Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6361

1 Group I areas were areas that, at the time the 

particulate matter indicator was changed from total 

suspended particulate (TSP) to PM–10, were 

estimated to have a high probability of exceeding 

the PM–10 NAAQS.

§ 63.5350 How do I distinguish between 

the water-resistant/specialty and nonwaterresistant leather product process 

operations?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) For each leather product with a 

unique finish application, you must 

maintain records to support how the 

leather product was categorized to a 

product process operations type. You 

must repeat the leather product 

categorization to a product process 

operation type no less frequently than 

once every 5 years if the applied finish 

chemical characteristics of the leather 

product have not changed, or when the 

applied finish chemical characteristics 

of the leather product do change, 

whichever is sooner. 

(c) To determine whether your 

product process operation produces 

specialty leather, you must meet the 

criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), or 

(c)(3) of this section:

* * * * *

(2) The leather must be retanned 

through the application of grease, 

waxes, and oil in quantities greater than 

12 percent of the dry leather weight. 

Specialty leather is also finished with 

higher solvent-based finishes that 

provide rich color, luster, or an oily/

tacky feel. Specialty leather products 

may include, but are not limited to, 

specialty shoe leather and top grade 

football leathers. 

(3) The leather must be a high-quality 

dress or performance shoe leather that 

can withstand one of the visual tests in 

paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section: 

(i) Moisture injection into the leather 

using vacuum mulling without signs of 

blistering. 

(ii) Prolonged ironing at 200° F for 

smoothing out surface roughness 

without finish lift off. 

(4) For each leather product with a 

unique finish application, you must 

maintain records to support how the 

leather product was categorized to a 

product process operations type. You 

must repeat the leather product 

categorization to a product process 

operation type no less frequently than 

once every 5 years if the applied finish 

chemical characteristics of the leather 

product have not changed, or when the 

applied finish chemical characteristics 

of the leather product do change, 

whichever is sooner.

■ 5. Section 63.5460 is amended by 

revising the definition for the term 

‘‘Specialty leather’’, and adding, in 

alphabetical order, a definition for the 

term ‘‘Vacuum mulling’’ to read as 

follows:

§ 63.5460 What definitions apply to this 

subpart?

* * * * *

Specialty leather means a select grade 

of chrome tanned, bark retanned, or fat 

liquored leather that is retanned through 

the application of grease, waxes, and oil 

in quantities greater than 12 percent of 

the dry leather weight or high-quality 

dress or performance shoe leather that 

can withstand one or more of the 

following visual tests: moisture 

injection into the leather using vacuum 

mulling without signs of blistering, or 

prolonged ironing at 200° F for 

smoothing out surface roughness 

without finish lift off. Specialty leather 

is also finished with higher solventbased finishes that provide rich color, 

luster, or an oily/tacky feel. Specialty 

leather products are generally low 

volume, high-quality leather, such as 

specialty shoe leather and top grade 

football leathers.

* * * * *

Vacuum mulling means the injection 

of water into the leather substrate using 

a vacuum process to increase the 

moisture content of the leather.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–2303 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[WA–04–005; FRL–7866–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes: Washington; Yakima 

County Nonattainment Area Boundary 

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is taking final action to correct 

an error in the initial delineation of the 

boundary of the Yakima County 

nonattainment area (Yakima NAA) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (PM–10). This 

correction revises the boundary of the 

Yakima NAA to exclude a small portion 

that lies within the exterior boundary of 

the Yakama Indian Reservation. The 

excluded area will revert to an 

unclassifiable designation, consistent 

with the original and current 

designation of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on 

March 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. WA–04–005. Publicly available 

docket materials are available in hard 

copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, 

Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. This Docket facility is open from 

8:30–4, Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina 

Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics (OAWT–107), EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101, (206) 553–2970, or e-mail 

address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows:

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the 

Proposed Action? 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background 

On November 29, 2004, EPA solicited 

public comment on a proposal to correct 

the boundary of the Yakima County 

nonattainment area (Yakima NAA) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (PM–10) by excluding 

approximately six square miles of 

Yakama Indian Reservation land. 

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

(CAA or the Act) sets out the general 

process by which areas were to be 

designated nonattainment for the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for PM–10 upon enactment of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. 

The Act states that each area that had 

been identified by EPA as a PM–10 

Group I area 1 prior to the 1990 CAA 

Amendments is designated 

nonattainment for PM–10 by operation 

of the law upon enactment of the 1990 

CAA Amendments. Prior to enactment 

of the 1990 CAA amendments, EPA 

published technical corrections 

clarifying the boundaries of concern for 

some of the areas previously identified 

as Groups I and II areas. See 55 FR 

45799. October 31, 1990. With this 

action, the Yakima County Group I area 

was revised to correspond to a 

rectangular study area that encompassed 

6362 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2See the Technical Support Document for a 

discussion of these sources.

the cities of Yakima, Selah, and Union 

Gap and surrounding areas. The revised 

Yakima County Group I area included 

approximately six square miles of fee 

land within the exterior boundaries of 

the Yakama Indian Reservation.

EPA now believes that it mistakenly 

construed then-existing air quality data 

and, as a consequence, incorrectly 

included this small portion of the 

Yakama Indian Reservation within the 

Yakima County Group I area that would 

later become the Yakima NAA. When 

EPA delineated the boundary of the 

Yakima County Group I area in 1990, 

EPA policy called for drawing the 

boundary based on political boundaries 

unless there was technical information 

identifying particular sources 

contributing to violations of the NAAQS 

that warranted a different approach. In 

other words, EPA policy called for not 

including land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation as part of the Yakima Group 

I area unless there was information 

showing that sources within the Yakama 

Indian Reservation contributed to the 

PM–10 violations recorded on state 

lands. At the time of the determination 

of the boundaries of the Yakima Group 

I area, which by operation of the law 

became the Yakima NAA, there was no 

technical information provided by 

Washington indicating that sources on 

the Yakama Indian Reservation 

contributed to the violations of the PM–

10 NAAQS that had been recorded on 

monitors in the city of Yakima. EPA 

policy therefore called for using 

political boundaries to delineate the 

nonattainment area. As such, EPA erred 

in including a portion of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation in the Yakima NAA.

Accordingly, under the authority of 

section 110 (k) (6) of the CAA, EPA is 

revising the boundary of the Yakima 

NAA to exclude the portion within the 

exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. A detailed description of 

our action was published in the Federal 

Register on November 29, 2004. See 69 

FR 69338. 

II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on 

the Proposed Action? 

EPA received the following comments 

from one commenter on December 28, 

2004. 

Comment:

Although the PM–10 emissions 

originating within the portion of the 

Yakima PM–10 NAA south of Ahtanum 

Creek and within the exterior boundary 

of the Yakima Indian Reservation are 

minimal and did not contribute to the 

original classification of the NAA as a 

Group 1 area in 1987, we believe that 

other large rural and agricultural areas 

south and west of the City of Yakima 

that remain in the nonattainment area 

and that had similar land uses, 

population densities and commercial 

uses in 1987 also made a minimal 

contribution to the PM–10 emissions for 

the NAA. Air dispersion modeling 

documented in the 1989 and 1992 

supplements indicates that the 

predicted highest values will generally 

occur in the City of Yakima. We believe 

the air dispersion modeling is an 

accurate presentation of the PM–10 

distribution across the NAA, and 

request the proposed boundary revision 

to remove the area south of Ahtanum 

Creek of the NAA include all of the 

rural and agricultural lands in the NAA 

with similar land uses, population 

densities, commercial uses and 

transportation patterns to those of the 

tribal portion of the NAA. 

Response:

As discussed in the proposal, EPA is 

basing its decision to revise the 

boundary of the Yakima NAA on its 

policy for determining the boundaries of 

PM–10 nonattainment areas, as well as 

air quality considerations. See 69 FR 

69340. November 29, 2004. When EPA 

delineated the boundary of the Yakima 

County Group 1 area through technical 

corrections in 1990, EPA’s policy called 

for using political boundaries associated 

with the area where the monitored 

violations occurred and in which it is 

reasonably expected that sources 

contributing to the violations are 

located. See 57 FR 43846, 43848 

(September 22, 1992). The Yakima NAA 

includes the City of Yakima, as well as 

the cities of Selah and Union Gap and 

surrounding areas with sources 

contributing to the violations.2

Together, the Cities of Selah, Union Gap 

and surrounding areas comprise a 

portion of Yakima County and therefore 

are within a single political boundary.

In contrast, the area south of Ahtanum 

Creek that is the subject of this action 

is within the boundary of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation, which is a different 

political jurisdiction than Yakima 

County. At the time of determination of 

the boundaries of the Yakima Group I 

area, there was no technical information 

provided by Washington indicating that 

sources on the Yakama Indian 

Reservation contributed to the 

violations of the PM–10 NAAQS that 

had been recorded on monitors in the 

city of Yakima. Because this area is a 

different political jurisdiction and did 

not contribute to the violations, EPA is 

correcting its error in including a 

portion of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation in the Yakima NAA. In 

contrast, the other rural and agricultural 

areas within Yakima County that the 

commenter seeks to remove from the 

NAA are subject to the same political 

jurisdiction as the area where the 

violations occurred. 

Comment:

As an alternative to removing these 

state rural and agricultural lands from 

the NAA, the commenter requests that 

EPA determine that the area south of 

Ahtanum Creek be redesignated to 

attainment. 

Response:

Section 107 (d) (3) (E) of the Clean Air 

Act, and the General Preamble to Title 

1 (57 FR 13498) provide the criteria for 

designation. These criteria are further 

clarified in a policy and guidance 

memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and standards dated 

September 4, 1992, Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to attainment. The criterion that 

the Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the Act is among the criteria for 

redesignation outlined in this memo. 

In a concurrent action published 

today, EPA is redesignating the Yakima 

NAA (with the boundary revised to 

exclude lands within the Yakama Indian 

Reservation) to attainment for PM–10. 

EPA refers the reader to a November 29, 

2004 action proposing to approve the 

Limited Maintenance Plan entitled 

Yakima PM 10 Limited Maintenance 

Plan and Redesignation Request, 

Yakima County and the redesignation 

request for the Yakima NAA. See 69 FR 

69342. Section 2.12 of the Limited 

Maintenance Plan, submitted by the 

State of Washington and approved by 

EPA in a concurrent action published 

today, states that the plan does not 

include the portion of the NAA within 

the exterior boundary of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation. In a concurrent 

action published today, EPA is 

clarifying that the SIP it is approving 

does not extend to lands which are 

within the boundaries of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation. 

Therefore, the area within the Yakama 

Indian Reservation does not meet the 

criteria for redesignation to attainment. 

As discussed in the proposal, this area 

will revert to an unclassifiable 

designation. 

III. Final Action 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

is revising the boundary of the Yakima 

NAA to exclude the portion of the 

Yakima NAA that is within the exterior 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6363

boundary of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. This correction changes the 

boundary of the Yakima NAA to read as 

follows: 

The area bounded on the south by a 

line from UTM coordinate 694000mW, 

5157000mN, west to 681000mW, 

5157000mN, thence north along a line 

to coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN, 

thence east to 694000mW, 5172000mN, 

thence south to the beginning 

coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN, 

excluding the area within the exterior 

boundary of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation.

The excluded area will revert to an 

unclassifiable designation consistent 

with the original and current 

designation of the Yakama Indian 

Reservation. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely corrects 

the description of a nonattainment area 

to exclude land that did not contribute 

to the nonattainment problem and was 

under a different regulatory jurisdiction 

and does not impose any additional 

requirements on state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ Under 

section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, 

EPA may not issue a regulation that has 

tribal implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 

13175, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has tribal implications and that 

preempts tribal law, unless the Agency 

consults with tribal officials early in the 

process of developing the regulation. 

EPA has concluded that this rule may 

have tribal implications. EPA’s action 

will remove a portion of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation from the Yakima 

NAA. However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempt tribal 

law. Thus, the requirements of sections 

5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do 

not apply to this rule. Consistent with 

EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted 

with representatives of tribal 

governments early in the process of 

developing this rule to permit them to 

have meaningful and timely input into 

its development. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13175, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and 

tribal governments, EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed rule from tribal officials. 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

corrects the description of a 

nonattainment area to exclude land that 

did not contribute to the nonattainment 

problem and was under a different 

regulatory jurisdiction and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. This rule also 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: January 21, 2005. 

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

■ Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations are amended as 

follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

■ 2. In § 81. 348 , the table entitled 

‘‘Washington–PM–10’’ is amended by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Yakima County’’

table to read as follows:

§ 81.348 Washington.

* * * * *

6364 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

WASHINGTON—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

* * * * * * * 

Yakima County ........................................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment ............... 11/15/90 Moderate. 

The area bounded on the south by a line from UTM coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN, west to 

681000mW, 5157000mN, thence north along a line to 

coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN, thence east to 

694000mW, 5172000mN, thence south to the beginning coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN, excluding 

the area within the exterior boundary of the Yakama 

Indian Reservation 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–1994 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket No. FEMA–7865] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Emergency 

Preparedness and Response Directorate, 

Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of 

each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine 

whether a particular community was 

suspended on the suspension date, 

contact the appropriate FEMA Regional 

Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division, 

500 C Street, SW.; Room 412, 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2878.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the 

National Flood Insurance Program, 42 

U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities 

will be suspended on the effective date 

in the third column. As of that date, 

flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the community. However, 

some of these communities may adopt 

and submit the required documentation 

of legally enforceable floodplain 

management measures after this rule is 

published but prior to the actual 

suspension date. These communities 

will not be suspended and will continue 

their eligibility for the sale of insurance. 

A notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency has identified the 

special flood hazard areas in these 

communities by publishing a Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of 

the FIRM if one has been published, is 

indicated in the fourth column of the 

table. No direct Federal financial 

assistance (except assistance pursuant to 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act not in 

connection with a flood) may legally be 

provided for construction or acquisition 

of buildings in the identified special 

flood hazard area of communities not 

participating in the NFIP and identified 

for more than a year, on the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s 

initial flood insurance map of the 

community as having flood-prone areas 

(section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 

4106(a), as amended). This prohibition 

against certain types of Federal 

assistance becomes effective for the 

communities listed on the date shown 

in the last column. The Administrator 

finds that notice and public comment 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable 

and unnecessary because communities 

listed in this final rule have been 

adequately notified. 

Each community receives a 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letter 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

that the community will be suspended 

unless the required floodplain 

management measures are met prior to 

the effective suspension date. Since 

these notifications have been made, this 

final rule may take effect within less 

than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 

10, Environmental Considerations. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Administrator has determined 

that this rule is exempt from the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act because the National