waiver has

elapsed and EPA has determined the

eligibility of the area for a permanent

waiver.

III. Implications of Today’s Action

EPA is proposing to grant a temporary

waiver of the December 31, 1994,

attainment date to December 31, 1997.

If granted, the Washington Department

of Ecology will proceed with

determining the significance of

anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic

sources impacting the Wallula PM–10

nonattainment area. When Ecology has

completed its analysis, and/or the

temporary waiver expires, EPA will

make a final determination of the status

of the Wallula nonattainment area. EPA

is proposing to approve the control

measures submitted by Ecology as

meeting RACM and as having been fully

implemented by December 10, 1993.

Finally, EPA is also proposing to grant

an exclusion from precursor control

requirements as described in part II. 5

of this notice.

IV. Request for Public Comments

EPA is requesting comments on all

aspects of today’s proposal. As

indicated at the beginning of this notice,

EPA will consider any comments

postmarked by January 8, 1996.

V. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2224), as

revised by a July 10, 1995 memorandum

from Mary Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, and

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: November 7, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–29995 Filed 12–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 15

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Contracting by Negotiation (FAR Part

15 Rewrite)

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement, in concert with the

Federal Acquisition Regulations

Council, is sponsoring an initiative to

rewrite the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting

by Negotiation. The intent is to make

Part 15 easier to understand and to

eliminate policies, procedures, or

requirements that impose unnecessary

burdens on contractors or contracting

officers. Regulatory requirements that

are not required by statute, required to

ensure adequately standardized

government business practices, or

required to protect the public interest

will be considered for elimination.

Innovative means of simplifying the

procurement process and enhancing its

efficiency will be considered for

incorporation into the regulation. The

rewrite team will use a number of fora

to facilitate the exchange of ideas and

information. Comments are solicited

from both government and industry

personnel, and notices of public

meetings will be published in the

Federal Register. To initiate the rewrite

effort, interested parties are invited to

present statements or provide

suggestions on how to improve FAR

Part 15 at a public meeting.

DATES: Public Meeting: A public meeting

will be conducted at the address shown

below from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern

standard time, on January 23, 1996.

Statements: Statements from

interested parties for presentation at the

public meeting should be submitted to

the address below on or before January

16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The

location of the public meeting is the

General Services Administration

auditorium, 18th and F Streets NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20405. Individuals

wishing to attend the meeting, including

individuals wishing to make

presentations on the topic scheduled for

discussion should contact the Part 15

Rewrite Committee Chair, Ms. Melissa