Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Washington; Yakima Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: November 1, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66555-66561]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no02-15]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket # WA-01-006; FRL-7267-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Washington; Yakima Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment
and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 26, 2001, the State of Washington requested EPA
to redesignate the Yakima ``not classified'' carbon monoxide (CO)
nonattainment area to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) and submitted a CO maintenance plan for
Yakima. In this action, EPA is approving the maintenance plan and
redesignating the Yakima CO nonattainment area to attainment.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 31, 2002,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 2, 2002. If relevant
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Steve Body, State and
Tribal Programs Unit, Office of Air Quality, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body, State and Tribal Programs
Unit, Office of Air Quality, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle
WA, Telephone number: (206) 553-0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Purpose of This action?
II. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan
a. The Area Must Have Attained the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS
b. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
2. Part D Requirements
A. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory

[[Page 66556]]

B. Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
C. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring
c. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the CAA
d. The Area Must Show the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permenant and Enforceable Emission Reductions.
e. The Area Must Have A Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under
CAA Section 175A
1. Emissions Inventory--Attainment Year
2. Demonstration of maintenance
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
4. Contingency Plan
IV. Conformity
V. Final Action

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

EPA is redesignating the Yakima ``not classified'' CO nonattainment
area from nonattainment to attainment and approving the maintenance
plan that will keep the area in attainment for the next 10 years.
EPA originally designated the Yakima area as nonattainment for CO
under the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments (see 43
FR 8962, March 3, 1978). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399,
codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the
CAA, the Yakima area was designated nonattainment for CO by operation
of law because the area had been designated as nonattainment before
November 15, 1990. The Yakima area is classified as an unclassified, or
``not classified'' CO nonattainment area.
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 CAA provides the requirements for redesignation. These are:
(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
national ambient air quality standard;
(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the Act;
(iii) 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;
(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
(v) The State containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Before an area can be redesignated to attainment, all applicable
State Implementation Plan (SIP) elements must be fully approved.

II. What Is the State's Process To Submit These materials to EPA?

The CAA requires States to follow certain procedural requirements
for submitting SIP revisions to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
requires that each SIP revision be adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The State then submits the SIP
revision to EPA for approval.
The Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA), which has
regulatory authority for sources of air pollution in the Yakima CO
nonattainment area, developed the CO maintenance plan. They released
the draft maintenance plan for public review on August 21, 2000. On
February 14, 2001, the Board of Directors for the YRCAA adopted the
Yakima Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request. On July 11, 2001, the State of Washington held a
public hearing on the plan. On October 3, 2001, the State of Washington
adopted the plan. On September 26, 2001, the State submitted the SIP to
EPA. EPA has evaluated the State's submittal and determined that the
State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

EPA has reviewed the State's maintenance plan and redesignation
request and is approving the maintenance plan and redesignating the
area to attainment consistent with the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). The following is a summary of EPAs evaluation and a
description of how each requirement is met.

(a) The Area Must Have Attained the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requires that the Administrator determine
that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The primary NAAQS for
CO is 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour
average, not to be exceeded more than once per year. CO in the ambient
air is measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
C. EPA considers an area as attaining the CO NAAQS when all of the CO
monitors in the area have one or less exceedance of the CO standard
each calendar year over a two calendar year period. (See 40 CFR 50.8
and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C.) EPA's interpretation of this
requirement is that an area seeking redesignation to attainment must
show attainment of the CO NAAQS for at least two consecutive calendar
years (September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy memorandum ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment''
(``Calcagni Memorandum'')). In addition, the area must continue to show
attainment through the date that EPA promulgates redesignation to
attainment.
Washington's CO redesignation request for the Yakima area is based
on valid ambient air quality data. Ambient air quality monitoring data
for calendar years 1988 through 2001 show a measured exceedance rate of
the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year at all monitoring sites. These
data were collected and analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 CFR 50.8
and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C) and have been stored in EPA's
Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS). These data have met
minimum quality assurance requirements and have been certified by the
State as being valid before being included in AIRS. Further information
on CO monitoring is presented in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the Yakima
maintenance plan. EPA has analyzed the ambient air quality data and
determined that the Yakima area has not violated the CO standard since
January 1988 and continues to attain through 2001.

(b) The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an area must meet all
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. EPA
interprets this requirement to mean the State must meet all
requirements that applied to the area prior to, or at the time of, the
submission of a complete redesignation request.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
On May 31, 1972, EPA approved the original Washington SIP as
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (see 37 FR
10900). Although section 110 of the CAA was amended in 1990, the
changes to the implementation plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)
were not substantial. Thus, EPA has determined that the SIP revisions

[[Page 66557]]

approved in 1972 along with subsequent revisions that were previously
approved, continue to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA. EPA has analyzed the SIP elements that are being approved as
part of this action and has determined they comply with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and that the area meets
all applicable requirements under section 110 of the CAA.
2. Part D Requirements
The Yakima area was originally designated as nonattainment for CO
on March 3, 1978 (see 43 FR 8962). On May 20, 1983, (48 FR 22716) EPA
approved an extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1982.
Washington's original CAA Part D plan for the Yakima CO nonattainment
area was submitted and approved by EPA on June 5, 1980.
Prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments, EPA had begun development of its
post-1987 policy for carbon monoxide; however, EPA did not finalize the
post-1987 policy for CO because the Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended on
November 15, 1990. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, the Yakima
area was by operation of law designated nonattainment for CO because
the area had been previously designated nonattainment before November
15, 1990. In the November 6, 1991, Federal Register, (56 FR 56694) the
Yakima area was classified as a ``not classified'' CO nonattainment
area as the area had not violated the CO NAAQS in 1988 or 1989.
Before the Yakima ``not classified'' CO nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's
classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or
nonclassifiable.
The relevant Subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections
172(c) and 176. The April 16, 1992, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see
57 FR 13498) (``General Preamble of April 16, 1992'') provides EPAs
interpretation of the CAA requirements for not classified CO areas (see
specifically 57 FR 13535). The General Preamble reads, ``Although it
seems clear that the CO-specific requirements of subpart 3 of part D do
not apply to CO ``not classified'' areas, the 1990 CAAA are silent as
to how the requirements of subpart 1 of part D, which contains general
SIP planning requirements for all designated nonattainment areas,
should be interpreted for such CO areas. Nevertheless, because these
areas are designated nonattainment, some aspects of subpart 1
necessarily apply.''
Under section 172(b), the applicable section 172(c) requirements,
as determined by the Administrator, were due no later than three years
after an area was designated as nonattainment under section 107(d) of
the amended CAA (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). In the case of the
Yakima area, the due date was November 15, 1993. Since the Yakima CO
redesignation request and maintenance plan were not submitted by
Washington until September 26, 2001, the General Preamble of April 16,
1992, provides that the applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are:
172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), 172(c)(5)(new source review permitting
program), and 172(c)(7)(the section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring
requirements)). See 57 FR 13535, April 16, 1992.
EPA has determined that the Part D requirements for Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM), an attainment demonstration,
reasonable further progress (RFP), and contingency measures (CAA
section 172(c)(9)) are not applicable to ``not classified'' CO
nonattainment areas. See 57 FR 13535, April 16, 1992. EPA has also
interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(1) (reasonably
available control measures--RACM), 172(c)(2) (reasonable further
progress--RFP), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency
measures) as being irrelevant to a redesignation request because they
only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the standard. See
the General Preamble of April 16, 1992, and the Calcagni Memorandum.
Finally, the State has not sought to exercise the options that would
trigger sections 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions
increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques). Thus, these
provisions are also not relevant to this redesignation request.
Section 176 of the CAA contains requirements related to conformity.
Although federal regulations (see 40 CFR 51.396) require that states
adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas
designated nonattainment or that are subject to a federally approved
maintenance plan, EPA has decided that a transportation conformity SIP
is not an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is
reflected in the 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide
redesignation. (See 61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)
The remaining applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are
discussed below.

A. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of all actual emissions from all sources in the
Yakima CO nonattainment area. The emission inventory requirement for
``not classified'' CO nonattainment areas is detailed in the General
Preamble of April 16, 1992. EPA has determined that an emissions
inventory is required by CAA section 172(c)(3) regardless of air
quality levels. An emissions inventory must be included as a revision
to the SIP and was due three years from the time of the area's
designation. For ``not classified'' CO areas, this date is November 15,
1993. To address the section 172(c)(3) requirement for a ``current''
inventory, EPA interpreted ``current'' to mean calendar year 1990 (see
57 FR 13502, April 16, 1992).
On March 4, 1994, Washington submitted a 1992 emission inventory
for the Yakima CO nonattainment area. EPA deferred action on that
inventory pending submittal of a maintenance plan. A 1996 emission
inventory was prepared by YRCAA but it was never submitted to EPA. A
new 1999 emission inventory was prepared for the CO maintenance plan.
EPA believes this 1999 inventory meets the emission inventory
obligation. EPA has reviewed the emission inventory and determined it
is current, accurate, and comprehensive at the time and it continues to
represent emissions in the area that provide for attainment with a
1998-1999 design value of 5.1 ppm CO.

B. Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)

The CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR. The State must have an approved NSR program
that meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) of the Act. The State
of Washington has an approved NSR program (see 60 FR 28726, June 2,
1995) that is applicable in Yakima CO nonattainment area. The
requirements of the Part D, NSR program will be replaced by the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program upon the
effective date of this redesignation. The Federal PSD regulations found
at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in effect in Washington.

[[Page 66558]]

C. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements

According to the General Preamble of April 16, 1992, ``not
classified'' CO nonattainment areas should meet the ``applicable'' air
quality monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The
State of Washington has operated a CO monitor in the Yakima area since
the early 1970's. EPA previously approved the SIP for monitoring on
April 15, 1981 (46 FR 21994). This SIP revision does not change that
monitoring provision and it remains approved and in effect.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k).
Based on the approval into the SIP of provisions under the pre-1990
CAA, EPA's prior approval of a SIP revision required under the 1990
amendments to the CAA, and it's approval of the State's commitment to
maintain an adequate monitoring network, EPA has determined that, as of
the date of this action, Washington has a fully approved CO SIP under
section 110(k) for the Yakima CO nonattainment area.

(d) The Area Must Show the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to
be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
The CO emissions reductions for the Yakima area were achieved
through a number of control measures. The primary emission reductions
are the result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Standards and
fleet turnover. These reductions will continue into the maintenance
period for the Yakima area. In addition, there is a State requirement
for commute trip reduction within the city of Yakima. The Yakima CO
nonattainment area is a geographic area contained within the City
boundary. This measure covers six employers in the nonattainment area
and six additional employers within the City of Yakima, but outside the
nonattainment area. And lastly there are three local measures that
reduce CO emissions in the area: control of outdoor and agricultural
burning, prohibition of installation of uncertified wood stoves, and
wood stove curtailment program. While these local control measures are
aimed at controlling particulate matter emissions, they concurrently
reduce CO emissions especially during wintertime inversion conditions
that are conducive to both PM and CO pollutant build-up. These local
control measures have previously been approved by EPA in the PM-10 SIP
for Yakima.
EPA has evaluated the various State and Federal control measures,
and the 1999 emission inventory, and have concluded that the
improvement in air quality in the Yakima nonattainment area has
resulted from emission reductions that are permanent and enforceable.

(e) The Area Must Have A Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under CAA
Section 175A

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
For areas such as Yakima that are utilizing EPA's limited maintenance
plan approach, as detailed in the EPA guidance memorandum, ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas''
from Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies
Group, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, dated October 6,
1995 (``Paisie Memorandum''), the maintenance plan demonstration
requirement is considered to be satisfied for ``not classified'' areas
if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65 ppm,
or 85% of the level of the 8 hour CO NAAQS. The design value must be
based on the 8 consecutive quarters of data. There is no requirement to
project emissions or air quality over the maintenance period. EPA
believes if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85
percent of the level of the CO 8 hour NAAQS, the applicability of PSD
requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, and Federal
measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the
initial 10-year maintenance period. In addition, the design value for
the area must continue to be at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of
final EPA action on the redesignation. The method for calculating the
design value is presented in the June 18, 1990, EPA guidance memorandum
entitled ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'', from
William G. Laxton, Director of the OAQPS Technical Support Division, to
Regional Air Directors (hereafter referred to as the ``Laxton
Memorandum''.)
In the case of a ``not classified'' area applying for a limited
maintenance plan, all the monitors must have a separate design value
calculated and the highest design value must be at or below 7.65 ppm.
Should the design value for the area exceed 7.65 ppm prior to final EPA
action on the redesignation, then the area no longer qualifies for the
limited maintenance plan and must instead submit a full maintenance
plan as described in the Calcagni Memorandum.
Eight years after redesignation to attainment, the State must
submit a revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued
maintenance of the CO NAAQS for an additional 10 years following the
initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency
measures, with a schedule for adoption and implementation, that are
adequate to assure prompt correction of a violation. In this direct
final rulemaking action, EPA is approving the limited maintenance plan
for the Yakima nonattainment area because EPA has determined, as
detailed below, that the State's maintenance plan submittal meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
The analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan requirements
follows:
1. Emissions Inventory--Attainment Year
The plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the CO NAAQS. This inventory is to be consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas
available at the time \1\ and should

[[Page 66559]]

represent emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment. The Yakima CO maintenance plan
contains an accurate, current, and comprehensive emission inventory for
calendar year 1999 which coincides with the year that the design value
of 5.1 ppm CO was calculated. Therefore the Yakima maintenance plan
meets the emission inventory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The October 6, 1995, limited maintenance plan guidance
memorandum states that current guidance on the preparation of
emissions inventories for CO areas is contained in the following
documents: ``Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories
for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone: Volume I'' (EPA-450/4-
91-016), and ``Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation: Volume
IV, Mobile Sources'' (EPA-450/4-81-026d revised).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstration of Maintenance
As described in the October 6, 1995, limited maintenance plan
guidance memorandum (Paisie Memorandum), the maintenance plan
demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied for ``not
classified'' CO areas if the design value for the area is equal to, or
less than 7.65 ppm. The CO design value for 1998-1999 period for the
Yakima area is 5.1 ppm, which is below the limited maintenance plan
requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the Yakima area has adequately
demonstrated that it will maintain the CO NAAQS into the future.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued ambient monitoring of an area is required over the
maintenance period. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the Yakima CO maintenance
plan provide for continued ambient monitoring in the area.
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. As discussed above, this requirement is not
relevant to the redesignation request, but a contingency measure has
been included in the plan. The plan contains a measure that requires
the City of Yakima to change the timing of intersection stop lights in
the downtown core to increase the speed of traffic on the heavily
traveled streets. The change in speed is estimated to be from an
average of 14 mph to 16 mph resulting in a 17% reduction in CO
emissions. The City will adjust the stop light timing to achieve the
reductions when CO levels reach 7.1 ppm and levels continue to
increase.

IV. Conformity

Because Yakima submitted a limited maintenance plan, special
conformity provisions apply. The transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188; November 24, 1993) and the general conformity rule (58 FR 63214;
November 30, 1993) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas
operating under maintenance plans. Under either rule, one means of
demonstrating conformity of Federal actions is to indicate that
expected emissions from planned actions are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area. Emissions budgets in limited maintenance
plan areas may be treated as essentially not constraining for the
length of the initial maintenance period because there is no reason to
expect that such an area will experience so much growth in that period
that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. In other words,
emissions need not be capped for the maintenance period. Therefore, in
areas with approved limited maintenance plans, Federal actions
requiring conformity determination under the transportation conformity
rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' required in
sections 93.118, 93.119, and 93.120 of the rule. Similarly, in these
areas, 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) of the rule.''

V. Final Action

EPA approves the maintenance plan and request to redesignate the
Yakima CO nonattainment area to attainment.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective December 31,
2002 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments
by December 2, 2002.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on December 31, 2002 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This 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, 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 approves 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 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

[[Page 66560]]

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.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 31, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: August 13, 2002.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW-Washington

2. Subpart WW is amended by adding Sec. 52.2475 to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.2475 Approval of plans.

(a) Carbon Monoxide.
(1) Yakima.
(i) EPA approves as a revision to the Washington State
Implementation Plan, the Yakima Carbon Monoxide maintenance plan
submitted by the State on August 31, 2001.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Spokane. [Reserved]
(b) Lead. [Reserved]
(c) Nitrogen Dioxide. [Reserved]
(d) Ozone. [Reserved]
(e) Particulate Matter. [Reserved]
(f) Sulfur dioxide. [Reserved]

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 Sec. 81.348, the table entitled ``Washington-Carbon
Monoxide'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Yakima Area'' to read
as follows:

Sec. 81.348 Washington.

* * * * *

Washington--Carbon Monoxide
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------
Date1 Type Date1 Type
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Yakima Area:
Yakima County (part)................ 12-31-2002 [Attainment]......................
Portion of the Central Business
District Street intersections:
S. 16th Ave. & W Mead Ave, S.
16th Ave & Hathaway Ave., E
``I'' St. & N 1st St., N 1st St
& E ``G'' St., E ``G'' St & N
8th St., N 8th St. & Pitcher
St., Pitcher St. & I-82
Interchange, Nob Hill Blvd & I-
82 Interchange, Rudkin Rd & I-
82 Interchange, S 1st St. & Old
Town Rd., Old Town Rd & Main
St., W Washington & S 1st St.,
E Mead Ave & S 1st St., S 16th
Ave & W Mead Ave.

* * * * * * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[[Page 66561]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-27833 Filed 10-31-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Washington; Yakima Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes

Local Navigation