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

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69343

1The timing of this submittal did not permit EPA 

action prior to the November 7, 1995 Federal 

Register notice.

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 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 μg/m3 as an annual 

arithmetic mean. The 24-hour primary 

PM–10 standard is 150 μg/m3 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 

69344 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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.

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 μg/m3, and the 24 hour 

design value should be at or below 98 

μg/m3. 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. 

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

μg/m3. 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 μg/

m3. 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 μg/m3 at all monitoring sites 

(range: 22.7–26.0 μg/m3). Thus, the three 

year weighted annual mean is below 50 

μg/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 PM10

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 

69346 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 μg/m3(daily) and 40 μg/m3

(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 μg/m3. This value is 

less than the margin of safety value 98 

μg/m3. 

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 μg/m3 or greater in any October 

15th to March 1st season or, an annual 

LMP average PM–10 design value that 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69347

exceeds 40 μg/m3 for the annual and 98 

μg/m3 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, 

69348 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 870 and 872

RIN 1029–AC47

Coal Production Fees and Fee 

Allocation

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

the trustees of the United Mine Workers 

of America Combined Benefit Fund, we 

are extending the comment period for 

the proposed rule published in the 

September 17, 2004, Federal Register

concerning fees and fee allocations 

under the abandoned mine reclamation 

program provisions of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA or the Act).

DATES: Electronic or written comments:

We will accept written comments on the 

proposed rule until 4:30 p.m., Eastern 

time, on December 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on 

the proposed rule, you may submit your 

comments by any of the following 

methods to the address indicted: 

• E-mail: osmregs@osmre.gov. Please 

include docket number 1029–AC47 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier: Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, Administrative Record, 

Room 210, 1951 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240. Please 

identify the comments as pertaining to 

docket number 1029–AC47. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http//

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions provided at http://

www.regulations.gov under the ‘‘How to 

Comment’’ heading for this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Rice, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20240. Telephone: (202) 208–2829. 

E-mail address: drice@osmre.gov. You 

will find additional information 

concerning OSM, fees on coal 

production, and Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation Fund, and abandoned mine 

reclamation in general on our home 

page at http://www.osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 17, 2004, we published a 

proposed rule setting forth procedures 

and criteria for the establishment of fees 

under section 402(b) of SMCRA. That 

section of the Act provides that, when 

the rates set forth in section 402(a) of 

the Act expire, the fee for coal produced 

after that date ‘‘shall be established at a 

rate to continue to provide for the 

deposit referred to in subsection (h) [of 

section 402 of SMCRA].’’ Section 402(h) 

requires the annual transfer of certain 

estimated Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation Fund earnings to the 

United Mine Workers of America 

Combined Benefit Fund. The proposed 

rule also contained revisions to the 

regulations governing allocation and 

disposition of fee collections and other 

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund 

income. For a full explanation of the 

proposed rule, please refer to the rule 

text and preamble published at 69 FR 

56132–56144. 

At the time the rule was published, 

the fee rates set forth in section 402(a) 

of the Act would have expired on 

September 30, 2004. However, a 

continuing resolution enacted on 

September 30, 2004, extended those 

rates through November 20, 2004. See 

section 125 of Public Law 108–309. 

Further continuing resolutions or 

appropriations legislation may provide 

for additional extensions of the statutory 

rates or revisions thereof. 

The comment period on the proposed 

rule was originally scheduled to close 

on November 16, 2004. However, by 

letter dated November 10, 2004, the 

trustees of the United Mine Workers of 

America Combined Benefit Fund 

requested a 30-day extension of that 

deadline. We are granting that request, 

which means that all interested persons 

may submit electronic or written 

comments until December 16, 2004, in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in DATES and ADDRESSES above 

and in Part X of the preamble to the 

September 17, 2004, rule (see 69 FR 

56140).

Dated: November 18, 2004. 

Jeffrey D. Jarrett, 

Director, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 04–26195 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M