Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Washington

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 [Federal Register: November 7, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 215)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56129-56133]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA9-1-5540, WA28-1-6613, WA34-1-6937; FRL-5326-3]
 
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.



SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes limited 
approval and limited disapproval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the State of Washington for the purpose of bringing about 
the 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<INF>10). The implementation plan was 
submitted by the State to satisfy certain Federal requirements for a 
moderate nonattainment area PM₁₀SIP for Yakima, Washington.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before December 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should by addressed to: Montel Livingston, 
EPA, Office of Air (AT-082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101.
    Copies of the State's request and other information are available 
for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: 
EPA, Office of Air, Docket #'s WA9-1-5540 WA28-1-6613 and WA34-1-6937, 
1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), Seattle, WA 98101, and the Washington State 
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Huynh, Office of Air (AT-082), 
EPA, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-1059.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Yakima, Washington area was designated nonattainment for 
PM₁₀and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 
188(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) upon enactment of the Amendments of 
1990 on November 15, 1990. This Yakima nonattainment designation was 
announced in a March 15, 1990 Federal Register notice (See 56 FR 
11101). The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM₁₀
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the 
CAA. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's views on 
how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted under Title 
I of the CAA, including those State submittals containing moderate 
PM₁₀nonattainment 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 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 Yakima, 
Washington moderate PM₁₀SIP, EPA is proposing to apply its 
interpretations taking into consideration the specific factual issues 
presented. Thus, EPA will consider any timely submitted comments before 
taking final action on this proposal.
    Those States containing initial moderate PM₁₀nonattainment 
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following 
provisions by November 15, 1991:

 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;
 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;
 Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three 
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
 Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM₁₀also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM₁₀precursors except where the Administrator 
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to 
PM₁₀levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 
172(c), 188, and 189 of the CAA.
    States with initial moderate PM₁₀nonattainment areas were 
also required to submit a permit program for the construction and 
operation of new and modified major stationary sources of PM₁₀by 
June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such States also must 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 PM₁₀
NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See section 172(c)(9) and 
57 FR 13543-44.

II. This Action

    Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out provisions governing EPA's 
review of SIP submittals (See 57 FR 13565-66). In this action, EPA is 
proposing to grant limited approval of the Yakima PM₁₀
nonattainment plan as submitted on March 24, 1989; May 1, 1992; August 
19, 1992; February 3, 1994; March 1, 1995; March 10, 1995; June 27, 
1995; and August 17, 1995. EPA may grant a limited approval of this 
nonattainment plan under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, in light of 
EPA's authority under section 301(a) of the CAA to adopt regulations 
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. EPA is 
proposing a limited approval because the nonattainment plan serves the 
purpose of improving air quality within the Yakima area and is 
providing Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

[[Page 56130]]
toward attainment. The proposed approval of this implementation is 
limited, however, in that EPA is not proposing that this plan satisfies 
the specific requirements of section 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the 
CAA to implement RACM, including RACT, in moderate nonattainment areas. 
EPA also is not proposing that this plan satisfies the specific 
requirements of section 189(c) of the CAA to show quantitative 
milestones which demonstrate attainment until the area is redesignated 
as well as the 1994 attainment demonstration. EPA believes, however, 
that the control measures adopted and submitted as of this date will 
achieve PM₁₀emission reductions in the Yakima nonattainment area. 
The submittals as a whole contain inseparable portions the cannot be 
approved. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve the control measures of the 
complete SIP for the limited purpose of strengthening the SIP and 
making them enforceable.
    However, because the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and 
Yakima County Clean Air Authority (YCCAA) have not yet adopted into the 
SIP and submitted to EPA certain control measures necessary for full 
approval of the SIP, EPA is proposing to disapprove the RACM (including 
RACT) element. In addition, because the attainment demonstration for 
1994 was not submitted as well as the maintenance demonstration, which 
demonstrates attainment until the area is redesignated, EPA is 
proposing to disapprove these elements of the SIP. Detailed discussions 
of the plan deficiencies are included below and are further discussed 
in the Technical Support Document (TSD). If this proposed disapproval 
becomes final, it will begin the period for the imposition of 
discretionary sanctions under section 110(m) of the CAA and the 18-
month sanctions clock for the imposition of mandatory sanctions under 
section 179 of the CAA. If finalized, this disapproval will also 
authorize EPA to issue a Federal implementation plan as provided in 
section 110(c)(1) of the CAA.
    If, however, prior to EPA's final action on this proposal the State 
submits a plan to EPA that adequately addresses the outstanding 
deficiencies, EPA will withdraw this limited approval/disapproval and 
will instead finalize a full approval of the PM₁₀plan for Yakima. 
EPA invites public comment on this proposed action.

A. Analysis of State Submission

 Procedural Background
    The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation 
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing.<SUP>1 Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that 
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the 
CAA must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.

    \1\ Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan 
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of 
section 110(a)(2).


    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). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are 
set out at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 
(August 26, 1991). 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.
    The WDOE held a public hearing on the original plan on December 7, 
1988. When this was superceeded by the May 1992 supplement and the 
August 1992 supplement additional public hearings were held on November 
30, and December 9, 1991 to entertain public comment on the Yakima 
implementation plan. Adequate public hearings were also held for the 
Yakima contingency measures (submitted on February 3, 1994) and the 
Yakima County Clean Air Authority (YCCAA) regulations (submitted on 
February 21, 1995). Following the public hearings the submittals were 
adopted by the State and signed by the Governor's designee as a 
proposed revision to the SIP.
    The SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA to determine completeness 
shortly after their submittal, in accordance with the completeness 
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 
FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittals were found to be complete, 
and letters were forwarded to the WDOE indicating the completeness of 
the submittals and the next steps to be taken in the review process.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
    It is a requirement that each nonattainment plan include a 
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of allowable emissions from 
major point sources and actual emissions from all other sources of the 
relevant pollutant (PM<INF>10) in the area. Because the submission of 
such inventories are necessary to an area's attainment demonstration 
(or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the 
emissions inventories must be received with the submission (See 57 FR 
13539).
    Yakima originally submitted an emissions inventory for a 1985 base 
year with the inventory projected out to 1991. When the area did not 
attain the PM₁₀NAAQS by 1991, the base year was replaced by 1990 
in the August 1992 submittal and a new emissions inventory was 
submitted. These emissions were again projected out, this time to the 
attainment year (1994). The 1990 inventory identified residential wood 
combustion as the primary nonattainment source, contributing 
approximately 5712f the total area emissions. Additional contributing 
sources included resuspended road dust at 17.2, point sources at 9.8, 
vehicle exhaust at 7and other area sources at 9However, the 
emissions inventory did not include allowable point source emissions 
and thus supplements were needed to provide a sufficient basis for 
determining the adequacy of the attainment demonstration for the area 
consistent with the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) 
of the CAA.<SUP>2

    \2\ The 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.



    The Yakima emissions inventory became comprehensive, and EPA 
approvable, in terms of allowable point source emissions when WDOE 
submitted a March 10, 1995 and August 17, 1995 supplement. Further 
details are found in the TSD on the emissions inventory.
3. RACM (Including RACT)
    As noted, the initial moderate PM₁₀nonattainment 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).
    Residential wood combustion emissions were identified as the main 
contributing source to the PM₁₀nonattainment problem in Yakima 
and 

[[Page 56131]]
are being controlled through a mandatory woodsmoke curtailment program 
as the area's sole control measure. The original submittal indicates 
that a mandatory woodsmoke curtailment program was to have been 
implemented by the 1988-1989 heating season. It turns out the 
curtailment program was not fully functioning until the 1991-1992 
heating season. The SIP indicates that the control of indoor solid fuel 
burning devices are expected to result in an emission reduction of 
66.512f woodstove PM₁₀emissions in the area. A more detailed 
discussion of the individual source contributions and their associated 
control measures (including available control technology) can be found 
in the TSD. EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated 
documentation and concluded that it adequately justifies the control 
measures to be implemented. The implementation of Washington's 
PM₁₀nonattainment plan control strategy has resulted in 
attainment of the PM₁₀NAAQS by December 31, 1994, and thus is 
approved.
4. Demonstration
    As noted, the initial moderate PM₁₀nonattainment 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 
CAA). Alternatively, the State must show that attainment by December 
31, 1994 is impracticable. WDOE and YCCAA conducted attainment 
demonstrations using Regional Air Modeling (RAM), a dispersion modeling 
program, for the Yakima area. However, WDOE and YCCAA have not 
submitted a demonstration that indicates the 24 hour NAAQS for 
PM₁₀will be attained by 1994 in the Yakima area with the new 
allowable major source emissions. The 24-hour PM₁₀NAAQS is 150 
micrograms/cubic meter (<greek-m>g/m\3\), and the standard is attained 
when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour 
average concentration above 150 <greek-m>g/m\3\ is equal to or less 
than one (see 40 CFR section 50.6). The annual PM₁₀NAAQS is 50 
<greek-m>g/m\3\, and the standard is attained when the expected annual 
arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 <greek-m>g/
m\3\. A quantitative milestone demonstration has not yet been submitted 
showing that the PM₁₀NAAQS will be maintained for the three years 
following the attainment date (December 31, 1997) and thus a limited 
disapproval action is being taken for the plan. The control strategy 
used to attain the PM₁₀standard is summarized in the section 
titled ``RACM (including RACT)''. A more detailed description of the 
attainment demonstration and the control strategy used can be found in 
the TSD.
5. PM₁₀Precursors
    The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary 
sources of PM<INF>10, also apply to major stationary sources of 
PM₁₀precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM₁₀levels in excess of the NAAQS in 
that area (see section 189(e) of the CAA). Even if precursors are 
controlled, available data showing the contribution of precursors 
should be provided by the State and placed in the SIP rulemaking record 
in the event that sources of precursors assert that they should be 
granted an exclusion from control under section 189(e).
    An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the Yakima 
nonattainment area indicates that exceedances of the NAAQS are 
attributed chiefly to particulate matter emissions from solid fuel 
combustion and that sources of particulate matter precursor emissions 
of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) contribute 
an insignificant amount. Even with WDOE assuming worst case conditions, 
the Yakima area precursor sources would only total 7.912f the 
emissions inventory. The consequences of this finding are to exclude 
these sources from the applicability of PM₁₀nonattainment area 
control requirements. Note that while EPA is making a general finding 
of approval for this area, this 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
    The PM₁₀nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating 
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be 
achieved every three years until the area is redesignated to attainment 
and which demonstrate Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), as defined in 
section 171(1), toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (see section 
189(c) of the CAA). RFP 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.
    In implementing RFP for this initial moderate area, EPA has 
reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area 
to determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those 
provided in the SIP should be required in order to ensure attainment of 
the PM₁₀NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). The 
Yakima PM₁₀SIP does not adequately demonstrate attainment for 
1994 and does not contain a 1997 quantitative milestone report to 
demonstrate the area's maintenance of air quality until redesignation 
to attainment is granted. For full approval, WDOE and YCCAA must submit 
a plan which demonstrates RFP towards attainment through December 31, 
1997.
7. Enforceability Issues
    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
the State 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)).
    Yakima's SIP control measure is addressed above under the section 
headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' The control measure applies to 
curtailing residential woodsmoke activities during impaired air quality 
conditions. The SIP provides that all non-certified solid fuel burning 
devices are subject to curtailment under Stage I calls, and all 
woodheating devices are banned during a Stage II call. The curtailment 
calls are not applicable to those residences that have no other source 
of heat available.
    The attached 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 with averaging times, malfunction provisions, correctly 
cited references of incorporated methods/rules, and reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    Because YCCAA is authorized by WDOE to enforce the woodsmoke 
curtailment program, as well as the other RACM measures contained 
within 

[[Page 56132]]
the SIP such as source emission limitations and 2012pacity 
restrictions, the YCCAA regulations must be enforceable in order to 
approve the Yakima nonattainment plan. Under section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) 
of the CAA the State must provide necessary assurances that the State 
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of plan 
provisions. WDOE would have responsibility where, for example, they 
have the authority and resources to implement provisions where the 
local entity fails to do so. State law requires local agency regulation 
to be as stringent or more stringent than the state's regulations. At 
this time several of the YCCAA regulations are less stringent than the 
state's regulations and thus are not legally enforceable, and need to 
be corrected before full plan approval. Details describing the YCCAA 
regulation deficiencies are contained in the TSD supporting this 
notice.
8. Contingency Measures
    As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, all moderate 
nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include 
contingency measures (See generally 57 FR 13543-13544). 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 PM₁₀NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. The 
Yakima SIP contains a Woodstove Buy Back Program (WSBBP) as its primary 
contingency measure. The WSBBP is being implemented as a 100
overcontrol measure. The program has been in effect since July 1, 1993, 
when EPA funding was secured, and has replaced approximately 70 
uncertified woodstoves to cleaner forms of heat such as certified 
woodstoves, electricity, or gas. The WSBBP provides overcontrol for the 
area by creating a reduction in overall emissions regardless of whether 
a PM₁₀NAAQS violation occurs, and thus is being approved as 
Yakima's contingency measure.

III. Implications of This Action

    EPA is proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of the 
plan revisions submitted to EPA for the Yakima nonattainment area on 
March 24, 1989; May 1, 1992; August 19, 1992; February 3, 1994; and 
March 1, 1995.
    In order to fully approve the Yakima moderate PM₁₀
nonattainment SIP submitted by the WDOE and the YCCAA, some corrections 
and supplements need to be submitted to and approved by EPA. The plan 
deficiencies are described above and more completely in the TSD. 
Several YCCAA regulations need to be corrected to become at least as 
stringent as WDOE's corresponding regulations, a new 1994 attainment 
demonstration needs to be submitted using worst case allowable 
emissions, and a quantitative milestone report needs to be submitted 
demonstrating attainment of the area until December 31, 1997. If 
finalized without correcting these deficiencies, this limited approval/
disapproval would constitute a disapproval under section 179(a)(2) of 
the CAA (See generally 57 FR 13566-67). As provided under section 
179(a) of the CAA, the State of Washington would have up to 18 months 
after a final SIP disapproval to correct the deficiencies that are the 
subject of the disapproval before EPA is required to impose either the 
highway funding sanction or the requirement to provide two-to-one new 
source review offsets. If the State has not corrected its deficiency 
within 24 months after the disapproval, EPA must impose the second 
sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain in place until EPA 
determines that the State has corrected these deficiencies. If EPA 
ultimately disapproves the SIP submittal for the Yakima nonattainment 
area and the State of Washington fails to correct the deficiencies 
within 18 months of such disapprovals, EPA anticipates that the first 
sanction it would impose would be the two-to-one offset requirement. 
Note also that any final disapproval would trigger the requirement for 
EPA to impose a federal implementation plan as provided under section 
110(c)(1) of the CAA.

IV. Request for Public Comments

    EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As 
indicated at the beginning of this notice, EPA will consider any 
comments postmarked by December 7, 1995.

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 SIPapproval 
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 cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed 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 preexisting 
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 

[[Page 56133]]
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, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: October 24, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-27567 Filed 11-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Washington

Local Navigation
