Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
DOCUMENT ID: [R10-OAR-2005-WA-0005; FRL-7931-4]
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Wallula, WA, Area
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2005.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Agency, or we)
proposes to approve a PM
SUMMARY: Washington,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Table of ContentsI. General Overview
A. What Action Are We Taking?
B. What Is the Background for This Action?
1. Description of the Area
2. Description of the Air Quality Problem
3. Nonattainment History of the Wallula Area
C. What Impact Does This Action Have on the Community in the Wallula Area?
II. Review of Maintenance Plan
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review the Maintenance Plan?
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory (and Future Year Inventory)
2. Maintenance Demonstration
a. 24hour PM
b. PM
3. Monitoring Network
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
5. Contingency Plan
B. What Do We Conclude About the Maintenance Plan? III. Review of Redesignation Request
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review the Request for Redesignation?
1. Attainment of the NAAQS
2. SIP Nonattainment Area Plan Approval under Section 110(k)
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvements in Air Quality
4. Section 110 and Part D Requirements
a. Section 110 Requirements
b. Part D Requirements
i. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements
5. Conformity
6. Maintenance Plans
B. What Do We Conclude About the Request for Redesignation? IV. Conclusion
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Overview
A. What Action Are We Taking?
We are proposing to approve the SIP revision and redesignation
request submitted by the State of Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology or State) on March 29, 2005, for the Wallula, Washington
PM
1. Description of the 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 is a 12 square mile area and 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 and receives 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 PM
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 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. Twothirds of the population live in the northwest portion of the nonattainment area in the unincorporated town of Burbank.
2. Description of the Air Quality Problem
Air quality analysis shows dust is the main contributor to the
area's PM
There have been nine reported PM
[[Page 38075]]
extent the dust is attributable to anthropogenic (manmade) sources,
such sources are controlled with best available control measures. As
discussed in the approval of the serious area plan (70 FR 22597 (May 2,
2005)), EPA's Natural Event Policy allows these exceedances to be
excluded from determinations of whether the area is attaining the
PM
One exceedance since January 1, 1995 was not due to high winds. This exceedance, which occurred on July 3, 1997, was attributed to an unusual and nonrecurring activity involving the transport of multiple loads of composting material near the monitor.
The Wallula serious area plan demonstrated attainment with the
PM
The Wallula area was designated nonattainment for PM
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the CAA made significant changes. See
Public Law 101549, 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.
States containing initial moderate PM
\2\ The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section 189(a) of the CAA.
On February 9, 2001, EPA published a Federal Register notice making
a final determination that the Wallula area had not attained the
PM
\3\ Under section 188(c)(2) of the CAA, attainment areas
designated nonattainment for PM
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. Ecology concluded that the exceedance was likely attributable to a one time nonrecurring activity involving the transportation of 130 truckloads of finished compost near the monitor on July 13, 1997. Although this activity was determined to be unusual and nonrecurring and EPA subsequently determined that the area attained the standards as of December 31, 2001, the Wallula area remained classified as a serious nonattainment area. As a result, a serious area nonattainment SIP revisionin addition to the moderate area SIP revision required under section 189(a)was required under section 189(b). Ecology submitted a SIP revision meeting both the moderate and serious area planning requirements on November 30, 2004. We approved this SIP revision on May 2, 2005. 70 FR 22597.
In order for the Wallula nonattainment area to be redesignated to
attainment for PM
C. What Impact Does This Action Have on the Community in the Wallula Area?
EPA's approval of the State's SIP submittal (that is, approval of
the maintenance plan and redesignation request) would result in
redesignation of Wallula to a PM
[[Page 38076]]
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements would apply.
Although the SIP revision contains emissions reduction control
measures that impact both fugitive dust sources and industrial
facilities, these control measures are already in place and are
enforceable by the State. Therefore, our approval of these measures now
has little or no additional regulatory impact on the Wallula community. II. Review of Maintenance Plan
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Maintenance Plan?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act stipulates that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan which meets the requirements of Section 175A. Section 175A defines the general framework of a maintenance plan, which must provide for maintenance, i.e., continued attainment, of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least ten years after redesignation. The following is a list of core provisions required in an approvable maintenance plan.
1. The State must develop an attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS.
2. The State must demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS.
3. The State must verify continued attainment through operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring network.
4. The maintenance plan must include contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area.
See also the September 4, 1992 Calcagni guidance memorandum (Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment).
As explained below, the PM
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory (and Future Year Inventory)
The State should develop an attainment year emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Where the State has made an adequate demonstration that air quality has improved as a result of the control measures in the SIP, the attainment inventory will generally be an inventory of actual emissions at the time the area attained the standards. This inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
The State submitted a PM
The 2002 inventory reflects the predominantly rural, agricultural nature of the nonattainment area. Agricultural tilling accounts for just over half (51%) of the area's emissions. The rest are attributed to the pulp and paper mill (the only major source in the nonattainment area), small industrial sources, and mobile sources, which account for 20%, 19% and 9%, respectively.
The state also submitted a 2015 emissions inventory to correspond
with the end of the 10 year period covered by the maintenance plan. The
total emissions projected for 2015 are more than twice those of the
2002 attainment inventory on both an annual and typical PM
The methods used to develop the emissions inventories are
consistent with EPA guidelines. The assumptions and calculations were
checked and found to be thorough and comprehensive. In sum, the State
has adequately developed an attainment emissions inventory for 2002
that identifies the levels of emissions of PM
2. Maintenance Demonstration
A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by
either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling
to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not
cause a violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, PM
a. 24hour PM
The 24hour PM
To select dates for speciated rollback modeling, Ecology evaluated
filters collected from the 20002002 period, the most recent three
years for which data from a single monitoring location was available.
(The monitoring location was moved in 2003.) During this period, there
were nine days that reached elevated levels (defined as 24hour levels
90 ug/m3 or above). Of those, three dates are associated with a natural
event and excluded from further analysis because the sources on those
days are addressed by the Natural Events Policy.\4\ Two other dates are
excluded because either there is no meteorological information for that
day or the mixed wind regime on that day makes it too difficult to
relate the exceedance to meteorology. Finally, one date is excluded
because it is the lowest of the nine elevated levels (90 ug/m3) and would be unlikely to impact the
[[Page 38077]]
state's ability to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS.\5\ The
remaining dates used by the state for its analysis are June 29, 2000,
July 12, 2001, and June 17, 2000. These dates correspond to dates on
which one of two wind regimes (southwest and north) existed,
representing the wind directions for a majority of the elevated readings.
\4\ Two of these dates, August 10, 2000 and September 29, 2002,
are documented by EPA as natural events. 70 FR 22597, May 2, 2005. A
third date, May 2, 2002, was claimed as a high wind natural event in
Ecology's submittal but was not an exceedance. We cannot concur with
the high wind event on May 2, 2002 because the documentation was not
submitted within 6 months of occurrence, the timeline in our Natural
Events Policy. Nevertheless, we believe it is acceptable to exclude
May 2, 2002 from the maintenance demonstration analysis because it
corresponds with a date that an accepted natural event exceedance
occurred in nearby Walla Walla. Given the proximity of the Wallula
and Walla Walla monitors (within about 30 miles of each other) and
recognizing both areas are covered by the same 2003 Columbia Plateau
Natural Event Action Plan, it is reasonable to believe that the
contributing sources for both Wallula and Walla Walla were
adequately addressed under the Natural Events Policy on that day.
\5\ The State excluded this elevated level because of high winds
on that day, but high winds alone (absent appropriately submitted
Natural Event Policy documentation) does not warrant exclusion from
the data. Nevertheless, we believe it is acceptable to exclude this
date because it is the lowest of the nine levels and would be
unlikely to impact the state's ability to demonstrate maintenance.
The measured 24hour concentrations on June 29, 2000, July 12, 2001 and June 17, 2000 were 126 ug/m3, 109 ug/m3, and 100 ug/m3, respectively. The primary constituents found on the filter for the first two days were compost and agricultural soil/unpaved road dust (agricultural soil and unpaved road dust were too similar to be differentiated). The primary constituents on the filter for the third day were also compost and agricultural soil/unpaved road dust, with minor contribution from a beef processing plant.
Using linear speciated rollback modeling, the contribution of each
constituent on each filter was multiplied by the appropriate growth
factor used to project the 2015 emissions inventory. These results were
summed for each filter to arrive at total maximum projected levels for
2015. The predicted levels were 128ug/m3, 111 ug/m3, and 103 ug/m3. All
three projected levels are below the 24hour PM
Two other evaluations were performed to ensure maintenance of the
24hour NAAQS in Wallula. First, the State evaluated the impact of
emissions from Boise Paper Solutions, a pulp and paper mill and the
only existing major stationary source in the nonattainment area. Using
AERMODPrime, the State modeled the mill's maximum allowable emissions
out to 2015. The model showed a maximum impact of 87.93 ug/m3. When
added to the projected PM
PM
A second evaluation was performed for a future natural gasfired
power generating station, the Wallula Power Project, which is planned
but not yet constructed in the nonattainment area. As part of the
permitting process, the source's projected allowable emissions were
modeled to determine their potential impact on air quality and were
found to be insignificant. The results of this evaluation demonstrate
that the gasfired generating station will not interfere with the area's continued attainment of the NAAQS.
b. PM
The annual PM
To demonstrate attainment of the annual PM
In sum, linear speciated rollback modeling and dispersion modeling
show that the area will meet the 24hour PM
3. 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. 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 with an analysis of the two
potential replacement sites and recommended 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 our review of
the data measured at the two sites, we agreed that Burbank was an
appropriate replacement site to the original Wallula monitoring site.
Burbank is now the sole PM
Ecology has operated an ambient air quality monitoring network for
PM
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated, the State must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide such verification. In section 4.4 of the maintenance plan, the State commits to maintaining a monitoring network that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 5. Contingency Plan
Section 175A of the Act also requires that a maintenance plan
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to correct promptly any
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. These
contingency measures are distinguished from those generally required
for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9). At a minimum, the
contingency measures must include a commitment that the State will implement all measures contained in
[[Page 38078]]
the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.
The State carries over all of the control measures and contingency
measures from the serious area plan into the maintenance plan. These
contingency measures focus on the mitigation of windblown dust because
windblown dust is associated with all recent exceedances of the
standard (since 1997) and is the most likely cause of future
exceedances. Because of the likelihood of future wind blown
exceedances, the plan does not include a PM
The plan's contingency measures include improvements to Ecology's
process for identifying source contributors when high wind events are
occurring, certain PM
In carrying over all the control and contingency measures from the serious area plan, the State has not removed or reduced the stringency of the control measures relied on to demonstrate attainment. Therefore, the State meets the requirement to implement all measures contained in the serious area plan prior to redesignation. Therefore we conclude that the State meets the requirements for contingency measures in the maintenance plan.
B. What Do We Conclude About the Maintenance Plan?
Based on our review of the Wallula PM
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Request for Redesignation?
The criteria used to review the maintenance plan and redesignation request are derived from the Act, the General Preamble, and a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that the EPA can be redesignate an area to attainment if the following conditions are met:
1. The Administrator has determined the area has attained the NAAQS.
2. The Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan under section 110(k).
3. The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under section 110 and part D.
5. The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A. 1. Attainment of the NAAQS
Currently the area is in compliance with both the 24hour and
annual PM
To determine attainment of the annual PM
2. SIP Nonattainment Area Plan Approval Under Section 110(k)
States containing initial moderate PM
PM
On May 2, 2005 (70 FR 22597), EPA fully approved the serious area
plan for the Wallula nonattainment area submitted by the State on
November 30, 2004. EPA approved the State of Washington's nonattainment
NSR program in on June 2, 1995. 60 FR 28726. The Wallula serious area
plan demonstrated attainment of the PM
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality
The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. In making this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality improvements are the result of actual enforceable emissions reductions. This showing should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other related information. The analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.
Improvements in air quality in the Wallula nonattainment area are
reasonably attributed to permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions. Process controls and emission limits established at the
pulp and paper mill and at the beef processing facility, along with
paving at the mill, are permanent and enforceable measures and result
in emissions reductions that are not dependent upon meteorology or
economic conditions. In addition, because the truck transport activity
in 1997 that led to a violation of the 24hour PM
BACM is being applied to agricultural fields in the Wallula nonattainment area
[[Page 38079]]
and surrounding areas to reduce the generation of windblown dust.
Agricultural data showing an increase in the application of best
management practices in the Wallula area over the past decade and new
and continued incentives provided by the Federal Food Security Act of
1985 (FSA), as amended in 1996 and 2002, (see 16 U.S.C. 38013862),
provide further evidence that emissions reductions are the result of
permanent control measures and not dependent on meteorology or economic
conditions. Both the beef cattle feedlot and the composting facility
have dust control plans that call for management practices to minimize
fugitive dust and which have been incorporated into permits for these
facilities. These were approved as permanent control measures in the Wallula serious area plan.
4. Section 110 and Part D Requirements
Before EPA may approve a redesignation request, the applicable programs under section 110 and Part D that were due prior to the submission of a redesignation request must be adopted by the State and approved by EPA into the SIP.
a. Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for nonattainment area plans. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submission of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit program; provisions for Part CPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Part DNew Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting, provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation.
For purposes of redesignation, the Washington SIP was reviewed to ensure that the State has satisfied all requirements under the Act. Further, in 40 CFR 52.2473, EPA has approved Washington's SIP for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards under Section 110. The provisions related to NSR were most recently approved in the Washington SIP on June 2, 1995. 60 FR 28726. The Federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in effect for Washington. See 40 CFR 52.2497.
b. Part D Requirements
Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all areas
which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of the NAAQS.
The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific
to each pollutant. All PM
i. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions
This section contains general requirements for nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the general preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)). The requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of certain emissions increases, emissions inventory, and other measures needed for attainment are satisfied by the serious area plan submitted for the Wallula nonattainment area and approved on May 2, 2005. 70 FR 22597. As mentioned above, the provisions related to NSR were most recently approved in the Washington SIP on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726) and the Federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in effect for Washington. See 40 CFR 52.2497.
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements
As a moderate PM
EPA approved the serious area plan for the Wallula nonattainment
area, which met the initial requirements of the 1990 amendments for
moderate and serious PM
5. Conformity
CAA section 176(c) requires that federallyfunded 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.
Ecology's analysis shows that mobile sources are an insignificant
source of PM
6. Maintenance Plans
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act stipulates that for an area to be redesignated, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan which meets the requirements of section 175A. A State may submit both the redesignation request and the maintenance plan at the same time and rulemaking on both may proceed on a parallel track.
On March 29, 2005, Ecology submitted a PM
B. What Do We Conclude About the Request for Redesignation?
Based on our review of the maintenance plan and the request for
redesignation submitted for the Wallula nonattainment area, we conclude
that all the requirements for redesignation in Section 107(d)(3)(E)
have been met. Therefore, we are proposing to redesignate the Wallula PM
IV. Conclusion
Based on our evaluation of Ecology's March 29, 2005 SIP submittal,
we propose full approval of the PM
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
[[Page 38080]]
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 preexisting 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. 1044).
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 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.).
Dated: June 21, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 0513058 Filed 63005; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, Region 10, AWT107, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 5536706; fax number: (206) 553 0110; email address: deneen.donna@epa.gov
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 40 CFR Part 63 33 CFR Part 100 50 CFR Part 622 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 44 CFR Part 65 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 10 CFR Part 50 44 CFR Part 64 49 CFR Part 571 39 CFR Part 3020