[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35015-35018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12234]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0110; FRL-8330-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho and
Washington; Interstate Transport of Pollution
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the actions of the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) to address the provisions of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These provisions require each
state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that
prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality
through
[[Page 35016]]
interstate transport. IDEQ and Ecology have each adequately addressed
the four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate
transport of air pollutants for their states. These include prohibiting
emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in another state, interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by another
state, interfere with plans in another state to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, or interfere with efforts of another
state to protect visibility.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 27, 2007,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 26,
2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2007-0110, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Mail: Dana Warn, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107, EPA,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101.
3. Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA, Region 10 Mail Room, 9th Floor,
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Dana Warn,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. 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. EPA-R10-OAR-
2007-0110. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, 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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.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 www.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: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Warn at telephone number: (206)
553-6390 or Donna Deneen at (206) 553-6706, e-mail address:
[email protected], fax number: (206) 553-0110, or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background of Submittal
II. How Idaho's Submittal Addresses the Provisions of Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
III. How Washington's Submittal Addresses the Provisions of Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background of Submittal
EPA is approving IDEQ's and Ecology's SIP revisions to address the
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This CAA
section requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions
that could adversely affect another state, addressing four key
elements. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state, (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by another state, (3) interfere with plans in
another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or
(4) interfere with efforts of another state to protect visibility.
EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, entitled ``Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' relating to
SIP submissions to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). As discussed below, Idaho's and Washington's analyses
of their respective SIPs with respect to the statutory requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) are consistent with the guidance. The
discussion below covers how Idaho and Washington have addressed the
four key requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
II. How Idaho's Submittal Addresses the Provisions of Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
IDEQ addressed the first two elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) by submitting a technical demonstration supporting the
conclusion that emissions from Idaho do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. IDEQ relied on analysis by EPA
that determined that it was reasonable to exclude the western United
States, including Idaho, from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). In the proposal for CAIR, EPA determined that
because of geographical, meteorological, and topological factors,
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment problems are not likely
to be affected significantly by pollution transported across these
state's boundaries. See 69 FR 4566, 4581 (January 30, 2004).
IDEQ also relied on information on the nearest nonattainment areas.
For PM2.5, the closest nonattainment area is 25 miles away
in Libby, Montana. 70 FR 944, 986 (January 5, 2005). IDEQ noted that
the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the PM2.5
designation of the Libby area contains a description of the
nonattainment area and sources. The Libby TSD states that
PM2.5 levels in the Libby, Montana area are localized due to
topography and meteorological factors.
For ozone, the closest nonattainment area to Idaho is Las Vegas,
Nevada. Las Vegas is over 400 miles away. See 69 FR 23858, 23919 (April
30, 2004). IDEQ noted that the supporting documentation for the
designation of this nonattainment area demonstrates
[[Page 35017]]
that the Las Vegas, Nevada area is geologically and topologically
separate from surrounding areas. Based on this and other information
provided by IDEQ in its SIP submittal, EPA believes the state has
sufficiently demonstrated that emissions from Idaho do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state. Additional supporting information can be
found in IDEQ's submittal included in the docket.
The third element IDEQ addressed is prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). For 8-hour ozone, the state has met the obligation
by confirming that major sources in the state are currently subject to
PSD programs that implement the 8-hour ozone standard and that the
state is working on adopting any relevant requirements of the Phase II
ozone implementation rule. For PM2.5, IDEQ confirmed that
the state's PSD program is being implemented in accordance with EPA's
interim guidance calling for the use of PM10 as a surrogate
for PM2.5 for the purposes of PSD review.
The fourth element IDEQ addressed is protection of visibility.
EPA's regional haze regulations, 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), require
states to submit regional haze SIPS to EPA by December 17, 2007. Since
Idaho has not yet completed or submitted its regional haze SIP, it is
not possible at this time for the State of Idaho to determine whether
Idaho interferes with measures to protect visibility in the applicable
SIP of another state.
III. How Washington's Submittal Addresses the Provisions of Clean Air
Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
Ecology addressed the first two elements of CAA section
110(a)(2(D)(i) by submitting a technical demonstration supporting the
conclusion that emissions from Washington do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. Ecology relied on
analysis by EPA that determined that it was reasonable to exclude the
western United States, including Washington, from CAIR. As discussed in
the proposal for CAIR, EPA determined that because of geographical,
meteorological, and topological factors, PM2.5 and 8-hour
ozone nonattainment problems are not likely to be affected
significantly by pollution transported across these State's boundaries.
See 69 FR at 4581.
Ecology also relied on information on the nearest nonattainment
areas. For PM2.5, the closest nonattainment area is Libby,
Montana. 70 FR at 986. Libby is over 150 miles away from Spokane, the
nearest major city in Washington. Ecology noted that the TSD for the
PM2.5 designation of the Libby area contains a description
of the nonattainment area and sources. The Libby TSD states that
PM2.5 levels in the Libby, Montana area are localized due to
topography and meteorological factors.
For ozone, the closest nonattainment area to Washington is the San
Francisco Bay area in California. See 69 FR at 23887. San Francisco is
over 600 miles away from Vancouver, the closest major urban area in
Washington. Ecology noted that the supporting documentation for the
designation of the San Francisco Bay nonattainment area contains
information showing that the San Francisco airshed is separate from
areas to the north.
Ecology also discussed the Portland-Vancouver Interstate Ozone
area. The Portland-Vancouver Interstate Ozone area comprises Portland,
Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. The area was a maintenance area for
the 1-hour ozone standard. It has been meeting the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
since the standard was promulgated in 1997. Ecology explains that the
Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA), the local CAA planning agency for
the Vancouver area, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) worked together on modeling that demonstrates that the Portland-
Vancouver area will continue to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through
2015. Both SWCAA and Oregon have developed 110(a)(1) maintenance plans
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the modeling to meet EPA
implementation requirements. The modeling also demonstrates as part of
the 110 (a)(l) plan that the Salem-Keizer area to the south of Portland
will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015. Ecology
notes that both Washington and Oregon will submit the plans to EPA for
approval this year. The draft plans are available on the SWCAA and ODEQ
websites.
Based on this and other information provided by Washington in its
SIP submittal, EPA believes the state has sufficiently demonstrated
that emissions from Washington do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. Additional supporting information can be found in the state's
SIP submittal included in the docket.
The third element Ecology addressed is PSD. For 8-hour ozone, the
state has met the obligation by confirming that major sources in the
state are currently subject to PSD programs that implement the 8-hour
ozone standard and that the state is working on adopting any relevant
requirements of the Phase II ozone implementation rule. For
PM2.5, Ecology confirmed that the state's PSD program is
being implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for
the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 for the
purposes of PSD review.
The fourth element Ecology addressed is protection of visibility.
EPA's regional haze regulations require states to submit regional haze
SIPS to EPA by December 17, 2007. Since Washington has not yet
completed or submitted its regional haze SIP, it is not possible at
this time for the State of Washington to determine whether Washington
interferes with measures to protect visibility in the applicable SIP of
another state.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action 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 action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This action 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
[[Page 35018]]
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This action 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 approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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 action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 14, 2007.
Michael F. Gearheard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--Idaho
0
2. In Sec. 52.670(e) the table is amended by adding an entry at the
end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic submittal EPA approval date Comments
or nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP--Interstate Statewide.............. 1/30/07 6/26/07, [insert FR
Transport. page number where the
document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart WW--Washington
0
3. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(89) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(89) On January 17, 2007, the Washington State Department of
Ecology submitted a SIP revision to meet the requirements of Clean Air
Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA is approving this submittal.
[FR Doc. E7-12234 Filed 6-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P