This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

69338

Vol. 69, No. 228

Monday, November 29, 2004

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket #: WA–04–005; FRL–7842–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans and 

Designation: Washington; Yakima 

County Nonattainment Area Boundary 

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 

proposing 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. 

This correction would revise 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 

would revert to an unclassifiable 

designation, consistent with the original 

and current designation of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. WA–04–

005, by one of the following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Fax: (206) 553–0110. 

D. Mail: Office of Air Waste and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Attn: Gina Bonifacino, 

Mailcode: OAWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

E. Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 10, Attn: Gina 

Bonifacino (OAWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during EPA’s normal hours of operation, 

and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. WA–04–005. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov, or email. The federal regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: Publicly available docket 

materials are available in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air Waste, and 

Toxics, Mail Code OAWT–107, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. EPA is open Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

legal holidays. Please contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you 

wish to schedule an appointment to 

review materials in the publicly 

available docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina 

Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, Region 10, OAWT–107, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; 

phone: (206) 553–2970; fax number: 

(206) 553–0110; e-mail address: 

bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What is the general background of this 

proposed action? 

B. What is the background of the 

designation of the Yakima NAA? 

C. What is the current description of the 

Yakima NAA? 

II. This Action 

A. What boundary change is the EPA 

proposing? 

B. What is the basis for this action? 

C. How will the excluded area be 

classified? 

D. Can I comment on this action? 

E. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Requirements

I. Background 

A. What Is the General Background of 

This Proposed Action? 

Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) sets out the general process 

by which areas were to be designated 

nonattainment for the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (PM–10) upon 

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments (1990 CAA Amendments). 

Section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the CAA 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. Although 

EPA believes that, in general, the 

language of this section would appear to 

preclude any exercise of EPA discretion 

to modify these initial nonattainment 

area designations, EPA also believes that 

explicit reliance of section 

107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the CAA on EPA’s 

prior Group I determinations provides 

the basis for an exception to the general 

rule. By requiring that all Group I areas 

be among the initial areas designated 

nonattainment upon enactment of the 

1990 CAA Amendments, Congress 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69339

2Though UTM coordinates are not explicitly 

given in the 1989 plan, figures in the 1989 plan area 

appear to correspond to the UTM coordinates in 55 

FR 45799.

3Boise Cascade will be operated as Yakima 

Resources, LLC in the future.

relied on EPA’s expertise and judgment 

in determining, based on an analysis of 

relevant air quality information, those 

areas for which a PM–10 nonattainment 

status was merited. EPA does not 

believe that Congress intended initial 

PM–10 areas to be based on a clearly 

erroneous Group I determination. Thus, 

one exception to the principle that EPA 

lacks authority to modify these initial 

nonattainment area designations is 

where, prior to enactment of the 1990 

CAA Amendments, EPA mistakenly 

construed then-existing air quality data 

and, as a consequence, incorrectly 

identified an area as being among the 

Group I areas that were subsequently 

referenced in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of 

the CAA. See 56 FR 37654, 37656 

(August 8, 1991); see also 61 FR 29667, 

29668 (June 12, 1996).

As discussed below, EPA believes that 

such a clear identification error 

occurred in the case of the Yakima 

NAA. That is, EPA believes that it erred 

by including a portion of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation as part of 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. 

B. What Is the Background of the 

Designation of the Yakima NAA? 

On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated 

national ambient air quality standards, 

implementation policies, and 

regulations for PM–10. See 52 FR 24634. 

In accordance with these policies, on 

August 7, 1987, EPA categorized areas 

of the United States into three groups 

based on the likelihood that the existing 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be 

revised to protect the PM–10 NAAQS. 

See 52 FR 29383. Areas with a strong 

likelihood of violating the PM–10 

NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP 

revisions were placed in Group I; areas 

where attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS 

was uncertain and where the SIP 

required only slight adjustment were 

placed in Group II; and areas with a 

strong likelihood of attaining the PM–10 

NAAQS were placed in Group III.

The Group I areas were generally 

identified by a county, township or 

other planning area. These descriptions 

were only an initial definition of an 

area. In the process of monitoring and 

modeling PM–10 concentrations and 

determining the extent of sources of 

PM–10 emissions that impact the areas, 

the states were to better define the 

boundaries of the area that were or may 

have been violating the standards. Based 

on monitoring data from monitors 

located in the city of Yakima, Yakima 

County was included among the Group 

I areas. See 52 FR at 29385. 

In March 1989, the Washington 

Department of Ecology submitted a State 

Implementation Plan for PM–10 for the 

Yakima County Group I area. This 

submittal addressed CAA requirements 

to meet the new federal standards for 

PM–10 within nine months after the 

effective date of the standard. The State 

chose a rectangular shaped area 

covering approximately 75 square miles 

for in-depth study of PM–10 in the 

Yakima area based on knowledge of the 

emission sources (primarily area sources 

consisting of wood stoves and vehiclerelated emissions), and all areas shown 

by initial dispersion modeling to 

experience levels above the standard. 

Washington’s plan describes this study 

area as three cities in close proximity, 

Yakima, Selah and Union Gap, and the 

surrounding areas in Yakima County. 

Washington’s 1989 plan describes 

land use within the city limits as 

primarily residential and commercial, 

with residences extending at a lesser 

density beyond the incorporated city 

limits. The rest of the plan’s study area 

consists of agricultural land and open 

land. The plan indicates that the 

Yakima Indian Reservation is on the 

southern portion of the study area. At 

the time of the study, Washington 

conducted dispersion modeling of the 

area based on 1985 emissions. These 

modeling results indicate an expected 

exceedence of the PM–10 NAAQS in the 

city of Yakima, but did not indicate an 

expected exceedence of the PM–10 

NAAQS within the Yakama tribal area 

south of the city of Yakima (see the 

Technical Support Document for a 

detailed description of dispersion 

modeling results and study area 

description from the 1989 plan). 

On October 31, 1990, 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. The area 

for Yakima County Group I was revised 

to correspond to Washington’s 

rectangular study area and was 

described as follows:

The area bounded on the south by a line from 

Universal Transmercater (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.2

This area includes approximately six 

square miles of fee land within the 

exterior boundaries of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation. There was nothing 

in the State’s 1989 plan to indicate that 

the study area included lands within the 

Yakima Indian Reservation. (See

Technical Support Document for a 

detailed discussion of the study area 

described in the State’s 1989 plan.) 

The 1990 Amendments to the Clean 

Air Act provided the PM–10 grouping 

scheme as the starting point for 

designating areas nonattainment or 

unclassifiable for PM–10. Group I areas 

identified in the August 7, 1987, 

Federal Register (52 FR 29383), and 

subsequently clarified on October 1, 

1990 (55 FR 45799), were designated 

nonattainment for PM–10 by operation 

of law pursuant to section 

107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the CAA. See 56 FR 

11101 (March 15, 1991). Any other area 

(i.e., Group II or III areas) containing a 

monitoring site for which air quality 

monitoring data showed a violation of 

the NAAQS for PM–10 prior to January 

1, 1989 was also designated 

nonattainment. All other areas were 

designated unclassifiable for PM–10. 

The Yakima Group I area was 

designated nonattainment with this 

action and became the Yakima NAA. 56 

FR at 11105. The Yakama Indian 

Reservation, with the exception of the 

portion within the Yakima Group I area, 

was designated unclassifiable. 

C. What Is the Current Description of the 

Yakima NAA? 

As discussed above, the Yakima NAA 

is a rectangular shaped area covering 

approximately 75 square miles. Within 

the Yakima NAA, the cities of Yakima, 

Selah and Union Gap form an urban 

area. The cities lie in the Yakima river 

valley at an elevation of 1000 feet and 

are surrounded by mountains and ridges 

rising to between 3000 and 3500 feet 

above the valley floor. One major 

stationary source (Boise Cascade 

sawmill 3) and several small stationary 

sources lie within the NAA. All point 

sources are on located on state lands 

within the NAA. The rest of the NAA 

consists of commercial, residential, 

agricultural, and open land. The 

northeast corner of the nonattainment 

area contains a small part of the Yakima 

Training Center Military Reservation 

and the southern boundary of the NAA 

extends into the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. The portion of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation within the NAA is 

roughly six square miles of agricultural 

land and rangeland which contains 

69340 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

4 Guidance on this issue is also provided in the 

PM–10 SIP Development Guideline (EPA–450/2–

86–001).

5 YRCAA is the local air pollution control 

authority with the primary planning responsibilities 

for state lands within Yakima County.

several residences and a few small 

commercial properties.

II. This Action 

A. What Boundary Change Is EPA 

Proposing? 

EPA is proposing to correct the 

boundary of the Yakima NAA to 

exclude the portion within the exterior 

boundary of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. This proposal would 

change 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.

B. What Is the Basis for This Action? 

Under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, 

whenever EPA determines that its 

action approving, disapproving, or 

promulgating any plan or plan revision 

(or part thereof), area designation, 

redesignation, classification, or 

reclassification was in error, EPA may 

in the same manner as the approval, 

disapproval, or promulgation revise 

such action as appropriate without 

requiring any further submission from 

the state. Such determination and the 

basis thereof shall be provided to the 

state and public. 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is 

proposing a revision to the boundary of 

the Yakima NAA to correct an error in 

EPA’s initial delineation of the Yakima 

County Group I area, which included 

land within the exterior boundaries of 

the Yakama Indian Reservation as part 

of the Yakima County Group I area. 

Although this boundary correction is 

not subject to the legal requirements for 

public notice and comment (51 FR at 

11103), EPA is providing the public 

with an opportunity to comment on this 

action in order to foster public 

participation and avoid further error. 

In the absence of technical 

information identifying particular 

sources contributing to violations of the 

NAAQS, EPA policy for determining the 

boundaries of PM–10 nonattainment 

areas is to use 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).4 As discussed 

above, although the Yakima NAA is 

comprised mostly of state lands, it also 

includes lands within the exterior 

boundaries of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. Under the CAA, the State 

of Washington Department of Ecology, 

along with the Yakama Regional Clean 

Air Authority (YRCAA),5 have primary 

planning responsibility for state land 

within the current Yakima NAA, 

whereas EPA and the Confederated 

Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

(Yakama Nation) have primary planning 

responsibility for the tribal land within 

the current Yakima NAA. See CAA 

section 301(a) and 301(d)(4); 64 FR 

8247, 8251–8255 (February 19, 1999) 

(‘‘Federal Operating Permits Program; 

Final Rule’’); 63 FR 7254, 7254–7259, 

7262 (February 12, 1998) (‘‘Indian 

Tribes: Air Quality Planning and 

Management; Final Rule’’); 59 FR 43956, 

43958–43961 (‘‘Indian Tribes: Air 

Quality Planning and Management; 

Proposed Rule’’). Thus, when EPA 

delineated the boundary of theYakima 

County Group I area through technical 

corrections in 1990, EPA policy called 

for drawing the boundary of the area 

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.

A review of the air quality data from 

Washington’s 1989 plan for the Yakima 

County Group I area does not indicate 

that sources within the Yakama Indian 

Reservation contributed to the PM–10 

violations recorded on state lands at the 

time the boundary was determined. 

There were two monitors recording 

exceedences of the PM–10 NAAQS that 

were used in EPA’s delineation of the 

Yakima Group I area in 1990. Both of 

these monitors, which were predicted to 

be representative of the areas of highest 

concentration of PM–10 in the Group I 

area, were located in the city of Yakima. 

Modeling and emissions inventory 

data from the 1989 state plan indicates 

that sources within the Yakama Indian 

Reservation did not contribute to an 

exceedence of the PM–10 NAAQS in 

Yakima, Selah, Union Gap and 

surrounding areas. The emissions 

inventory from Washington’s 1989 plan 

showed that 95% of the PM–10 for high 

pollution days in 1985 was attributable 

to residential wood heating and point 

sources (see Technical Support 

Document for a description of the 

emissions inventory used in the 1989 

plan). As discussed above, the 

Reservation land included within the 

Yakima NAA is largely desert and 

agricultural land. According to aerial 

photos, there were fewer than 300 

residences on the portion of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation that was included 

within the Yakima Group I area. This 

compares to more than 25,000 

residences in the cities of Yakima, Selah 

and Union Gap. There were no major 

point sources and only a few small 

commercial properties are located 

within the tribal portion of the NAA. 

Thus, the number of residences in the 

tribal portion of the Yakima Group I 

area comprised less than 1.5% of the 

households in the Yakima Group I area 

and less than 1.5% of total PM–10 on 

days with elevated PM–10 levels. 

That sources on the tribal portion of 

the Yakima Group I area did not 

contribute to the violations of the PM–

10 standard at the time the Yakima 

Group I area was delineated is 

supported by modeling data from 

Washington’s 1989 implementation plan 

for area. Concentration isopleths from 

the 1989 plan predicted that the PM–10 

concentrations in southern range of the 

study area (near or on the Yakama 

Indian Reservation) were far below the 

NAAQS (30–70 ug/m3 24 hour 

NAAQS), while the areas to the north 

towards the cities of Yakima and Selah 

and to the east toward Union Gap were 

predicted to exceed the NAAQS. 

In short, at the time of 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 Yakima 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. 

We note that correcting the boundary 

to exclude Reservation lands from the 

Yakima NAA is consistent with EPA’s 

past actions with respect to the Yakima 

NAA. In approving the Yakima PM–10 

nonattainment area as part of the 

Washington SIP in 1998, EPA made 

clear that the approved SIP does not 

extend to lands within the boundaries of 

the Yakama Indian Reservation. See 63 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69341

6Although EPA is basing its decision on 

information existing at the time the nonattainment 

area boundaries were initially established, EPA 

would be reluctant to revise through a correction 

action the description of the nonattainment area 

based on information available before EPA’s initial 

erroneous boundary description if data collected 

since that time indicated that the areas was not in 

attainment of, or would be expected to violate, the 

NAAQS.

FR 5269, 5270 (February 2, 1998). EPA 

further noted that it was not including 

any reference to authority of YRCAA 

over activities or air resources located 

within the exterior boundaries of the 

Yakama Indian Reservation. 63 FR at 

5270. 

C. How Will the Excluded Area Be 

Classified? 

If EPA finalizes the decision to 

exclude land within the exterior 

boundary of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation from the Yakima NAA, this 

six-square mile area would revert to an 

unclassifiable designation, consistent 

with the original designation of the 

Yakama Indian Reservation. Under 

section 107(d)(4) of the CAA, each area 

not identified as a Group I area in 52 

Federal Register 29383 (August 7, 1987) 

or not identified as an area containing 

a site for which air quality monitoring 

data showed a violation of the NAAQS 

for PM–10 before January 1, 1989, was 

to be designated unclassifiable for PM–

10. At the time the city of Yakima was 

designated as a Group I area in 1987, 

there was no monitoring data showing 

a violation of the PM–10 NAAQS in the 

tribal portion of the Yakima Group I 

area. Monitors currently installed on the 

Yakama Indian Reservation also do not 

indicate violations of the PM–10 

NAAQS.6

D. Can I Comment on This Action?

By this notice, EPA is notifying the 

State of Washington, YRCAA, the 

Yakama Nation, and the public that EPA 

proposes to correct the boundary of the 

Yakima NAA to exclude the six-square 

mile area that lies within the exterior 

boundaries of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. Although neither the 

Administrative Procedures Act nor the 

Clean Air Act legally obligate EPA to 

provide the public an opportunity to 

comment on this correction (56 FR at 

1103), EPA is soliciting public comment 

to foster public participation and avoid 

any further errors. EPA will consider all 

comments on this action that are 

received by December 29, 2004. After 

consideration of all timely comments 

received, EPA will make any 

adjustments to this proposed correction 

that are appropriate in light of the 

comments. 

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions—The agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a CFR part or section 

number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Requirements 

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 proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

action merely 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 proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

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 proposed 

regulation. EPA has concluded that this 

proposed 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 

69342 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

not apply to this rule. Consistent with 

EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted 

with representatives of tribal 

governments early in the process of 

developing this proposal 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 proposed 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 proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: November 16, 2004. 

Michael F. Gearheard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 04–26295 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket #: WA–04–006; FRL–7842–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans and 

Designation: Washington; Yakima PM–

10 Nonattainment Area Limited 

Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On June 15, 2004, the State of 

Washington submitted a Limited 

Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Yakima 

nonattainment area (NAA) for approval 

and concurrently requested that EPA 

redesignate the Yakima nonattainment 

area to attainment for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10). 

In this action, the EPA proposes to 

approve the LMP for the Yakima NAA 

in Washington and grant a request by 

the State to redesignate the area from 

nonattainment to attainment. In a 

concurrent notice of proposed 

rulemaking published today, EPA is 

proposing to correct the boundary of the 

Yakima NAA to exclude a small portion 

that lies within the exterior boundary of 

the Yakama Indian Reservation. The 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) that we 

are proposing to approve with this 

action does not extend to lands which 

are within the boundaries of the Yakama 

Indian Nation.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. WA–04–

006, by one of the following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Fax: (206) 553–0110. 

D. Mail: Office of Air Waste and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Attn: Gina Bonifacino, 

Mailcode: OAWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

E. Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 10, Attn: Gina 

Bonifacino (OAWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during EPA’s normal hours of operation, 

and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket WA No. WA–04–006. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov, or email. The federal regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Publicly available docket 

materials are available in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. A copy of the file, as 

it exists on the date of proposal, is also 

available for public viewing at EPA’s 

Washington Operations Office at EPA 

Region 10, 300 Desmond Dr. SE., Suite 

102, Lacey, WA 98503. 

EPA is open Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal 

holidays. Please contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

review of records.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina 

Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and