[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69342-69348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26296]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket <greek-i>: 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cfebdbca2ede5feefe3e1cce9fceda2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="becc8f8e90dfd7ccddd1d3fedbcedf90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 
e-mail. 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

[[Page 69343]]

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c5c8c9cec1c6c4cec9c889c0cec9c6e7c2d7c689c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a484544434c4b49434445044d43444b6a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are 
considered in today's Rulemaking?
    B. What is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)?
    C. What is the background of the SIP for the Yakima area?
    D. What are the air quality characteristics of the Yakima NAA?
    E. How can a nonattainment area be redesignated to attainment?
    F. What is the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) option for PM-10 
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment and how can 
an area qualify for this option?
    G. How is conformity treated under the LMP option?
II. Review of the Washington State Submittal Addressing the 
Requirements for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans
    A. Has the State demonstrated that the Yakima NAA has attained 
the applicable NAAQS?
    B. Does the Yakima NAA have a fully approved SIP under section 
110(k) of the Clean Air Act (the Act)?
    C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section 
110 and Part D of the Act?
    D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement 
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
    E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant 
to section 175A of the Act?
    F. Has the State demonstrated that the Yakima NAA qualifies for 
the LMP option?
    G. Does the State have an approved attainment plan that includes 
an emissions inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment 
of the NAAQS?
    H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of 
an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58?
    I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for 
contingency provisions?
    J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered 
in Today's Rulemaking?

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 
to a nominal ten microns (PM-10) is the pollutant subject to this 
action. The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air 
pollutants set to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the 
ambient air pollutants for which we have established such a health-
based standard. PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep 
in the lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the 
elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most 
vulnerable. On July 1, 1987, (52 FR 24634) we revised the NAAQS for 
particulate matter with an indicator that includes only those particles 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers. See 40 CFR 50.6. The annual primary PM-10 standard is 50 
[mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> as an annual arithmetic mean. The 24-hour primary 
PM-10 standard is 150 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> with no more than one 
expected exceedance per year. The secondary PM-10 standards, 
promulgated to protect against adverse welfare effects, are identical 
to the primary standards.

B. What Is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)?

    The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires states to attain and maintain 
ambient air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. Section 
107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act defines nonattainment area as any 
area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in 
the nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary 
ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.
    The states' plans for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are 
outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a planning 
document that, when implemented, is designed to ensure the achievement 
of the NAAQS. Each state currently has a SIP in place, and the Act 
requires that states make SIP revisions periodically as necessary to 
provide continued compliance with the standards.
    SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) A current, 
accurate and comprehensive inventory of emission sources; (2) statutes 
and regulations adopted by the state legislature and executive 
agencies; (3) air quality analyses that include demonstrations that 
adequate controls are in place to meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency 
measures to be undertaken if an area fails to attain the standard or 
make reasonable progress toward attainment by the required date.
    The state must make the SIP and subsequent revisions available for 
public review and comment through a public hearing, it must be adopted 
by the state, and submitted to EPA by the Governor or her designee. EPA 
takes federal action on the SIP thus rendering the rules and 
regulations federally enforceable. The approved SIP is the state's 
commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air quality 
problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through the 
formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.

C. What Is the Background of the SIP for the Yakima Area?

    On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), EPA identified the Yakima area as 
a PM-10 ``Group I'' area of concern, i.e., an area with a 95% or 
greater likelihood of violating the PM-10 NAAQS and requiring 
substantial SIP revisions. The Yakima area was subsequently designated 
as a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area upon enactment of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 by operation of law (November 15, 1990).
    States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were 
required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a nonattainment area SIP that 
implemented reasonably available control measures (RACM) by December 
10, 1993, and demonstrate whether it was practicable to attain the PM-
10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
    On November 7, 1995, EPA published a Federal Register notice 
proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of the nonattainment 
area SIP submitted by the State of Washington for the Yakima 
nonattainment area (NAA) (60 FR 56129). The purpose of this 
nonattainment area SIP was to bring about attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS 
in Yakima. The November 7, 1995 Federal Register proposal provided 
information on requirements for PM-10 nonattainment area SIPs and the 
history of this rulemaking action.
    The State submitted additional SIP revisions on November 3, 1995 
\1\, and December 27, 1995 that addressed EPA concerns identified in 
the November 7, 1995 proposal. The submittals included a demonstration 
of attainment, a maintenance demonstration and quantitative milestone 
report, the implementation of RACM through an

[[Page 69344]]

amended set of YRCAA regulations, and the enforceability of the local 
regulations. On February 2, 1998 (63 FR 5270), EPA fully approved the 
Yakima NAA SIP. In the final approval, EPA clarified that the SIP, as 
approved, did not extend to lands which are within the boundaries of 
the Yakama Indian Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The timing of this submittal did not permit EPA action prior 
to the November 7, 1995 Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 15, 2004, the State submitted a Limited Maintenance Plan 
for the Yakima area for approval and requested that EPA redesignate the 
Yakima nonattainment area to attainment for the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM-10. In today's action, EPA proposes to 
approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Yakima area in 
Washington and approve the request by the State to redesignate the area 
from nonattainment to attainment for PM-10. 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. Therefore, the 
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.

D. What Are the Air Quality Characteristics of the Yakima NAA?

    The Yakima NAA is a rectangular shaped area covering approximately 
70 square miles. For a legal description of the boundaries see 40 CFR 
81.348, as proposed to be amended in today's notice of proposed 
rulemaking. The Yakima NAA includes the three cities of Yakima, Selah 
and Union Gap, which form a single developed area. The cities are in 
the generally flat area of the river valleys and are surrounded by 
heights and ridges. One major stationary source (Boise Cascade sawmill) 
and several small stationary sources lie within the nonattainment area. 
The rest of the nonattainment area consists of agricultural lands, 
mainly orchards and open land. The northeast corner of the 
nonattainment area includes a small part of the Yakima Training Center 
Military Reservation.
    An analysis of PM-10 monitoring data indicates that the highest PM-
10 levels generally occur during weekdays from November through 
January. The primary emission sources are wood stoves used for home 
heating and re-suspended road dust from either paved or unpaved roads.

E. How Can a Nonattainment Area Be Redesignated to Attainment?

    Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the 
area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS 
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the Clean Air Act (the Act), and the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 
13498) provide the criteria for redesignation. 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 criteria 
for redesignation are:
    (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS;
    (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the 
area under section 110(k) of the Act;
    (3) The State containing the area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the Act;
    (4) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, 
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions; and
    (5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act.

F. What Is the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option for PM-10 
Nonattainment Areas Seeking Redesignation to Attainment and How Can an 
Area Qualify for This Option?

    On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance 
plan provisions for certain moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas seeking 
redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air 
Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited 
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Areas'', 
hereafter the Wegman memo). This policy contains a statistical 
demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality criteria will, 
with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard 10 years into 
the future. Thus, EPA has already provided the maintenance 
demonstration for areas that meet the air quality criteria outlined in 
the policy. It follows that future year emission inventories for these 
areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation 
conformity with the SIP are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP option, the area should have attained the 
PM-10 NAAQS, and the average annual PM-10 design value for the area, 
based upon the most recent 5 years of air quality data at all monitors 
in the area, should be at or below 40 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>, and the 24 
hour design value should be at or below 98 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. In 
addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-road motor 
vehicle PM-10 emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have 
passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test.
    The Wegman memo also identifies core provisions that must be 
included the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year emission 
inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved air 
quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

G. How Is Conformity Treated Under the LMP Option?

    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the 
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. 
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating 
that a federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate 
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the 
emissions budget for the area.
    While EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan policy does not exempt an area 
from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may 
demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under 
the Limited Maintenance Plan policy, emissions budgets are treated as 
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period 
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would 
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the PM-10 
NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity purposes, EPA would 
conclude that emissions in these areas need not be capped for the 
maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions analysis would 
not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general 
conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' 
specified in section 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the 
budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

[[Page 69345]]

II. Review of the Washington State Submittal Addressing the 
Requirements for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans

A. Has the State Demonstrated That the Yakima NAA Has Attained the 
Applicable NAAQS?

    States must demonstrate that an area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS 
through analysis of ambient air quality data from an ambient air 
monitoring network representing peak PM-10 concentrations. The data 
should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database.
    The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. An area has 
attained the 24-hour standard when the average number of expected 
exceedences per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a 
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be 
collected in accordance with federal requirements (40 CFR part 58, 
including appendices).
    Based on data that has been quality assured by the Washington 
Department of Ecology and stored in the AQS database, there have been 
no exceedences of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the Yakima NAA since 1991 
and the number of days exceeding the annual PM-10 standard over the 
three year period 2000-2003 is zero. Thus, the expected number of days 
exceeding the 24 standard is zero, and the Yakima NAA has attained the 
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
    The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. To determine 
attainment, the standard is compared to the expected annual mean, which 
is the average of the weighted annual mean for three consecutive years. 
Appendix G of the Yakima Limited Maintenance Plan lists annual weighted 
means for each year between 2000 through 2003. The weighted annual mean 
for each year is below 50 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> at all monitoring sites 
(range: 22.7-26.0 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>). Thus, the three year weighted 
annual mean is below 50 [mu]g/m3. The Yakima NAA has attained the 
annual PM-10 NAAQS.

B. Does the Yakima NAA Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
of the Clean Air Act (The Act)?

    In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be 
fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all 
requirements that apply to the area.
    EPA approved Washington's nonattainment plan for the Yakima area on 
February 2, 1998 (63 FR 5270). Thus, the area has a fully approved 
nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the Act.

C. Has the State Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D of the Act?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act requires that a state containing 
a nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under 
section 110 and Part D of the Act. EPA interprets this to mean the 
state must meet all requirements that applied to the area prior to, and 
at the time of, the submission of a complete redesignation request. The 
following is a summary of how Washington meets these requirements.
(1) Clean Air Act Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for 
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited 
to, submittal 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 C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Part D--New 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. See the General Preamble for further explanation of 
these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    For purposes of redesignation, EPA review of the Washington SIP 
shows that the state has satisfied all requirements under section 
110(a)(2) of the Act. Further, in 40 CFR 52.2473, EPA has approved 
Washington's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national 
standards under Section 110.
(2) Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas 
designated nonattainment.
    The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts 
specific to each pollutant. All PM-10 nonattainment areas must meet the 
general provisions of Subpart 1and the specific PM-10 provisions in 
Subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment 
Areas.'' The following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they 
apply to the Yakima area.
(3) Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
    Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for 
nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements 
may be found in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). 
The requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of 
certain emissions increases and other measures needed for attainment 
were satisfied with the approved PM-10 nonattainment plan for the 
Yakima area. See 63 FR 5271 (February 2, 1998).
(4) Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires a comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Yakima 
PM-10 nonattainment area. Washington included an emissions inventory 
for the calendar year 2000 with its submittal of the LMP for the Yakima 
area. The requirement for a current, accurate and comprehensive 
emission inventory is satisfied by the inventory contained in the LMP.
(5) Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contained revisions to the new 
source review (NSR) program requirements for the construction and 
operation of new and modified major stationary sources located in 
nonattainment areas. The Act requires states to amend their SIPS to 
reflect these revisions, but does not require submittal of this element 
along with the other SIP elements. The Act established June 30, 1992 as 
the submittal date for the revised NSR programs (Section 189 of the 
Act). In the Yakima Area, the requirements of the Part D NSR program 
will be replaced by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
program and the maintenance area NSR program upon effective date of 
redesignation. The Part D NSR rules for PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
areas in Washington were approved by EPA on June 2, 1995. See 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.
(6) Section 172(c)(7) Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air 
Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an 
appropriate air monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR part 58 to 
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Washington currently 
operates two PM-10 federal reference monitors and a real

[[Page 69346]]

time tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) PM-10 monitor on 
the roof of the Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health 
Building. These monitors are operating in accord with 40 CFR part 58. 
The State has committed to continued operation of the monitoring 
network.
(7) Section 172 (c)(9) Contingency Measures
    The Clean Air Act requires that contingency measures take effect if 
the area fails to meet reasonable further progress requirements or 
fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Since the 
Yakima area attained the NAAQS for PM-10 by the applicable attainment 
date of December 31, 1994, contingency measures are no longer required 
under Section 172(c)(9) of the Act. However, contingency provisions are 
required for maintenance plans under Section 175(a)(d). Washington 
provided contingency measures in their Limited Maintenance Plan. These 
measures are described in section II H of this notice.
(8) Part D Subpart 4
    Part D Subpart 4, Section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to 
any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to 
attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the 
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully 
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment. 
These requirements include:
    (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was implemented by December 10, 
1993;
    (b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a 
demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable;
    (c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3 years and 
which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment 
by December 31, 1994; and
    (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable 
to major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determined 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which 
exceed the NAAQS in the area.
    These provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon EPA approval 
of the PM-10 nonattainment area plan for the Yakima area on February 2, 
1998 (63 FR 5270).

D. Has the State Demonstrated That the Air Quality Improvement Is Due 
to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions?

    The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in 
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making 
this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality improvements 
are the result of actual enforceable emission 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.
    EPA believes that areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the 
NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions. Under the 
Limited Maintenance Plan policy, the maintenance demonstration is 
presumed to be satisfied if an area meets the qualifying criteria.
    Thus, Washington has demonstrated that the air quality improvements 
in the Yakima area are the result of permanent emission reductions and 
not a result of either economic trends or meteorology by qualifying for 
the Limited Maintenance Plan. A description of the LMP qualifying 
criteria and how the Yakima area meets these criteria is provided in 
the following section.

E. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 
Section 175A of the Act?

    In this action, we are proposing to fully approve the maintenance 
plan as allowed by the LMP guidance described in section F. below.

F. Has the State Demonstrated That the Yakima NAA Qualifies for the LMP 
Option?

    The Wegman memo explains the requirements for an area to qualify 
for the LMP option. First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS. 
Appendix G and sections 2.3 and 2.5 of the plan summarize quality 
assured ambient monitoring data showing that the Yakima area has 
continued to meet both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS for the 
period 2000-2003. As stated in Section IV A, EPA has determined that 
the Yakima area is in attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
    Second, the design values for the past 5 years must be at or below 
the margin of safety levels identified in the LMP option. EPA review of 
AQS data confirms that design values at Yakima monitors for the years 
1998-2003 fall below 98 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>(daily) and 40 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> (annual).
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test in the LMP option. Appendix B of the plan demonstrates 
that when adjusted for future on-road mobile emissions,Yakima passes a 
motor vehicle emissions analysis test with a design value of 95 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP>. This value is less than the margin of safety value 98 
[mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>.
    The State has shown that the area qualifies for the Limited 
Mmaintenance Plan policy as described in the Wegman memo. For the 
reasons explained below, we are proposing to approve the LMP.

G. Does the State Have an Approved Attainment Plan That Includes an 
Emissions Inventory Which Can Be Used To Demonstrate Attainment of the 
NAAQS?

    The attainment plan for the Yakima area that was approved in 1998 
includes an emissions inventory which was used to demonstrate 
attainment of the NAAQS (63 FR 5270).

H. Does the LMP Include an Assurance of Continued Operation of an 
Appropriate EPA-Approved Air Quality Monitoring Network in Accordance 
With 40 CFR Part 58?

    In section 5.3 of the LMP, the Yakima Regional Clean Area Authority 
states that it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet 
EPA requirements.

I. Does the Plan Meet the Clean Air Act Requirements for Contingency 
Provisions?

    Section 175A of the Act states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency measures, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation 
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to 
attainment. As explained in the Wegman memo, these contingency measures 
do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
    The Yakima PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan contains a three-part 
contingency strategy. The first part is the activation event, the 
second is evaluation and reporting of the cause of the event and course 
of action, and the third part consists of mitigation measures. This 
strategy is described below.
(1) Activation Event
    Contingency measures will be activated in the event of a violation 
of the PM-10 NAAQS, a quality assured PM-10 federal reference monitor 
value of 120 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> or greater in any October 15th to 
March 1st season or, an annual LMP average PM-10 design value that

[[Page 69347]]

exceeds 40 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> for the annual and 98 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> for the 24 hour PM-10 NAAQS.
(2) Evaluation and Reporting
    Upon activation, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority will 
convene a meeting of the representatives from the agencies which 
prepared the LMP (see Appendix I of the LMP) to evaluate the following:
    (a) Air quality trends before and during the event(s);
    (b) Weather conditions that caused or aggravated the event(s);
    (c) Normal and unusual emissions occurring prior to and during the 
event(s);
    (d) The effectiveness of the existing controls in reducing the 
magnitude and/or duration of the event(s);
    (e) Any changes in the LMP, monitoring network, and/or public 
information strategies to provide early notice to the public about 
possible future high monitor values; and
    (f) The need for additional voluntary or regulatory controls to 
reduce future emissions.
    In addition, if the assessment team recommends additional control 
strategies or rules, the team will evaluate and rank the following 
possible additional strategies:
    (a) Early burn bans based on monitor values, weather forecasts and 
atmospheric models;
    (b) Additional public education or voluntary control programs;
    (c) Increased compliance assistance patrols during 1st stage burn 
bans; and
    (d) Any other strategy which will reduce late fall and winter smoke 
and road dust emissions.
    The assessment report will be submitted to the Authority Board 
within 120 days of the high value monitor event or the LMP design value 
recalculation. The local actions that result from this report will be 
the discretion of the Board.
(3) Mitigation Measures
    Mitigation measures will reduce PM-10 levels in addition to 
existing and planned control and contingency measures. These measures, 
in Section 5.71 of the LMP, include area source mitigation measures 
such as unpaved road and dust abatement programs, mobile source and 
transportation system mitigation measures such as voluntary diesel 
exhaust system retrofit programs, and public information mitigation 
measures such as using news releases through print or radio media to 
inform the public of rising CO and or PM-10 levels and to request 
voluntary reductions in outdoor and agricultural burning, wood stove 
use and trip reductions. We conclude that these measures and 
commitments meet the requirement for contingency provisions of CAA 
Section 175A(d).

J. Has the State Met Conformity Requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the Limited Maintenance Plan policy, emissions budgets are 
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period 
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would 
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would 
result.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the Limited 
Maintenance Plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas 
remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40 
CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) in the area or the State will still need to document and ensure 
that: (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (b) transportation plans and projects 
comply with the fiscal constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108; (c) the 
MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable requirements 
of 40 CFR 93.105; (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined 
no less frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan 
amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance 
with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; (e) the latest 
planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 
CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do not cause or contribute 
to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, 
in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and (7) 
project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as 
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions which are required to address the specific 
requirements of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements 
applies particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will 
not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate 
current violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this 
requirement can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and 
indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined 
and documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the 
applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with 
all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the 
emissions budgets specified in the applicable SIP.'' 40 CFR 
93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of 
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the State and 
local air quality agencies. These emissions budgets are unlike and are 
not to be confused with those used in transportation conformity. 
Emissions budgets in transportation conformity are required to limit 
and restrain emissions. Emissions budgets in general conformity allow 
increases in emissions up to specified levels. Washington has not 
chosen to include specific emissions allocations for federal projects 
that would be subject to the provisions of general conformity.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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 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 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).
    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,

[[Page 69348]]

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.).

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. 04-26296 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>