Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Washington; Yakima County Nonattainment Area Boundary Revision, 6361-6364 [05-1994]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.5350 How do I distinguish between
the water-resistant/specialty and nonwaterresistant leather product process
operations?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) For each leather product with a
unique finish application, you must
maintain records to support how the
leather product was categorized to a
product process operations type. You
must repeat the leather product
categorization to a product process
operation type no less frequently than
once every 5 years if the applied finish
chemical characteristics of the leather
product have not changed, or when the
applied finish chemical characteristics
of the leather product do change,
whichever is sooner.
(c) To determine whether your
product process operation produces
specialty leather, you must meet the
criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), or
(c)(3) of this section:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The leather must be retanned
through the application of grease,
waxes, and oil in quantities greater than
12 percent of the dry leather weight.
Specialty leather is also finished with
higher solvent-based finishes that
provide rich color, luster, or an oily/
tacky feel. Specialty leather products
may include, but are not limited to,
specialty shoe leather and top grade
football leathers.
(3) The leather must be a high-quality
dress or performance shoe leather that
can withstand one of the visual tests in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section:
(i) Moisture injection into the leather
using vacuum mulling without signs of
blistering.
(ii) Prolonged ironing at 200° F for
smoothing out surface roughness
without finish lift off.
(4) For each leather product with a
unique finish application, you must
maintain records to support how the
leather product was categorized to a
product process operations type. You
must repeat the leather product
categorization to a product process
operation type no less frequently than
once every 5 years if the applied finish
chemical characteristics of the leather
product have not changed, or when the
applied finish chemical characteristics
of the leather product do change,
whichever is sooner.
I 5. Section 63.5460 is amended by
revising the definition for the term
‘‘Specialty leather’’, and adding, in
alphabetical order, a definition for the
term ‘‘Vacuum mulling’’ to read as
follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:29 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
§ 63.5460
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Specialty leather means a select grade
of chrome tanned, bark retanned, or fat
liquored leather that is retanned through
the application of grease, waxes, and oil
in quantities greater than 12 percent of
the dry leather weight or high-quality
dress or performance shoe leather that
can withstand one or more of the
following visual tests: moisture
injection into the leather using vacuum
mulling without signs of blistering, or
prolonged ironing at 200° F for
smoothing out surface roughness
without finish lift off. Specialty leather
is also finished with higher solventbased finishes that provide rich color,
luster, or an oily/tacky feel. Specialty
leather products are generally low
volume, high-quality leather, such as
specialty shoe leather and top grade
football leathers.
*
*
*
*
*
Vacuum mulling means the injection
of water into the leather substrate using
a vacuum process to increase the
moisture content of the leather.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–2303 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[WA–04–005; FRL–7866–3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes: Washington; Yakima
County Nonattainment Area Boundary
Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is taking final action to correct
an error in the initial delineation of the
boundary of the Yakima County
nonattainment area (Yakima NAA) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal
10 micrometers (PM–10). This
correction revises the boundary of the
Yakima NAA to exclude a small portion
that lies within the exterior boundary of
the Yakama Indian Reservation. The
excluded area will revert to an
unclassifiable designation, consistent
with the original and current
designation of the Yakama Indian
Reservation.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6361
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
March 9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. WA–04–005. Publicly available
docket materials are available in hard
copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. This Docket facility is open from
8:30–4, Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina
Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (OAWT–107), EPA Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101, (206) 553–2970, or e-mail
address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the
Proposed Action?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On November 29, 2004, EPA solicited
public comment on a proposal to correct
the boundary of the Yakima County
nonattainment area (Yakima NAA) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal
10 micrometers (PM–10) by excluding
approximately six square miles of
Yakama Indian Reservation land.
Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act) sets out the general
process by which areas were to be
designated nonattainment for the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for PM–10 upon enactment of
the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
The Act states that each area that had
been identified by EPA as a PM–10
Group I area 1 prior to the 1990 CAA
Amendments is designated
nonattainment for PM–10 by operation
of the law upon enactment of the 1990
CAA Amendments. Prior to enactment
of the 1990 CAA amendments, EPA
published technical corrections
clarifying the boundaries of concern for
some of the areas previously identified
as Groups I and II areas. See 55 FR
45799. October 31, 1990. With this
action, the Yakima County Group I area
was revised to correspond to a
rectangular study area that encompassed
1 Group I areas were areas that, at the time the
particulate matter indicator was changed from total
suspended particulate (TSP) to PM–10, were
estimated to have a high probability of exceeding
the PM–10 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
6362
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the cities of Yakima, Selah, and Union
Gap and surrounding areas. The revised
Yakima County Group I area included
approximately six square miles of fee
land within the exterior boundaries of
the Yakama Indian Reservation.
EPA now believes that it mistakenly
construed then-existing air quality data
and, as a consequence, incorrectly
included this small portion of the
Yakama Indian Reservation within the
Yakima County Group I area that would
later become the Yakima NAA. When
EPA delineated the boundary of the
Yakima County Group I area in 1990,
EPA policy called for drawing the
boundary based on political boundaries
unless there was technical information
identifying particular sources
contributing to violations of the NAAQS
that warranted a different approach. In
other words, EPA policy called for not
including land within the exterior
boundaries of the Yakama Indian
Reservation as part of the Yakima Group
I area unless there was information
showing that sources within the Yakama
Indian Reservation contributed to the
PM–10 violations recorded on state
lands. At the time of the determination
of the boundaries of the Yakima Group
I area, which by operation of the law
became the Yakima NAA, there was no
technical information provided by
Washington indicating that sources on
the Yakama Indian Reservation
contributed to the violations of the PM–
10 NAAQS that had been recorded on
monitors in the city of Yakima. EPA
policy therefore called for using
political boundaries to delineate the
nonattainment area. As such, EPA erred
in including a portion of the Yakama
Indian Reservation in the Yakima NAA.
Accordingly, under the authority of
section 110 (k) (6) of the CAA, EPA is
revising the boundary of the Yakima
NAA to exclude the portion within the
exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. A detailed description of
our action was published in the Federal
Register on November 29, 2004. See 69
FR 69338.
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on
the Proposed Action?
EPA received the following comments
from one commenter on December 28,
2004.
Comment:
Although the PM–10 emissions
originating within the portion of the
Yakima PM–10 NAA south of Ahtanum
Creek and within the exterior boundary
of the Yakima Indian Reservation are
minimal and did not contribute to the
original classification of the NAA as a
Group 1 area in 1987, we believe that
other large rural and agricultural areas
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:29 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
south and west of the City of Yakima
that remain in the nonattainment area
and that had similar land uses,
population densities and commercial
uses in 1987 also made a minimal
contribution to the PM–10 emissions for
the NAA. Air dispersion modeling
documented in the 1989 and 1992
supplements indicates that the
predicted highest values will generally
occur in the City of Yakima. We believe
the air dispersion modeling is an
accurate presentation of the PM–10
distribution across the NAA, and
request the proposed boundary revision
to remove the area south of Ahtanum
Creek of the NAA include all of the
rural and agricultural lands in the NAA
with similar land uses, population
densities, commercial uses and
transportation patterns to those of the
tribal portion of the NAA.
Response:
As discussed in the proposal, EPA is
basing its decision to revise the
boundary of the Yakima NAA on its
policy for determining the boundaries of
PM–10 nonattainment areas, as well as
air quality considerations. See 69 FR
69340. November 29, 2004. When EPA
delineated the boundary of the Yakima
County Group 1 area through technical
corrections in 1990, EPA’s policy called
for using political boundaries associated
with the area where the monitored
violations occurred and in which it is
reasonably expected that sources
contributing to the violations are
located. See 57 FR 43846, 43848
(September 22, 1992). The Yakima NAA
includes the City of Yakima, as well as
the cities of Selah and Union Gap and
surrounding areas with sources
contributing to the violations.2
Together, the Cities of Selah, Union Gap
and surrounding areas comprise a
portion of Yakima County and therefore
are within a single political boundary.
In contrast, the area south of Ahtanum
Creek that is the subject of this action
is within the boundary of the Yakama
Indian Reservation, which is a different
political jurisdiction than Yakima
County. At the time of determination of
the boundaries of the Yakima Group I
area, there was no technical information
provided by Washington indicating that
sources on the Yakama Indian
Reservation contributed to the
violations of the PM–10 NAAQS that
had been recorded on monitors in the
city of Yakima. Because this area is a
different political jurisdiction and did
not contribute to the violations, EPA is
correcting its error in including a
portion of the Yakama Indian
2 See the Technical Support Document for a
discussion of these sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Reservation in the Yakima NAA. In
contrast, the other rural and agricultural
areas within Yakima County that the
commenter seeks to remove from the
NAA are subject to the same political
jurisdiction as the area where the
violations occurred.
Comment:
As an alternative to removing these
state rural and agricultural lands from
the NAA, the commenter requests that
EPA determine that the area south of
Ahtanum Creek be redesignated to
attainment.
Response:
Section 107 (d) (3) (E) of the Clean Air
Act, and the General Preamble to Title
1 (57 FR 13498) provide the criteria for
designation. These criteria are further
clarified in a policy and guidance
memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and standards dated
September 4, 1992, Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to attainment. The criterion that
the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A of the Act is among the criteria for
redesignation outlined in this memo.
In a concurrent action published
today, EPA is redesignating the Yakima
NAA (with the boundary revised to
exclude lands within the Yakama Indian
Reservation) to attainment for PM–10.
EPA refers the reader to a November 29,
2004 action proposing to approve the
Limited Maintenance Plan entitled
Yakima PM 10 Limited Maintenance
Plan and Redesignation Request,
Yakima County and the redesignation
request for the Yakima NAA. See 69 FR
69342. Section 2.12 of the Limited
Maintenance Plan, submitted by the
State of Washington and approved by
EPA in a concurrent action published
today, states that the plan does not
include the portion of the NAA within
the exterior boundary of the Yakama
Indian Reservation. In a concurrent
action published today, EPA is
clarifying that the SIP it is approving
does not extend to lands which are
within the boundaries of the Yakama
Indian Reservation.
Therefore, the area within the Yakama
Indian Reservation does not meet the
criteria for redesignation to attainment.
As discussed in the proposal, this area
will revert to an unclassifiable
designation.
III. Final Action
The Environmental Protection Agency
is revising the boundary of the Yakima
NAA to exclude the portion of the
Yakima NAA that is within the exterior
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
boundary of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. This correction changes the
boundary of the Yakima NAA to read as
follows:
The area bounded on the south by a
line from UTM coordinate 694000mW,
5157000mN, west to 681000mW,
5157000mN, thence north along a line
to coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN,
thence east to 694000mW, 5172000mN,
thence south to the beginning
coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN,
excluding the area within the exterior
boundary of the Yakama Indian
Reservation.
The excluded area will revert to an
unclassifiable designation consistent
with the original and current
designation of the Yakama Indian
Reservation.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely corrects
the description of a nonattainment area
to exclude land that did not contribute
to the nonattainment problem and was
under a different regulatory jurisdiction
and does not impose any additional
requirements on state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this 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 approves 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 (Public Law 104–4).
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:29 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’ Under
section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175,
EPA may not issue a regulation that has
tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
Under section 5(c) of Executive Order
13175, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has tribal implications and that
preempts tribal law, unless the Agency
consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the regulation.
EPA has concluded that this rule may
have tribal implications. EPA’s action
will remove a portion of the Yakama
Indian Reservation from the Yakima
NAA. However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal
law. Thus, the requirements of sections
5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule. Consistent with
EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted
with representatives of tribal
governments early in the process of
developing this rule to permit them to
have meaningful and timely input into
its development. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and
tribal governments, EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6363
corrects the description of a
nonattainment area to exclude land that
did not contribute to the nonattainment
problem and was under a different
regulatory jurisdiction and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. This 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 rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: January 21, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
I
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 81. 348 , the table entitled
‘‘Washington–PM–10’’ is amended by
revising the entry for ‘‘Yakima County’’
table to read as follows:
I
§ 81.348
*
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
Washington.
*
07FER1
*
*
*
6364
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
WASHINGTON—PM–10
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date
*
*
*
Yakima County ........................................................................
The area bounded on the south by a line from UTM coordinate
694000mW,
5157000mN,
west
to
681000mW, 5157000mN, thence north along a line to
coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN, thence east to
694000mW, 5172000mN, thence south to the beginning coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN, excluding
the area within the exterior boundary of the Yakama
Indian Reservation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA–7865]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule identifies
communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
subsequent date.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of
each community’s scheduled
suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’)
listed in the third column of the
following tables.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine
whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date,
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:29 Feb 04, 2005
*
11/15/90
*
[FR Doc. 05–1994 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
Jkt 205001
Type
Date
*
Nonattainment ...............
*
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
11/15/90
*
contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division,
500 C Street, SW.; Room 412,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2878.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not
otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and
administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
coverage as authorized under the
National Flood Insurance Program, 42
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an
appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in
this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance
with program regulations, 44 CFR part
59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities
will be suspended on the effective date
in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be
available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt
and submit the required documentation
of legally enforceable floodplain
management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue
their eligibility for the sale of insurance.
A notice withdrawing the suspension of
the communities will be published in
the Federal Register.
In addition, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has identified the
special flood hazard areas in these
communities by publishing a Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of
the FIRM if one has been published, is
Type
*
Moderate.
*
*
indicated in the fourth column of the
table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may legally be
provided for construction or acquisition
of buildings in the identified special
flood hazard area of communities not
participating in the NFIP and identified
for more than a year, on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s
initial flood insurance map of the
community as having flood-prone areas
(section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4106(a), as amended). This prohibition
against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown
in the last column. The Administrator
finds that notice and public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable
and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been
adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month,
90-day, and 30-day notification letter
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
that the community will be suspended
unless the required floodplain
management measures are met prior to
the effective suspension date. Since
these notifications have been made, this
final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded
from the requirements of 44 CFR Part
10, Environmental Considerations. No
environmental impact assessment has
been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Administrator has determined
that this rule is exempt from the
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because the National
E:\FR\FM\07FER1.SGM
07FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6361-6364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[WA-04-005; FRL-7866-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Washington; Yakima County
Nonattainment Area Boundary Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is taking final action to
correct an error in the initial delineation of the boundary of the
Yakima County nonattainment area (Yakima NAA) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10). This correction revises the boundary of the Yakima
NAA to exclude a small portion that lies within the exterior boundary
of the Yakama Indian Reservation. The excluded area will revert to an
unclassifiable designation, consistent with the original and current
designation of the Yakama Indian Reservation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on March 9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. WA-04-005. Publicly available docket materials are available in
hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. This Docket facility is
open from 8:30-4, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (OAWT-107), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, (206) 553-2970, or e-mail address:
bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On November 29, 2004, EPA solicited public comment on a proposal to
correct the boundary of the Yakima County nonattainment area (Yakima
NAA) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) by excluding approximately
six square miles of Yakama Indian Reservation land. Section
107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) sets out the general
process by which areas were to be designated nonattainment for the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM-10 upon enactment
of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The Act states that each area
that had been identified by EPA as a PM-10 Group I area \1\ prior to
the 1990 CAA Amendments is designated nonattainment for PM-10 by
operation of the law upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Prior
to enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments, EPA published technical
corrections clarifying the boundaries of concern for some of the areas
previously identified as Groups I and II areas. See 55 FR 45799.
October 31, 1990. With this action, the Yakima County Group I area was
revised to correspond to a rectangular study area that encompassed
[[Page 6362]]
the cities of Yakima, Selah, and Union Gap and surrounding areas. The
revised Yakima County Group I area included approximately six square
miles of fee land within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian
Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Group I areas were areas that, at the time the particulate
matter indicator was changed from total suspended particulate (TSP)
to PM-10, were estimated to have a high probability of exceeding the
PM-10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA now believes that it mistakenly construed then-existing air
quality data and, as a consequence, incorrectly included this small
portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation within the Yakima County Group
I area that would later become the Yakima NAA. When EPA delineated the
boundary of the Yakima County Group I area in 1990, EPA policy called
for drawing the boundary based on political boundaries unless there was
technical information identifying particular sources contributing to
violations of the NAAQS that warranted a different approach. In other
words, EPA policy called for not including land within the exterior
boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation as part of the Yakima Group
I area unless there was information showing that sources within the
Yakama Indian Reservation contributed to the PM-10 violations recorded
on state lands. At the time of the determination of the boundaries of
the Yakima Group I area, which by operation of the law became the
Yakima NAA, there was no technical information provided by Washington
indicating that sources on the Yakama Indian Reservation contributed to
the violations of the PM-10 NAAQS that had been recorded on monitors in
the city of Yakima. EPA policy therefore called for using political
boundaries to delineate the nonattainment area. As such, EPA erred in
including a portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation in the Yakima NAA.
Accordingly, under the authority of section 110 (k) (6) of the CAA,
EPA is revising the boundary of the Yakima NAA to exclude the portion
within the exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation. A
detailed description of our action was published in the Federal
Register on November 29, 2004. See 69 FR 69338.
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Action?
EPA received the following comments from one commenter on December
28, 2004.
Comment:
Although the PM-10 emissions originating within the portion of the
Yakima PM-10 NAA south of Ahtanum Creek and within the exterior
boundary of the Yakima Indian Reservation are minimal and did not
contribute to the original classification of the NAA as a Group 1 area
in 1987, we believe that other large rural and agricultural areas south
and west of the City of Yakima that remain in the nonattainment area
and that had similar land uses, population densities and commercial
uses in 1987 also made a minimal contribution to the PM-10 emissions
for the NAA. Air dispersion modeling documented in the 1989 and 1992
supplements indicates that the predicted highest values will generally
occur in the City of Yakima. We believe the air dispersion modeling is
an accurate presentation of the PM-10 distribution across the NAA, and
request the proposed boundary revision to remove the area south of
Ahtanum Creek of the NAA include all of the rural and agricultural
lands in the NAA with similar land uses, population densities,
commercial uses and transportation patterns to those of the tribal
portion of the NAA.
Response:
As discussed in the proposal, EPA is basing its decision to revise
the boundary of the Yakima NAA on its policy for determining the
boundaries of PM-10 nonattainment areas, as well as air quality
considerations. See 69 FR 69340. November 29, 2004. When EPA delineated
the boundary of the Yakima County Group 1 area through technical
corrections in 1990, EPA's policy called for using political boundaries
associated with the area where the monitored violations occurred and in
which it is reasonably expected that sources contributing to the
violations are located. See 57 FR 43846, 43848 (September 22, 1992).
The Yakima NAA includes the City of Yakima, as well as the cities of
Selah and Union Gap and surrounding areas with sources contributing to
the violations.\2\ Together, the Cities of Selah, Union Gap and
surrounding areas comprise a portion of Yakima County and therefore are
within a single political boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Technical Support Document for a discussion of these
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the area south of Ahtanum Creek that is the subject of
this action is within the boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation,
which is a different political jurisdiction than Yakima County. At the
time of determination of the boundaries of the Yakima Group I area,
there was no technical information provided by Washington indicating
that sources on the Yakama Indian Reservation contributed to the
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS that had been recorded on monitors in the
city of Yakima. Because this area is a different political jurisdiction
and did not contribute to the violations, EPA is correcting its error
in including a portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation in the Yakima
NAA. In contrast, the other rural and agricultural areas within Yakima
County that the commenter seeks to remove from the NAA are subject to
the same political jurisdiction as the area where the violations
occurred.
Comment:
As an alternative to removing these state rural and agricultural
lands from the NAA, the commenter requests that EPA determine that the
area south of Ahtanum Creek be redesignated to attainment.
Response:
Section 107 (d) (3) (E) of the Clean Air Act, and the General
Preamble to Title 1 ( 57 FR 13498) provide the criteria for
designation. These criteria are further clarified in a policy and
guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and standards
dated September 4, 1992, Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to attainment. The criterion that the Administrator
has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the Act is among the criteria for
redesignation outlined in this memo.
In a concurrent action published today, EPA is redesignating the
Yakima NAA (with the boundary revised to exclude lands within the
Yakama Indian Reservation) to attainment for PM-10. EPA refers the
reader to a November 29, 2004 action proposing to approve the Limited
Maintenance Plan entitled Yakima PM 10 Limited Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request, Yakima County and the redesignation request for
the Yakima NAA. See 69 FR 69342. Section 2.12 of the Limited
Maintenance Plan, submitted by the State of Washington and approved by
EPA in a concurrent action published today, states that the plan does
not include the portion of the NAA within the exterior boundary of the
Yakama Indian Reservation. In a concurrent action published today, EPA
is clarifying that the SIP it is approving does not extend to lands
which are within the boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation.
Therefore, the area within the Yakama Indian Reservation does not
meet the criteria for redesignation to attainment. As discussed in the
proposal, this area will revert to an unclassifiable designation.
III. Final Action
The Environmental Protection Agency is revising the boundary of the
Yakima NAA to exclude the portion of the Yakima NAA that is within the
exterior
[[Page 6363]]
boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation. This correction changes the
boundary of the Yakima NAA to read as follows:
The area bounded on the south by a line from UTM coordinate
694000mW, 5157000mN, west to 681000mW, 5157000mN, thence north along a
line to coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN, thence east to 694000mW,
5172000mN, thence south to the beginning coordinate 694000mW,
5157000mN, excluding the area within the exterior boundary of the
Yakama Indian Reservation.
The excluded area will revert to an unclassifiable designation
consistent with the original and current designation of the Yakama
Indian Reservation.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely corrects the description of a nonattainment area to exclude land
that did not contribute to the nonattainment problem and was under a
different regulatory jurisdiction and does not impose any additional
requirements on state, local or tribal governments or the private
sector. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Under section 5(b) of Executive
Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5(c) of
Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal
implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults
with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
regulation. EPA has concluded that this rule may have tribal
implications. EPA's action will remove a portion of the Yakama Indian
Reservation from the Yakima NAA. However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
tribal law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the
Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy,
EPA nonetheless consulted with representatives of tribal governments
early in the process of developing this rule to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
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 corrects the description of a
nonattainment area to exclude land that did not contribute to the
nonattainment problem and was under a different regulatory jurisdiction
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This 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 rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: January 21, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
0
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 81. 348 , the table entitled ``Washington-PM-10'' is
amended by revising the entry for ``Yakima County'' table to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.348 Washington.
* * * * *
[[Page 6364]]
Washington--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Yakima County........................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment............................ 11/15/90 Moderate.
The area bounded on the south by a
line from UTM coordinate 694000mW,
5157000mN, west to 681000mW,
5157000mN, thence north along a
line to coordinate 681000mN,
5172000mN, thence east to 694000mW,
5172000mN, thence south to the
beginning coordinate 694000mW,
5157000mN, excluding the area
within the exterior boundary of the
Yakama Indian Reservation
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-1994 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
