![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and Designation: Washington; Yakima County Nonattainment Area Boundary Revision
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: November 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 228)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69338-69342]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29no04-15]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket #: WA-04-005; FRL-7842-8]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and
Designation: Washington; Yakima County Nonattainment Area Boundary
Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing to correct an error in the
initial delineation of the boundary of the Yakima County nonattainment
area (Yakima NAA) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. This correction would
revise the boundary of the Yakima NAA to exclude a small portion that
lies within the exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation. The
excluded area would revert to an unclassifiable designation, consistent
with the original and current designation of the Yakama Indian Reservation.
DATES: Written comments must be received by December 29, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. WA-04-005,
by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: r10.aircom@epa.gov.
C. Fax: (206) 553-0110.
D. Mail: Office of Air Waste and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, Attn: Gina Bonifacino, Mailcode: OAWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
E. Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Attn:
Gina Bonifacino (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 9th
floor. Such deliveries are only accepted during EPA's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. WA-04-005.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or
e-mail. The federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your 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, Mail Code OAWT-
107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. EPA is open Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
Please contact the individual listed in the For Further Information
Contact section if you wish to schedule an appointment to review
materials in the publicly available docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, Region 10, OAWT-107, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553-2970; fax number:
(206) 553-0110; e-mail address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What is the general background of this proposed action?
B. What is the background of the designation of the Yakima NAA?
C. What is the current description of the Yakima NAA?
II. This Action
A. What boundary change is the EPA proposing?
B. What is the basis for this action?
C. How will the excluded area be classified?
D. Can I comment on this action?
E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements
I. Background
A. What Is the General Background of This Proposed Action?
Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets out the
general process by which areas were to be designated nonattainment for
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10) upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(1990 CAA Amendments). Section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the CAA states that
each area that had been identified by EPA as a PM-10 Group I area \1\
prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments is designated nonattainment for PM-10
by operation of the law upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments.
Although EPA believes that, in general, the language of this section
would appear to preclude any exercise of EPA discretion to modify these
initial nonattainment area designations, EPA also believes that
explicit reliance of section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the CAA on EPA's prior
Group I determinations provides the basis for an exception to the
general rule. By requiring that all Group I areas be among the initial
areas designated nonattainment upon enactment of the 1990 CAA
Amendments, Congress
[[Page 69339]]
relied on EPA's expertise and judgment in determining, based on an
analysis of relevant air quality information, those areas for which a
PM-10 nonattainment status was merited. EPA does not believe that
Congress intended initial PM-10 areas to be based on a clearly
erroneous Group I determination. Thus, one exception to the principle
that EPA lacks authority to modify these initial nonattainment area
designations is where, prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments,
EPA mistakenly construed then-existing air quality data and, as a
consequence, incorrectly identified an area as being among the Group I
areas that were subsequently referenced in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of
the CAA. See 56 FR 37654, 37656 (August 8, 1991); see also 61 FR 29667,
29668 (June 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, EPA believes that such a clear identification
error occurred in the case of the Yakima NAA. That is, EPA believes
that it erred by including a portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation
as part of the Yakima NAA. Accordingly, under the authority of section
110(k)(6) of the CAA, EPA is revising the boundary of the Yakima NAA to
exclude the portion within the exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian
Reservation.
B. What Is the Background of the Designation of the Yakima NAA?
On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated national ambient air quality
standards, implementation policies, and regulations for PM-10. See 52
FR 24634. In accordance with these policies, on August 7, 1987, EPA
categorized areas of the United States into three groups based on the
likelihood that the existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be
revised to protect the PM-10 NAAQS. See 52 FR 29383. Areas with a
strong likelihood of violating the PM-10 NAAQS and requiring
substantial SIP revisions were placed in Group I; areas where
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS was uncertain and where the SIP required
only slight adjustment were placed in Group II; and areas with a strong
likelihood of attaining the PM-10 NAAQS were placed in Group III.
The Group I areas were generally identified by a county, township
or other planning area. These descriptions were only an initial
definition of an area. In the process of monitoring and modeling PM-10
concentrations and determining the extent of sources of PM-10 emissions
that impact the areas, the states were to better define the boundaries
of the area that were or may have been violating the standards. Based
on monitoring data from monitors located in the city of Yakima, Yakima
County was included among the Group I areas. See 52 FR at 29385.
In March 1989, the Washington Department of Ecology submitted a
State Implementation Plan for PM-10 for the Yakima County Group I area.
This submittal addressed CAA requirements to meet the new federal
standards for PM-10 within nine months after the effective date of the
standard. The State chose a rectangular shaped area covering
approximately 75 square miles for in-depth study of PM-10 in the Yakima
area based on knowledge of the emission sources (primarily area sources
consisting of wood stoves and vehicle-related emissions), and all areas
shown by initial dispersion modeling to experience levels above the
standard. Washington's plan describes this study area as three cities
in close proximity, Yakima, Selah and Union Gap, and the surrounding
areas in Yakima County.
Washington's 1989 plan describes land use within the city limits as
primarily residential and commercial, with residences extending at a
lesser density beyond the incorporated city limits. The rest of the
plan's study area consists of agricultural land and open land. The plan
indicates that the Yakima Indian Reservation is on the southern portion
of the study area. At the time of the study, Washington conducted
dispersion modeling of the area based on 1985 emissions. These modeling
results indicate an expected exceedence of the PM-10 NAAQS in the city
of Yakima, but did not indicate an expected exceedence of the PM-10
NAAQS within the Yakama tribal area south of the city of Yakima (see
the Technical Support Document for a detailed description of dispersion
modeling results and study area description from the 1989 plan).
On October 31, 1990, EPA published technical corrections clarifying
the boundaries of concern for some of the areas previously identified
as Groups I and II areas. See 55 FR 45799. The area for Yakima County
Group I was revised to correspond to Washington's rectangular study
area and was described as follows:
The area bounded on the south by a line from Universal Transmercater
(UTM) coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN, west to 681000mW, 5157000mN
thence north along a line to coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN, thence
east to 694000mW, 5172000mN, thence south to the beginning
coordinate 694000mW, 5157000mN.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Though UTM coordinates are not explicitly given in the 1989
plan, figures in the 1989 plan area appear to correspond to the UTM
coordinates in 55 FR 45799.
This area includes approximately six square miles of fee land within
the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation. There was
nothing in the State's 1989 plan to indicate that the study area
included lands within the Yakima Indian Reservation. (See Technical
Support Document for a detailed discussion of the study area described
in the State's 1989 plan.)
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act provided the PM-10
grouping scheme as the starting point for designating areas
nonattainment or unclassifiable for PM-10. Group I areas identified in
the August 7, 1987, Federal Register (52 FR 29383), and subsequently
clarified on October 1, 1990 (55 FR 45799), were designated
nonattainment for PM-10 by operation of law pursuant to section
107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the CAA. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). Any other
area (i.e., Group II or III areas) containing a monitoring site for
which air quality monitoring data showed a violation of the NAAQS for
PM-10 prior to January 1, 1989 was also designated nonattainment. All
other areas were designated unclassifiable for PM-10. The Yakima Group
I area was designated nonattainment with this action and became the
Yakima NAA. 56 FR at 11105. The Yakama Indian Reservation, with the
exception of the portion within the Yakima Group I area, was designated
unclassifiable.
C. What Is the Current Description of the Yakima NAA?
As discussed above, the Yakima NAA is a rectangular shaped area
covering approximately 75 square miles. Within the Yakima NAA, the
cities of Yakima, Selah and Union Gap form an urban area. The cities
lie in the Yakima river valley at an elevation of 1000 feet and are
surrounded by mountains and ridges rising to between 3000 and 3500 feet
above the valley floor. One major stationary source (Boise Cascade
sawmill \3\) and several small stationary sources lie within the NAA.
All point sources are on located on state lands within the NAA. The
rest of the NAA consists of commercial, residential, agricultural, and
open land. The northeast corner of the nonattainment area contains a
small part of the Yakima Training Center Military Reservation and the
southern boundary of the NAA extends into the Yakama Indian
Reservation. The portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation within the
NAA is roughly six square miles of agricultural land and rangeland
which contains
[[Page 69340]]
several residences and a few small commercial properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Boise Cascade will be operated as Yakima Resources, LLC in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. This Action
A. What Boundary Change Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to correct the boundary of the Yakima NAA to
exclude the portion within the exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. This proposal would change the boundary of the Yakima NAA
to read as follows:
The area bounded on the south by a line from UTM coordinate
694000mW, 5157000mN, west to 681000mW, 5157000mN, thence north along
a line to coordinate 681000mN, 5172000mN, thence east to 694000mW,
5172000mN, thence south to the beginning coordinate 694000mW,
5157000mN, excluding the area within the exterior boundary of the
Yakama Indian Reservation.
B. What Is the Basis for This Action?
Under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, whenever EPA determines that
its action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan
revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation,
classification, or reclassification was in error, EPA may in the same
manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action
as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the state.
Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the state
and public.
Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is proposing a revision to the
boundary of the Yakima NAA to correct an error in EPA's initial
delineation of the Yakima County Group I area, which included land
within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation as part
of the Yakima County Group I area. Although this boundary correction is
not subject to the legal requirements for public notice and comment (51
FR at 11103), EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to
comment on this action in order to foster public participation and
avoid further error.
In the absence of technical information identifying particular
sources contributing to violations of the NAAQS, EPA policy for
determining the boundaries of PM-10 nonattainment areas is to use
political boundaries associated with the area where the monitored
violations occurred and in which it is reasonably expected that sources
contributing to the violations are located. See 57 FR 43846, 43848
(September 22, 1992).\4\ As discussed above, although the Yakima NAA is
comprised mostly of state lands, it also includes lands within the
exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation. Under the CAA,
the State of Washington Department of Ecology, along with the Yakama
Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA),\5\ have primary planning
responsibility for state land within the current Yakima NAA, whereas
EPA and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama
Nation) have primary planning responsibility for the tribal land within
the current Yakima NAA. See CAA section 301(a) and 301(d)(4); 64 FR
8247, 8251-8255 (February 19, 1999) (``Federal Operating Permits
Program; Final Rule''); 63 FR 7254, 7254-7259, 7262 (February 12, 1998)
(``Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management; Final Rule'');
59 FR 43956, 43958-43961 (``Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and
Management; Proposed Rule''). Thus, when EPA delineated the boundary of
theYakima County Group I area through technical corrections in 1990,
EPA policy called for drawing the boundary of the area based on
political boundaries unless there was technical information identifying
particular sources contributing to violations of the NAAQS that
warranted a different approach. In other words, EPA policy called for
not including land within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian
Reservation as part of the Yakima Group I area unless there was
information showing that sources within the Yakama Indian Reservation
contributed to the PM-10 violations recorded on state lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Guidance on this issue is also provided in the PM-10 SIP
Development Guideline (EPA-450/2-86-001).
\5\ YRCAA is the local air pollution control authority with the
primary planning responsibilities for state lands within Yakima County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of the air quality data from Washington's 1989 plan for
the Yakima County Group I area does not indicate that sources within
the Yakama Indian Reservation contributed to the PM-10 violations
recorded on state lands at the time the boundary was determined. There
were two monitors recording exceedences of the PM-10 NAAQS that were
used in EPA's delineation of the Yakima Group I area in 1990. Both of
these monitors, which were predicted to be representative of the areas
of highest concentration of PM-10 in the Group I area, were located in
the city of Yakima.
Modeling and emissions inventory data from the 1989 state plan
indicates that sources within the Yakama Indian Reservation did not
contribute to an exceedence of the PM-10 NAAQS in Yakima, Selah, Union
Gap and surrounding areas. The emissions inventory from Washington's
1989 plan showed that 95% of the PM-10 for high pollution days in 1985
was attributable to residential wood heating and point sources (see
Technical Support Document for a description of the emissions inventory
used in the 1989 plan). As discussed above, the Reservation land
included within the Yakima NAA is largely desert and agricultural land.
According to aerial photos, there were fewer than 300 residences on the
portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation that was included within the
Yakima Group I area. This compares to more than 25,000 residences in
the cities of Yakima, Selah and Union Gap. There were no major point
sources and only a few small commercial properties are located within
the tribal portion of the NAA. Thus, the number of residences in the
tribal portion of the Yakima Group I area comprised less than 1.5% of
the households in the Yakima Group I area and less than 1.5% of total
PM-10 on days with elevated PM-10 levels.
That sources on the tribal portion of the Yakima Group I area did
not contribute to the violations of the PM-10 standard at the time the
Yakima Group I area was delineated is supported by modeling data from
Washington's 1989 implementation plan for area. Concentration isopleths
from the 1989 plan predicted that the PM-10 concentrations in southern
range of the study area (near or on the Yakama Indian Reservation) were
far below the NAAQS (30-70 ug/m3 24 hour NAAQS), while the areas to the
north towards the cities of Yakima and Selah and to the east toward
Union Gap were predicted to exceed the NAAQS.
In short, at the time of determination of the boundaries of the
Yakima Group I area, which by operation of the law became the Yakima
NAA, there was no technical information provided by Washington
indicating that sources on the Yakima Indian Reservation contributed to
the violations of the PM-10 NAAQS that had been recorded on monitors in
the city of Yakima. EPA policy therefore called for using political
boundaries to delineate the nonattainment area. As such, EPA erred in
including a portion of the Yakama Indian Reservation in the Yakima NAA.
We note that correcting the boundary to exclude Reservation lands
from the Yakima NAA is consistent with EPA's past actions with respect
to the Yakima NAA. In approving the Yakima PM-10 nonattainment area as
part of the Washington SIP in 1998, EPA made clear that the approved
SIP does not extend to lands within the boundaries of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. See 63
[[Page 69341]]
FR 5269, 5270 (February 2, 1998). EPA further noted that it was not
including any reference to authority of YRCAA over activities or air
resources located within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. 63 FR at 5270.
C. How Will the Excluded Area Be Classified?
If EPA finalizes the decision to exclude land within the exterior
boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation from the Yakima NAA, this
six-square mile area would revert to an unclassifiable designation,
consistent with the original designation of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. Under section 107(d)(4) of the CAA, each area not
identified as a Group I area in 52 Federal Register 29383 (August 7,
1987) or not identified as an area containing a site for which air
quality monitoring data showed a violation of the NAAQS for PM-10
before January 1, 1989, was to be designated unclassifiable for PM-10.
At the time the city of Yakima was designated as a Group I area in
1987, there was no monitoring data showing a violation of the PM-10
NAAQS in the tribal portion of the Yakima Group I area. Monitors
currently installed on the Yakama Indian Reservation also do not
indicate violations of the PM-10 NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Although EPA is basing its decision on information existing
at the time the nonattainment area boundaries were initially
established, EPA would be reluctant to revise through a correction
action the description of the nonattainment area based on
information available before EPA's initial erroneous boundary
description if data collected since that time indicated that the
areas was not in attainment of, or would be expected to violate, the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Can I Comment on This Action?
By this notice, EPA is notifying the State of Washington, YRCAA,
the Yakama Nation, and the public that EPA proposes to correct the
boundary of the Yakima NAA to exclude the six-square mile area that
lies within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation.
Although neither the Administrative Procedures Act nor the Clean Air
Act legally obligate EPA to provide the public an opportunity to
comment on this correction (56 FR at 1103), EPA is soliciting public
comment to foster public participation and avoid any further errors.
EPA will consider all comments on this action that are received by
December 29, 2004. After consideration of all timely comments received,
EPA will make any adjustments to this proposed correction that are
appropriate in light of the comments.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely corrects the
description of a nonattainment area to exclude land that did not
contribute to the nonattainment problem and was under a different
regulatory jurisdiction and does not impose any additional requirements
on state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Under section 5(b) of Executive
Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5(c) of
Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal
implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults
with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have tribal
implications. EPA's action will remove a portion of the Yakama Indian
Reservation from the Yakima NAA. However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
tribal law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the
Executive Order do
[[Page 69342]]
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