Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52
EPA ID: [EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0110; FRL-8330-9]
NOTICE: RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho and Washington; Interstate Transport of Pollution
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.
DOCUMENT 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 8hour ozone and PM
[[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.
SUMMARY: Idaho and Washington,
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 8Hour Ozone and
PM
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 8hour ozone and
PM
IDEQ also relied on information on the nearest nonattainment areas.
For PM
PM
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 8hour ozone, the state has met the obligation
by confirming that major sources in the state are currently subject to
PSD programs that implement the 8hour ozone standard and that the
state is working on adopting any relevant requirements of the Phase II
ozone implementation rule. For PM
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 8hour
ozone and PM
Ecology also relied on information on the nearest nonattainment
areas. For PM
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 PortlandVancouver Interstate Ozone area. The PortlandVancouver Interstate Ozone area comprises Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. The area was a maintenance area for the 1hour ozone standard. It has been meeting the 8hour 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 8hour ozone NAAQS through 2015. Both SWCAA and Oregon have developed 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 8hour 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 SalemKeizer area to the south of Portland will continue to maintain the 8hour 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 8hour ozone, the
state has met the obligation by confirming that major sources in the
state are currently subject to PSD programs that implement the 8hour
ozone standard and that the state is working on adopting any relevant
requirements of the Phase II ozone implementation rule. For
PM
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 preexisting 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. 1044).
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.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NIdaho
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) * * *
EPAApproved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures
State
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic submittal EPA approval date Comments
or nonattainment area date
* * * * * * *
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIPInterstate Statewide.............. 1/30/07 6/26/07, [insert FR
Transport. page number where the
document begins]. Subpart WWWashington
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. E712234 Filed 62507; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Dana Warn at telephone number: (206)
5536390 or Donna Deneen at (206) 5536706, email address:
deneen.donna@epa.gov, fax number: (206) 5530110, or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Part 300 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9