[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 1, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30847-30852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12302]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket Number: WA-04-001; FRL-7668-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans:
Washington; Central Puget Sound Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Second 10-
Year Maintenance Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve second 10-year maintenance plans
for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone for the Central Puget Sound area.
Specifically, in this action EPA proposes to approve Washington's
demonstration that the Central Puget Sound area will maintain air
quality standards for CO and ozone through the year 2016; a revised CO
motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes
using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model and latest growth and planning
assumptions; updates and enhancements of state implementation plan
(SIP) control measures and contingency measures; and identification of
emissions associated with the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
included in the area-wide emissions inventory through the maintenance
period.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. WA-04-001,
by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (206) 553-0110.
Mail: Office of Air Quality, Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10, Mail code: OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle,
Washington 98101.
Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 10,
Service Center, 14th Floor, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101.
Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. WA-04-001.
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: Docket materials are publicly available in hard copy at the
Office of Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: OAQ-
107, 1200
[[Page 30848]]
Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101; open from 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
is (206) 553-6985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mahbubul Islam, Office of Air Quality,
Region 10, Mail code OAQ-107, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-
6985; fax number: (206) 553-0110; e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. 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.
II. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rulemaking?
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to revise the existing
CO and ozone maintenance plans for the Central Puget Sound Area in
Washington State to take account of new and updated information and to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the ambient air quality standards
for a second 10-year period through 2016. Portions of the existing
first 10-year maintenance plans which are not proposed for revision
shall remain unchanged.
The State of Washington presented a trend analysis of the
historical CO and ozone monitored data for the Central Puget Sound area
demonstrating continued maintenance of the air quality standards with a
margin of safety. Implementation of new national and local control
measures including tighter standards for motor vehicle tailpipe
emissions and cleaner fuel will result in significant improvements of
air quality for the next 10-year period. EPA agrees with Washington's
analysis and proposes to approve the second 10-year maintenance plan
through this rulemaking and notice in the Federal Register.
Federal transportation conformity regulations require that
transportation agencies use the latest EPA mobile source emissions
model for conformity determinations. EPA officially released a new
version of motor vehicle emissions model (MOBILE6) on January 29, 2002.
All SIPs that are adopted after that date must use the new model to
estimate motor vehicle emissions. The release of MOBILE6 also began a
24-month grace period for conformity. All conformity determinations
that are initiated after January 29, 2004 must use MOBILE6 model. The
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) used MOBILE6.2 to estimate
CO emissions for the Central Puget Sound area for the next 10-year
maintenance period through 2016 and conducted a technical analysis that
showed the new MOBILE6.2 model based regional motor vehicle emissions
will not cause or contribute to violations of the air quality
standards. EPA agrees with this analysis and proposes to approve a
revised motor vehicle emissions budget for conformity determinations.
Previously approved and existing control measures for both CO and
ozone remain in place. However, the State of Washington took this
rulemaking opportunity to update and enhance several of these emissions
control measures. EPA finds these enhancements and updates to the
control measures beneficial and proposes to approve them in this
rulemaking.
Washington also submitted a comprehensive emissions inventory of
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport operation and construction
activities through the 2006-2016 maintenance period for identification
and specific inclusion in the SIP. The airport emissions data reflects
best estimates, and was calculated based on current emissions
estimation tools. EPA proposes to include, identify, and account for
the direct and indirect emissions from airport operations and
construction of airport improvements in this SIP action.
III. What Is a SIP and How Is It Revised From Time to Time?
The Clean Air Act requires States to attain and maintain ambient
air quality equal to or better than standards that provide an adequate
margin of safety for public health and welfare. These ambient air
quality standards are established by EPA and are known as the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The State's plan for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are
outlined in the SIP for that state. 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 may include, among other things, the following: (1) An
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 available for public review and comment
through a public hearing before it is adopted by the State and
submitted to EPA by the Governor or his appointed designee. When EPA
takes Federal action to approve the SIP submittal, the rules and
regulations become federally enforceable.
For an area designated as nonattainment for a criteria pollutant,
the State first submits a plan with emissions reduction measures to
bring
[[Page 30849]]
the area into attainment. Once the area has attained the standard based
on monitored air quality, the State then submits a redesignation
request to attainment and a maintenance plan demonstrating that the
area will continue to maintain the standard for at least 10 years after
the redesignation into attainment. Near the end of the first 10 years
of maintenance effort, the State reviews the adequacy of the existing
control measures and future emissions growth forecasts for mobile and
other sources, and prepares an updated maintenance plan for a second
10-year period. The second 10-year CO and ozone maintenance plans for
Central Puget Sound area of Washington are the subjects of this action.
IV. What Is the Background of Today's Action?
In a March 15, 1991 letter to the EPA Region 10 Administrator, the
Governor of Washington recommended the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett area,
including the western portions of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties,
be designated as nonattainment for CO as required by section
107(d)(1)(A) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (``The Act''). The
area, which includes lands within the Puyallup, Tulalip, and
Muckleshoot Indian Reservations, was designated by EPA as nonattainment
for CO and classified as ``moderate'' under the provisions outlined in
sections 186 and 187 of the Act.
Similarly, under section 107(d)(1) of the Act, and upon considering
the recommendation of the Governor of Washington, EPA designated the
Central Puget Sound Area as nonattainment for ozone because the area
violated the ozone standard during the period from 1989-1991. The
Central Puget Sound ozone nonattainment area included lands within
Puyallup, Tulalip, Muckleshoot, Stillaguamish, and Nisqually Indian
Reservations.
The State of Washington, following the requirements of the Act,
prepared and submitted revisions to the Washington SIP that first
included an attainment plan, and then developed further plans to
demonstrate maintenance of the standards for a 10-year period beyond
the statutory attainment date. EPA published the approval of the ozone
redesignation request and the first 10-year maintenance plan for ozone
in the September 26, 1996, Federal Register. As a result, the Central
Puget Sound region was classified as being in attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard effective November 25, 1996. Similarly, EPA published
approval of the CO redesignation request from nonattainment to
attainment and the maintenance plan for the first 10-year period on
October 10, 1996. In both actions, EPA itself redesignated to
attainment those portions of the CO and ozone nonattainment areas that
are within the boundaries of Indian reservations.
The first 10-year CO and ozone maintenance plans included
commitments for periodic review of the plans and submission of the
second 10-year maintenance plans to EPA during the last two years of
the first 10-year maintenance period. Beginning in 1999, Ecology and
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency undertook a comprehensive air quality
planning effort to review and update the CO and ozone maintenance
plans. The planning efforts included detailed technical analyses such
as preparation of base and future year emissions inventories, regional
ozone dispersion modeling, review of control measures for CO and ozone
precursors, etc. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency also employed expert
consulting services and convened technical and policy subcommittees to
review and guide the planning effort. The results of this planning
effort provided the basis of today's proposed approval by EPA.
V. What Is the Status of Current CO and Ozone Levels in the Central
Puget Sound Area and How Do They Compare With the Federal Standards?
The national 8-hour CO ambient standard is attained when the daily
average 8-hour CO concentration of 9.0 ppm is exceeded no more than one
time in a calendar year. Since the redesignation of the Central Puget
Sound area to attainment for CO on October 11, 1996, the second highest
daily average 8-hour CO concentration in a calendar year measured by
the approved monitoring network was 8.4 ppm, which is less than 9.0
ppm. The national 1-hour CO ambient standard is achieved when the daily
average 1-hour concentration of 35.5 ppm is exceeded no more than one
time in a calendar year. Since redesignation, the second highest daily
average 1-hour CO concentration measured in a calendar year was 14.2
ppm, which is less than 35 ppm.
The national 1-hour ozone ambient standard is attained when the
expected number of days per calendar year in a three year period with
maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per million
(ppm) is equal to or less than 1 day in that period. Since the
redesignation of the Central Puget Sound area to attainment for ozone
on November 25, 1996, the expected number of days per calendar year
over a consecutive three year period with maximum hourly average ozone
concentrations measured above 0.12 ppm is 0.7 day, which was less than
1 day.
VI. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Including Tribal Governments
Been Involved in This Rulemaking Process?
In August 2000, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency convened a broad-
based stakeholder group, consisting of representatives from the fuel
industry, health, environmental, business, and regulatory communities,
to assist the Agency in its CO and ozone maintenance plan update
process. Specifically, the stakeholders' group was charged with
identifying and recommending the range of actions that might be prudent
to include in the updated maintenance plans to achieve emission
reductions necessary to maintain healthy levels of air quality and
comply with the Federal standards.
Nine public meetings of stakeholders were held from August 2000
through May 2001. In addition, throughout the stakeholder process,
briefings were given to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's Board of
Directors at their monthly meetings. After publishing notices in the
newspaper for public comments and conducting public hearings, the Puget
Sound Clean Air Agency Board approved the CO and ozone maintenance plan
updates and adopted the associated contingency measures on December 19,
2002. Ecology adopted these amended regulations into the Washington SIP
on December 17, 2003. Similarly, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Board
approved the updated CO motor vehicle emissions budget using MOBILE6.2
on November 20, 2003, and Ecology adopted it into the Washington SIP on
December 17, 2003.
Under the Act, EPA has the responsibility and authority to
implement air quality regulations needed to maintain air quality
standards within the exterior boundary of Indian country, in the
absence of approved tribal programs. EPA has not yet formally approved
any Clean Air Act programs for Tribes within the boundary of the
Central Puget Sound CO and ozone maintenance area. Therefore, EPA has
conducted government-to-government consultations with the Tulalip
Tribes of Washington, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe,
who are affected by this action. The EPA's consultations with Tribes
included official letters
[[Page 30850]]
from EPA Region 10 Office of Air Quality Director to Tribal Chairs, and
staff consultations between EPA and Tribal staff in the form of
electronic communication and telephone discussion.
VII. What Are the Sources and Magnitude of CO and Ozone Precursors
Emitted in the Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area?
Ecology and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency developed a base case
emissions inventory for the year 1996 and then projected inventories
for the years 2007, and 2015. The emissions inventory is a list, by
source, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the Region's air.
The data in the emissions inventory is based on calculations and is
developed using emission factors, which is a method for converting
source activity levels into an estimate of emissions contributions for
those sources. The CO is directly emitted by sources, but the ozone is
formed in the atmosphere. VOC and NOX, generally known as
ozone precursors, are directly emitted by sources that react in the
atmosphere under sunlight to form ozone.
VOC emissions were estimated at 1,051 tons per day on a peak 1996-
summer episode day. This included contributions from biogenic sources
(577 tons per day, 55%), on-road mobile sources (186 tons per day,
18%), non-road mobile sources (153 tpd, 15%), stationary area sources
(116 tpd, 11%) and point sources (20 tpd, 2%). VOC emissions in 2015
were estimated at 949 tons per day.
Table 1.--Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area Summer Day VOC Emissions
(tons) by Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category 1996 2007 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogenic............................... 577 577 577
On-road Mobile......................... 186 148 109
Non-road Mobile........................ 153 132 111
Stationary area........................ 116 124 132
Point.................................. 20 20 20
------------
Total.............................. 1,051 1,001 949
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions were estimated at 506 tons per day on a
peak 1996-summer episode day. This included contributions from biogenic
sources (9 tpd, 2%), on-road mobile sources (346 tpd, 68%), non-road
mobile sources (135 tpd, 27%), stationary area sources (9 tpd, 2%) and
point sources (7 tpd, 1%). NOX emissions in 2015 were
estimated at 291 tons per day.
Table 2.--Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area Summer Day NOX Emissions
(tons) by Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 1996 2007 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogenic............................... 9 9 9
On-road Mobile......................... 346 251 156
Non-road Mobile........................ 135 123 111
Stationary area........................ 9 9 9
Point.................................. 7 7 7
------------
Total.............................. 506 399 291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO emissions were estimated at 3,322 tons on a typical 1996 winter
day. This included contributions from on-road mobile sources ( 2,694
tpd 81%), non-road mobile sources (202 tpd, 6%), stationary area
sources (360 tpd, 11%) and point sources (66 tpd, 2%). CO emissions in
2015 were estimated at 2,092 tons per winter day. The emissions
inventory predicts substantial future reductions in CO emissions,
largely as a result of a decrease in on-road emissions, which are
expected to continue to decline as older motor vehicles are replaced by
newer vehicles that meet Federal Tier II emission standards and operate
on low sulfur fuels.
Table 3.--Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area Winter Day NOX Emissions
(tons) by Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 1996 2007 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road mobile......................... 2,694 2,037 1,380
Non-road Mobile........................ 202 229 229
Stationary area........................ 360 417 417
Point.................................. 66 66 66
------------
Total.............................. 3,322 2,749 2,092
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30851]]
It was also demonstrated that emissions of CO and ozone precursors
for 2016, the last year of the second 10-year maintenance plans, will
be less than or equal to the emissions projected for 2015.
VIII. How Does the State Demonstrate Maintenance of the CO and Ozone
Standards for the Second 10-Year Period?
The State used a numerical photochemical grid model to demonstrate
maintenance of the ozone standard for the second 10-year maintenance
period. The basis for the modeling was a regional air quality modeling
system developed over the past several years by Washington State
University and Ecology. This system includes the use of a mesoscale
meteorological model (MM5), a diagnostic wind model (CALMET), and a
photochemical dispersion model (CALGRID). The modeling system was
employed to simulate an ozone episode that occurred during July 11-14,
1996, with monitored ozone level reaching and exceeding the one-hour
standard at multiple sites. The model performance for this base episode
was within EPA guidelines for acceptable photochemical ozone modeling.
The maximum monitored ozone concentration during the episode was 118
ppb at the Enumclaw monitoring site southeast of Seattle and the model
predicted maximum concentration at this site was 106 ppb. Once the
model performance was verified, the 1996 base case emission inventory
was projected into the future for maintenance years and then these
projected emission inventories were used with the 1996 meteorological
conditions to simulate the impact of emission changes in the future.
The simulation showed that emissions in 2007 would produce
approximately 2 ppb improvement from the 1996 level and in 2015 the
change in emissions would decrease peak ozone concentration by about 7
ppb. It appeared from these simulations that reduction in emissions
over time due to the implementation of new Federal motor vehicle and
fuel standards will produce adequate reduction in maximum ozone
formation during the maintenance period and keep the area in attainment
with some margin of safety. Therefore, the modeling demonstrated
continued compliance with the ozone standard for a second 10-year
maintenance period with existing control measures and future federally
implemented measures.
The current, EPA-approved first 10-year CO maintenance plan used a
probabilistic rollback approach to evaluate different control measure
scenarios and to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard with a
reasonable margin of safety. A review and update of this methodology
using more recent monitored air quality and projected emissions data
was conducted to demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO standard
for a second 10-year period. The probabilistic rollback approach
demonstrated regional, long-term maintenance by evaluating maintenance
at the two permanent monitoring sites (Pacific Ave, Tacoma and NE. 45th
Street, Seattle) using the maximum observed concentrations for 1999-
2002. The probabilistic analysis showed that the CO standard was
maintained on both sites in 2002 with at least 99% probability and will
be maintained for a second 10-year period with the same level of
assurance.
IX. What Control Measures Are Considered for the Contingency Plans, in
Case of the Monitored Exceedance or Violation of the Federal Standard?
The maintenance plans are to contain contingency control measures
to ensure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the
standard that occurs after the area is redesignated from nonattainment
to attainment. The ozone contingency measures in the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Central Puget Sound Area include a regulatory
program requiring enhanced storage tank vapor recovery systems at
gasoline stations. If needed due to a quality-assured violation of the
ambient ozone standard, this measure would take effect the following
May 1, after releasing a public notice. Also, an open burning ban would
be in effect during the months of July and August. The existing ozone
contingency measure of a mandatory reduction in gasoline volatility
would remain in place.
The CO contingency measures were designed based on a tiered
approach. The first tier contingency measures would be triggered upon a
quality assured exceedance of the CO standard at a single monitoring
site throughout the Central Puget Sound region. If that occurs, local
and State government entities will investigate traffic conditions where
the exceedance occurred and evaluate the effectiveness of local
mitigation measures. If local transportation system improvements at the
``hot spot'' could be implemented promptly, and would help prevent
future exceedances, the most effective measure would be implemented.
The second tier contingency measure would be triggered if there were
violations of the CO standard at multiple monitoring sites throughout
the Central Puget Sound region. This measure would consist of
implementation of a region-wide ethanol-based oxygenated gas
requirement as prescribed in the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's
Regulation.
X. How Does This Action Affect Transportation Conformity?
Under section 176(c) of the Act, transportation plans, programs,
and projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or
approved under the Federal Transit Act, must conform to the applicable
SIPs. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to the
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from implementation of that
transportation plan are less than or equal to the motor vehicle
emission level established in the SIP for the maintenance year and
other analysis years.
In this maintenance plan, procedures for estimating motor vehicle
emissions are well documented. The regional motor vehicle emissions
calculated by MOBILE6.2 were used in the probabilistic rollback method
to compute a threshold level of regional emissions inventory that would
provide maintenance of the CO standard with 99% certainty and
confidence through the second 10-year maintenance period. The computed
attainment threshold of regional motor vehicle emissions can be used to
assess the long term attainment prospects. The total on-road motor
vehicle CO emissions in the Central Puget Sound area are expected to
remain below 2,510 tons per winter day from the present through
calendar year 2016 in order to maintain the CO ambient standard.
Accordingly, the new CO motor vehicle emissions budget are set at a
fixed limit of 2,510 tons per day, not to be exceeded in any given year
through 2016.
Table 4.--Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area CO Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO Motor Vehicles Emissions Budget..... 2,510 tons per winter day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action does not affect or change the motor vehicle emission
budget for ozone precursors, VOC and NOX, already
established in the first 10-year maintenance plan. For convenience of
the readers, we have listed below the motor vehicle emissions budgets
for VOC an NOX.
[[Page 30852]]
Table 5.--Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area VOC Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Motor Vehicles Emissions Budget.... 248.2 tons per summer day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Central Puget Sound Maintenance Area NOX Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years NOX motor vehicles emissions budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005........................... 269.84 tons per summer day.
2007........................... 267.61 tons per summer day.
2010........................... 263.01 tons per summer day.
2016........................... 263.01 tons per summer day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motor vehicle emissions budget for all years after the second
10-year maintenance period may use the same level for the last year of
the maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.118 (b)(2)(ii)), unless changed by a
subsequent maintenance plan revision.
XI. Why Is EPA Proposing To Specifically Identify Airport Emissions in
the SIP?
EPA's general conformity guidance for airports encourages airport
operators to develop comprehensive emissions inventories for their
facilities as well as estimates of future activities and associated
emissions and then work with local and State air quality agencies to
ensure that the corresponding SIP accurately reflects and accounts for
all emissions at the airport and growth rates for operations at the
airport. The operator of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
prepared a comprehensive emissions inventory from its regular
operation, maintenance, and construction activities throughout the span
of the second 10-year maintenance plans and the State included these
emissions in total regional emissions used to demonstrate continued
maintenance of the CO and ozone air quality standards. The proposed SIP
approval does not alter regional non-road emissions totals, but rather
clarifies the portion of non-road emissions that are related to
airport.
Table 7.--Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Emissions Inventory (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1996 1996 1996 2015 2015 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant..................................... VOC NOX CO VOC NOX CO
Airport construction.......................... 0 0 0 0.5 2.3 4.5
Aircraft and ground support equipment......... 3.8 8.8 6 2.3 11.1 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. In Conclusion, How Would This EPA Approval Affect the General
Public and Citizens of the Central Puget Sound Area?
This action proposes to approve measures adopted by Ecology to
ensure maintenance of the Federal air quality standards for CO and
ozone in the Central Puget Sound area for a second 10-year period and
protect the health and welfare of the area citizens from adverse
effects of degraded air quality levels. Such assurance of healthy air
quality level is predicted because the second 10-year maintenance plans
include enhanced control measures and clearer contingency measures.
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 24, 2004.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 04-12302 Filed 5-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P