![[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 PM-10 Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan
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 69342-69348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29no04-16]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket #: WA-04-006; FRL-7842-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and
Designation: Washington; Yakima PM-10 Nonattainment Area Limited
Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 15, 2004, the State of Washington submitted a Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Yakima nonattainment area (NAA) for
approval and concurrently requested that EPA redesignate the Yakima
nonattainment area to attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). In this action,
the EPA proposes to approve the LMP for the Yakima NAA in Washington
and grant a request by the State to redesignate the area from
nonattainment to attainment. In a concurrent notice of proposed
rulemaking published today, EPA is proposing to correct the boundary of
the Yakima NAA to exclude a small portion that lies within the exterior
boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation. The State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that we are proposing to approve with this action does not
extend to lands which are within the boundaries of the Yakama Indian
Nation.
DATES: Written comments must be received by December 29, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. WA-04-006,
by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: r10.aircom@epa.gov.
C. Fax: (206) 553-0110.
D. Mail: Office of Air Waste and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, Attn: Gina Bonifacino, Mailcode: OAWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
E. Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Attn:
Gina Bonifacino (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 9th
floor. Such deliveries are only accepted during EPA's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket WA No. WA-04-006.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or
e-mail. The federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: Publicly available docket materials are available in hard
copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the file, as it exists on
the date of proposal, is also available for public viewing at EPA's
Washington Operations Office at EPA Region 10, 300 Desmond Dr. SE.,
Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503.
EPA is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays. Please contact the individual listed in the
For Further Information Contact section to schedule your review of
records.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and
[[Page 69343]]
Toxics, Region 10, OAWT-107, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553-2970; fax number:
(206) 553-0110; e-mail address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
considered in today's Rulemaking?
B. What is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)?
C. What is the background of the SIP for the Yakima area?
D. What are the air quality characteristics of the Yakima NAA?
E. How can a nonattainment area be redesignated to attainment?
F. What is the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) option for PM-10
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment and how can
an area qualify for this option?
G. How is conformity treated under the LMP option?
II. Review of the Washington State Submittal Addressing the
Requirements for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans
A. Has the State demonstrated that the Yakima NAA has attained
the applicable NAAQS?
B. Does the Yakima NAA have a fully approved SIP under section
110(k) of the Clean Air Act (the Act)?
C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section
110 and Part D of the Act?
D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to section 175A of the Act?
F. Has the State demonstrated that the Yakima NAA qualifies for
the LMP option?
G. Does the State have an approved attainment plan that includes
an emissions inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment
of the NAAQS?
H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of
an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58?
I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for
contingency provisions?
J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered
in Today's Rulemaking?
Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal ten microns (PM-10) is the pollutant subject to this
action. The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air
pollutants set to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the
ambient air pollutants for which we have established such a health-
based standard. PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep
in the lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the
elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most
vulnerable. On July 1, 1987, (52 FR 24634) we revised the NAAQS for
particulate matter with an indicator that includes only those particles
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers. See 40 CFR 50.6. The annual primary PM-10 standard is 50
[mu]g/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The 24-hour primary
PM-10 standard is 150 [mu]g/m3 with no more than one
expected exceedance per year. The secondary PM-10 standards,
promulgated to protect against adverse welfare effects, are identical
to the primary standards.
B. What Is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)?
The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires states to attain and maintain
ambient air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. Section
107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act defines nonattainment area as any
area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in
the nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.
The states' plans for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are
outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a planning
document that, when implemented, is designed to ensure the achievement
of the NAAQS. Each state currently has a SIP in place, and the Act
requires that states make SIP revisions periodically as necessary to
provide continued compliance with the standards.
SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) A current,
accurate and comprehensive inventory of emission sources; (2) statutes
and regulations adopted by the state legislature and executive
agencies; (3) air quality analyses that include demonstrations that
adequate controls are in place to meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency
measures to be undertaken if an area fails to attain the standard or
make reasonable progress toward attainment by the required date.
The state must make the SIP and subsequent revisions available for
public review and comment through a public hearing, it must be adopted
by the state, and submitted to EPA by the Governor or her designee. EPA
takes federal action on the SIP thus rendering the rules and
regulations federally enforceable. The approved SIP is the state's
commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air quality
problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through the
formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.
C. What Is the Background of the SIP for the Yakima Area?
On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), EPA identified the Yakima area as
a PM-10 ``Group I'' area of concern, i.e., an area with a 95% or
greater likelihood of violating the PM-10 NAAQS and requiring
substantial SIP revisions. The Yakima area was subsequently designated
as a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area upon enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 by operation of law (November 15, 1990).
States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a nonattainment area SIP that
implemented reasonably available control measures (RACM) by December
10, 1993, and demonstrate whether it was practicable to attain the PM-
10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
On November 7, 1995, EPA published a Federal Register notice
proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of the nonattainment
area SIP submitted by the State of Washington for the Yakima
nonattainment area (NAA) (60 FR 56129). The purpose of this
nonattainment area SIP was to bring about attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS
in Yakima. The November 7, 1995 Federal Register proposal provided
information on requirements for PM-10 nonattainment area SIPs and the
history of this rulemaking action.
The State submitted additional SIP revisions on November 3, 1995
\1\, and December 27, 1995 that addressed EPA concerns identified in
the November 7, 1995 proposal. The submittals included a demonstration
of attainment, a maintenance demonstration and quantitative milestone
report, the implementation of RACM through an
[[Page 69344]]
amended set of YRCAA regulations, and the enforceability of the local
regulations. On February 2, 1998 (63 FR 5270), EPA fully approved the
Yakima NAA SIP. In the final approval, EPA clarified that the SIP, as
approved, did not extend to lands which are within the boundaries of
the Yakama Indian Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The timing of this submittal did not permit EPA action prior
to the November 7, 1995 Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 15, 2004, the State submitted a Limited Maintenance Plan
for the Yakima area for approval and requested that EPA redesignate the
Yakima nonattainment area to attainment for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM-10. In today's action, EPA proposes to
approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Yakima area in
Washington and approve the request by the State to redesignate the area
from nonattainment to attainment for PM-10. In a concurrent notice of
proposed rulemaking published today, EPA is proposing to correct the
boundary of the Yakima NAA to exclude a small portion that lies within
the exterior boundary of the Yakama Indian Reservation. Therefore, the
SIP that we are proposing to approve with this action does not extend
to lands which are within the boundaries of the Yakama Indian Nation.
D. What Are the Air Quality Characteristics of the Yakima NAA?
The Yakima NAA is a rectangular shaped area covering approximately
70 square miles. For a legal description of the boundaries see 40 CFR
81.348, as proposed to be amended in today's notice of proposed
rulemaking. The Yakima NAA includes the three cities of Yakima, Selah
and Union Gap, which form a single developed area. The cities are in
the generally flat area of the river valleys and are surrounded by
heights and ridges. One major stationary source (Boise Cascade sawmill)
and several small stationary sources lie within the nonattainment area.
The rest of the nonattainment area consists of agricultural lands,
mainly orchards and open land. The northeast corner of the
nonattainment area includes a small part of the Yakima Training Center
Military Reservation.
An analysis of PM-10 monitoring data indicates that the highest PM-
10 levels generally occur during weekdays from November through
January. The primary emission sources are wood stoves used for home
heating and re-suspended road dust from either paved or unpaved roads.
E. How Can a Nonattainment Area Be Redesignated to Attainment?
Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the
area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Clean Air Act (the Act), and the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR
13498) provide the criteria for redesignation. These criteria are
further clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. The criteria
for redesignation are:
(1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
(2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the Act;
(3) The State containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the Act;
(4) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan,
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; and
(5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act.
F. What Is the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option for PM-10
Nonattainment Areas Seeking Redesignation to Attainment and How Can an
Area Qualify for This Option?
On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance
plan provisions for certain moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas seeking
redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air
Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Areas'',
hereafter the Wegman memo). This policy contains a statistical
demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality criteria will,
with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard 10 years into
the future. Thus, EPA has already provided the maintenance
demonstration for areas that meet the air quality criteria outlined in
the policy. It follows that future year emission inventories for these
areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation
conformity with the SIP are no longer necessary.
To qualify for the LMP option, the area should have attained the
PM-10 NAAQS, and the average annual PM-10 design value for the area,
based upon the most recent 5 years of air quality data at all monitors
in the area, should be at or below 40 [mu]g/m3, and the 24
hour design value should be at or below 98 [mu]g/m3. In
addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-road motor
vehicle PM-10 emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have
passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test.
The Wegman memo also identifies core provisions that must be
included the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year emission
inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved air
quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.
G. How Is Conformity Treated Under the LMP Option?
The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan.
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating
that a federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area.
While EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan policy does not exempt an area
from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may
demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under
the Limited Maintenance Plan policy, emissions budgets are treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the PM-10
NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity purposes, EPA would
conclude that emissions in these areas need not be capped for the
maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions analysis would
not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general
conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test''
specified in section 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the
budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.
[[Page 69345]]
II. Review of the Washington State Submittal Addressing the
Requirements for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans
A. Has the State Demonstrated That the Yakima NAA Has Attained the
Applicable NAAQS?
States must demonstrate that an area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS
through analysis of ambient air quality data from an ambient air
monitoring network representing peak PM-10 concentrations. The data
should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database.
The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m3. An area has
attained the 24-hour standard when the average number of expected
exceedences per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be
collected in accordance with federal requirements (40 CFR part 58,
including appendices).
Based on data that has been quality assured by the Washington
Department of Ecology and stored in the AQS database, there have been
no exceedences of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the Yakima NAA since 1991
and the number of days exceeding the annual PM-10 standard over the
three year period 2000-2003 is zero. Thus, the expected number of days
exceeding the 24 standard is zero, and the Yakima NAA has attained the
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50 [mu]g/m3. To determine
attainment, the standard is compared to the expected annual mean, which
is the average of the weighted annual mean for three consecutive years.
Appendix G of the Yakima Limited Maintenance Plan lists annual weighted
means for each year between 2000 through 2003. The weighted annual mean
for each year is below 50 [mu]g/m3 at all monitoring sites
(range: 22.7-26.0 [mu]g/m3). Thus, the three year weighted
annual mean is below 50 [mu]g/m3. The Yakima NAA has attained the
annual PM-10 NAAQS.
B. Does the Yakima NAA Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the Clean Air Act (The Act)?
In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area.
EPA approved Washington's nonattainment plan for the Yakima area on
February 2, 1998 (63 FR 5270). Thus, the area has a fully approved
nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the Act.
C. Has the State Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the Act?
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act requires that a state containing
a nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under
section 110 and Part D of the Act. EPA interprets this to mean the
state must meet all requirements that applied to the area prior to, and
at the time of, the submission of a complete redesignation request. The
following is a summary of how Washington meets these requirements.
(1) Clean Air Act Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited
to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
For purposes of redesignation, EPA review of the Washington SIP
shows that the state has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the Act. Further, in 40 CFR 52.2473, EPA has approved
Washington's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under Section 110.
(2) Part D Requirements
Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment.
The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts
specific to each pollutant. All PM-10 nonattainment areas must meet the
general provisions of Subpart 1and the specific PM-10 provisions in
Subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment
Areas.'' The following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they
apply to the Yakima area.
(3) Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for
nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements
may be found in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992).
The requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of
certain emissions increases and other measures needed for attainment
were satisfied with the approved PM-10 nonattainment plan for the
Yakima area. See 63 FR 5271 (February 2, 1998).
(4) Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Yakima
PM-10 nonattainment area. Washington included an emissions inventory
for the calendar year 2000 with its submittal of the LMP for the Yakima
area. The requirement for a current, accurate and comprehensive
emission inventory is satisfied by the inventory contained in the LMP.
(5) Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contained revisions to the new
source review (NSR) program requirements for the construction and
operation of new and modified major stationary sources located in
nonattainment areas. The Act requires states to amend their SIPS to
reflect these revisions, but does not require submittal of this element
along with the other SIP elements. The Act established June 30, 1992 as
the submittal date for the revised NSR programs (Section 189 of the
Act). In the Yakima Area, the requirements of the Part D NSR program
will be replaced by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program and the maintenance area NSR program upon effective date of
redesignation. The Part D NSR rules for PM10 nonattainment
areas in Washington were approved by EPA on June 2, 1995. See 60 FR
28726. The federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD
rules in effect for Washington. See 40 CFR 52.2497.
(6) Section 172(c)(7) Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements
Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Washington currently
operates two PM-10 federal reference monitors and a real
[[Page 69346]]
time tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) PM-10 monitor on
the roof of the Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health
Building. These monitors are operating in accord with 40 CFR part 58.
The State has committed to continued operation of the monitoring network.
(7) Section 172 (c)(9) Contingency Measures
The Clean Air Act requires that contingency measures take effect if
the area fails to meet reasonable further progress requirements or
fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Since the
Yakima area attained the NAAQS for PM-10 by the applicable attainment
date of December 31, 1994, contingency measures are no longer required
under Section 172(c)(9) of the Act. However, contingency provisions are
required for maintenance plans under Section 175(a)(d). Washington
provided contingency measures in their Limited Maintenance Plan. These
measures are described in section II H of this notice.
(8) Part D Subpart 4
Part D Subpart 4, Section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to
any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to
attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment.
These requirements include:
(a) Provisions to assure that RACM was implemented by December 10,
1993;
(b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a
demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable;
(c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3 years and
which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment
by December 31, 1994; and
(d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determined
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area.
These provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon EPA approval
of the PM-10 nonattainment area plan for the Yakima area on February 2,
1998 (63 FR 5270).
D. Has the State Demonstrated That the Air Quality Improvement Is Due
to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions?
The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making
this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality improvements
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.
EPA believes that areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the
NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions. Under the
Limited Maintenance Plan policy, the maintenance demonstration is
presumed to be satisfied if an area meets the qualifying criteria.
Thus, Washington has demonstrated that the air quality improvements
in the Yakima area are the result of permanent emission reductions and
not a result of either economic trends or meteorology by qualifying for
the Limited Maintenance Plan. A description of the LMP qualifying
criteria and how the Yakima area meets these criteria is provided in
the following section.
E. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the Act?
In this action, we are proposing to fully approve the maintenance
plan as allowed by the LMP guidance described in section F. below.
F. Has the State Demonstrated That the Yakima NAA Qualifies for the LMP
Option?
The Wegman memo explains the requirements for an area to qualify
for the LMP option. First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS.
Appendix G and sections 2.3 and 2.5 of the plan summarize quality
assured ambient monitoring data showing that the Yakima area has
continued to meet both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS for the
period 2000-2003. As stated in Section IV A, EPA has determined that
the Yakima area is in attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
Second, the design values for the past 5 years must be at or below
the margin of safety levels identified in the LMP option. EPA review of
AQS data confirms that design values at Yakima monitors for the years
1998-2003 fall below 98 [mu]g/m3(daily) and 40 [mu]g/
m3 (annual).
Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test in the LMP option. Appendix B of the plan demonstrates
that when adjusted for future on-road mobile emissions,Yakima passes a
motor vehicle emissions analysis test with a design value of 95 [mu]g/
m3. This value is less than the margin of safety value 98
[mu]g/m3.
The State has shown that the area qualifies for the Limited
Mmaintenance Plan policy as described in the Wegman memo. For the
reasons explained below, we are proposing to approve the LMP.
G. Does the State Have an Approved Attainment Plan That Includes an
Emissions Inventory Which Can Be Used To Demonstrate Attainment of the
NAAQS?
The attainment plan for the Yakima area that was approved in 1998
includes an emissions inventory which was used to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS (63 FR 5270).
H. Does the LMP Include an Assurance of Continued Operation of an
Appropriate EPA-Approved Air Quality Monitoring Network in Accordance
With 40 CFR Part 58?
In section 5.3 of the LMP, the Yakima Regional Clean Area Authority
states that it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet
EPA requirements.
I. Does the Plan Meet the Clean Air Act Requirements for Contingency
Provisions?
Section 175A of the Act states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency measures, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the Wegman memo, these contingency measures
do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
The Yakima PM-10 Limited Maintenance Plan contains a three-part
contingency strategy. The first part is the activation event, the
second is evaluation and reporting of the cause of the event and course
of action, and the third part consists of mitigation measures. This
strategy is described below.
(1) Activation Event
Contingency measures will be activated in the event of a violation
of the PM-10 NAAQS, a quality assured PM-10 federal reference monitor
value of 120 [mu]g/m3 or greater in any October 15th to
March 1st season or, an annual LMP average PM-10 design value that
[[Page 69347]]
exceeds 40 [mu]g/m3 for the annual and 98 [mu]g/
m3 for the 24 hour PM-10 NAAQS.
(2) Evaluation and Reporting
Upon activation, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority will
convene a meeting of the representatives from the agencies which
prepared the LMP (see Appendix I of the LMP) to evaluate the following:
(a) Air quality trends before and during the event(s);
(b) Weather conditions that caused or aggravated the event(s);
(c) Normal and unusual emissions occurring prior to and during the
event(s);
(d) The effectiveness of the existing controls in reducing the
magnitude and/or duration of the event(s);
(e) Any changes in the LMP, monitoring network, and/or public
information strategies to provide early notice to the public about
possible future high monitor values; and
(f) The need for additional voluntary or regulatory controls to
reduce future emissions.
In addition, if the assessment team recommends additional control
strategies or rules, the team will evaluate and rank the following
possible additional strategies:
(a) Early burn bans based on monitor values, weather forecasts and
atmospheric models;
(b) Additional public education or voluntary control programs;
(c) Increased compliance assistance patrols during 1st stage burn
bans; and
(d) Any other strategy which will reduce late fall and winter smoke
and road dust emissions.
The assessment report will be submitted to the Authority Board
within 120 days of the high value monitor event or the LMP design value
recalculation. The local actions that result from this report will be
the discretion of the Board.
(3) Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures will reduce PM-10 levels in addition to
existing and planned control and contingency measures. These measures,
in Section 5.71 of the LMP, include area source mitigation measures
such as unpaved road and dust abatement programs, mobile source and
transportation system mitigation measures such as voluntary diesel
exhaust system retrofit programs, and public information mitigation
measures such as using news releases through print or radio media to
inform the public of rising CO and or PM-10 levels and to request
voluntary reductions in outdoor and agricultural burning, wood stove
use and trip reductions. We conclude that these measures and
commitments meet the requirement for contingency provisions of CAA
Section 175A(d).
J. Has the State Met Conformity Requirements?
(1) Transportation Conformity
Under the Limited Maintenance Plan policy, emissions budgets are
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would
result.
While areas with maintenance plans approved under the Limited
Maintenance Plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas
remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40
CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the State will still need to document and ensure
that: (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (b) transportation plans and projects
comply with the fiscal constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108; (c) the
MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable requirements
of 40 CFR 93.105; (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined
no less frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan
amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance
with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; (e) the latest
planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40
CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do not cause or contribute
to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations,
in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and (7)
project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
(2) General Conformity
For Federal actions which are required to address the specific
requirements of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements
applies particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will
not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate
current violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this
requirement can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and
indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined
and documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the
applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with
all other emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the
emissions budgets specified in the applicable SIP.'' 40 CFR
93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).
The decision about whether to include specific allocations of
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the State and
local air quality agencies. These emissions budgets are unlike and are
not to be confused with those used in transportation conformity.
Emissions budgets in transportation conformity are required to limit
and restrain emissions. Emissions budgets in general conformity allow
increases in emissions up to specified levels. Washington has not
chosen to include specific emissions allocations for federal projects
that would be subject to the provisions of general conformity.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States,
[[Page 69348]]
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state
rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: November 16, 2004.
Michael F. Gearheard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 04-26296 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P