

[Federal Register: June 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 122)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 35015-35018]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26jn07-6]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://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 http://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 
http://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 http://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: 
deneen.donna@epa.gov, 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
