24542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2007–0112; FRL–9144–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Washington 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Washington, Department of Ecology 

(Ecology). These revisions pertain to the 

maintenance plan prepared by the State 

of Washington to maintain the 8-hour 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone in the Vancouver 

portion of the Portland/Vancouver Air 

Quality Maintenance Area (Pdx/Van 

AQMA). The 110(a)(1) maintenance 

plan for this area meets Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements and demonstrates 

that the Vancouver portion of the Pdx/ 

Van AQMA will be able to remain in 

attainment for 1997 and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS through 2015. EPA is proposing 

full approval of the maintenance plan 

and supporting rules. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2007–0112, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Mail: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, 

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

C. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Attention: Krishna Viswanathan, 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– 

0112. The 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 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the 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: 

Krishna Viswanathan, (206) 553–2684, 

or by e-mail at 

R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Washington Notice Provision 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that states submit to EPA plans 

to maintain any NAAQS promulgated 

by EPA. Areas that were maintenance 

areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS but 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

are required to submit a plan to 

demonstrate the continued maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

established June 15, 2007, three years 

after the effective date of the initial 8- 

hour ozone designations, as the 

deadline for submission of plans for 

these areas. 

On May 20, 2005, EPA issued 

guidance for States in preparing 

maintenance plans under section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA for areas that are 

required to do so under 40 CFR 

51.905(c) and (d). At a minimum, the 

maintenance plan should include the 

following five components: 

1. An attainment inventory, which is 

based on actual typical summer day 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from a base year chosen 

by the State; 

2. A maintenance demonstration 

which shows how the area will remain 

in compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

standard for 10 years after the effective 

date of the designation; 

3. A commitment to continue to 

operate ambient air quality monitors to 

verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard; 

4. A contingency plan that will ensure 

that any violation of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS will be promptly corrected; and 

5. An explanation of how the State 

will verify continued attainment of the 

standard under the maintenance plan. 

On January 17, 2007, EPA received a 

request from Ecology to approve under 

section 110 of the CAA, a SIP revision 

pertaining to the maintenance plan for 

the Vancouver portion of the Pdx/Van 

AQMA. On May 22, 2007, EPA received 

a request from the Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality, to approve a 

SIP revision pertaining to the 

maintenance plan for the Portland 

portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA and the 

Salem Keizer Area Transportation Study 

Air Quality Area under section 110 of 

the CAA. As both these submissions 

from the States of Washington and 

Oregon pertain to the Pdx/Van AQMA, 

EPA is taking action on these 

submissions concurrently. However this 

action addresses only the Vancouver 

portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA. 

The EPA has prepared a Technical 

Support Document (TSD) with more 

detailed information about the SIP 

revisions Ecology has submitted for 

approval. The TSD is available for 

review as part of the docket for this 

action. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Ecology’s 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan addresses all five components of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24543 

1EPA’s AirData Database—http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/data/reports.html. 

the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan as 

outlined in EPA’s May 20, 2005 

guidance. Ecology has submitted the 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Vancouver for approval, as well as 

implementing regulations that support 

the maintenance plan, for incorporation 

into the federally enforceable SIP and 

EPA proposes to approve these changes 

to the SIP. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

An emissions inventory is an itemized 

list of emission estimates for sources of 

air pollution in a given area for a 

specified time period. Ecology provided 

a comprehensive and current emissions 

inventory for NOX and VOCs. Ecology 

has chosen to use 2002 as the base year 

from which it will project emissions. 

The maintenance plan also includes an 

explanation of the methodology used for 

determining the anthropogenic (area 

and mobile sources) emissions. The 

inventory is based on emissions from a 

‘‘typical summer day.’’ The term ‘‘typical 

summer day’’ refers to a typical weekday 

during the months when ozone 

concentrations are typically the highest. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

With regard to demonstrating 

continued maintenance of the 8-hour 

ozone standard, Ecology projects that 

the total emissions of ozone precursors 

from Vancouver will decrease during 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

Ecology has projected emissions for 

2015, which is more than 10 years from 

the effective date of initial designations, 

as suggested in the EPA guidance for 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans. In 

2002, the total anthropogenic emissions 

in Vancouver were 154,692 lbs/day for 

VOCs and 81,436 lb/day for NOX. The 

projected 2015 anthropogenic emissions 

from Vancouver are expected to be 

136,323 lb/day for VOCs and 59,381 lbs/ 

day for NOX. As such, the plan 

demonstrates that emissions are 

projected to decrease. This demonstrates 

that the net VOC emissions are expected 

to be about 13% lower, and NOX

emissions about 37% lower in 2015 

compared to 2002 levels. 

The formation of ozone is dependent 

on a number of variables which cannot 

be estimated through emissions growth 

and reduction calculations. A few of 

these variables include weather and the 

transport of ozone precursors from 

outside the maintenance area. In order 

to demonstrate continued maintenance 

of the standards, a State may utilize 

more sophisticated tools such as air 

quality modeling to support their 

analysis; Ecology used air quality 

modeling to assess the comprehensive 

impacts of growth through 2015 on 

ozone levels in the area. Results of 

modeling conducted by Ecology and 

submitted to EPA demonstrate that the 

highest predicted design value for 

Vancouver is 0.072 parts per million, 

which is below the 1997 and the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, and is therefore in 

compliance with both the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA’s Evaluation of CAA 110(l) 

Considerations 

The maintenance demonstration 

discussed in the preceding section also 

meets the section 110(l) requirements of 

the CAA which states, ‘‘Each revision to 

an implementation plan submitted by a 

State under this chapter shall be 

adopted by such State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. The 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 7501 of this title), or any 

other applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’’ Ecology has submitted 

evidence to EPA that the State provided 

a reasonable notice and public hearing 

process prior to State adoption and 

submission of this plan to EPA. 

The proposed plan demonstrates 

maintenance of all applicable ozone 

NAAQS, namely the 2008 and 1997 8- 

hour standards. The Vancouver, 

Washington area is within the 

compliance levels for the remaining 

criteria pollutants 1 based on historical 

monitoring. 

Based on the VOC, NOX, and carbon 

monoxide emissions information 

submitted with this plan, EPA 

concludes that approval of the changes 

in this proposed plan will not cause an 

increase of direct or precursor emissions 

that will interfere with the Portland 

area’s maintenance of any criteria 

pollutant NAAQS. Therefore, an 

approval of this plan revision will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS. 

3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

With regard to the ambient air 

monitoring component of the 

maintenance plan, Ecology commits to 

continue operating air quality 

monitoring stations in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 throughout the 

maintenance period to verify 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard, and will submit qualityassured ozone data to EPA through the 

Air Quality System. EPA finds this to 

satisfy the requirements of CAA section 

110(a). 

4. Contingency Measures 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

the State to develop a contingency plan 

that will ensure that any violation of a 

NAAQS is promptly corrected. The 

purpose of the contingency measures, 

such as those included in the State’s 

submitted maintenance plan, is to 

provide a range of response actions that 

may be selected for implementation in 

the event of any violation of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Ecology will continue to monitor 

ambient air quality ozone levels in the 

Portland-Vancouver AQMA as 

described in Contingency Plan. Ecology 

will update countywide emission 

inventories every three years as required 

by the Consolidated Emission and 

Reporting Rule (CERR) to update the 

National Emissions Inventory. If 

ambient ozone levels increase, Ecology 

will compare CERR updates with the 

2002 and 2015 emissions inventories 

and evaluate the assumptions used in 

the 2015 emissions projections to 

determine whether emissions are 

increasing at a rate not anticipated in 

the maintenance plan. 

EPA’s Evaluation of Supporting Rules 

Ecology submitted several rules that 

would create control programs to 

support the emissions reductions and 

the maintenance demonstration 

proposed in the submission. Ecology 

also submitted several sections of the 

Washington Administrative code (WAC) 

173–422 pertaining to the Motor Vehicle 

Emission Inspection Program for 

approval by EPA. These proposed 

changes do not interfere with the 

maintenance demonstration for this SIP 

and merely reflect the changes in the 

program as a result of technology 

upgrades in automobiles. After a review 

of these regulatory provisions, EPA 

proposes to approve the changes to 

WAC 173–422 and to incorporate them 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the new industrial growth 

allowances that have been used in the 

maintenance demonstration for this 

submission and is relying on the current 

Southwest Clean Air Agency SIP 

approved rules, 400–030, 400–101, 

400–111 and 400–113 (62 FR 27204; 

Effective 6/18/97) to support this 

maintenance plan demonstration. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1-Hour NAAQS Obligations That No 

Longer Apply in This Area 

Two additional amendments to 

Ecology’s existing 1-hour maintenance 

plan have also been submitted for 

approval pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.905(e)(1). In this submission, Ecology 

has submitted a maintenance SIP for the 

8 hour NAAQS for this area that meets 

the requirements of CAA section 110(l) 

and section 193 of the CAA. Therefore, 

EPA proposes to approve these two 

amendments to the existing 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan: 

1. Removal of the obligation to submit 

a maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

NAAQS eight years after approval of the 

initial 1-hour maintenance plan; and 

2. Removal of the State’s obligation to 

implement contingency measures upon 

a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS. 

Washington’s SIP submittal meets the 

CAA requirements for SIP submittals 

with respect to these two changes. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance 

plan, including its correlating 

implementing regulations, for 

Vancouver, Washington, submitted on 

January 17, 2007, as revisions to the 

federally enforceable Washington SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan and supporting rules 

for the Vancouver portion of the 

Portland-Vancouver AQMA because 

they meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(l) of the CAA. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposed approval. EPA will 

consider these comments and address 

them before taking final action. 

IV. Washington Notice Provision 

Washington’s Regulatory Reform Act 

of 1995, codified at Chapter 43.05 

Revised Code of Washington (RCW), 

precludes ‘‘regulatory agencies’’, as 

defined in RCW 43.05.010, from 

assessing civil penalties under certain 

circumstances. EPA has determined that 

Chapter 43.05 of the RCW, often referred 

to as ‘‘House Bill 1010,’’ conflicts with 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 40 CFR 

51.230(b) and (e). Based on this 

determination, Ecology has determined 

that Chapter 43.05 RCW does not apply 

to the requirements of Chapter 173–422 

WAC. See 66 FR 35115, 35120 (July 3, 

2001). The restriction on the issuance of 

civil penalties in Chapter 43.05 RCW 

does not apply to local air pollution 

control authorities in Washington 

because local air pollution control 

authorities are not ‘‘regulatory agencies’’ 

within the meaning of that statute. See 

66 FR 35115, 35120 (July 3, 2001). 

In addition, EPA is relying on the 

State’s interpretation of another 

technical assistance law, RCW 

43.21A.085 and .087, to conclude that 

the law does not impinge on the State’s 

authority to administer Federal Clean 

Air Act programs. The Washington 

Attorney Generals’ Office has concluded 

that RCW 43.21A.085 and .087 do not 

conflict with Federal authorization 

requirements because these provisions 

implement a discretionary program. 

EPA understands from the State’s 

interpretation that technical assistance 

visits conducted by the State will not be 

conducted under the authority of RCW 

43.21A.085 and .087. See 66 FR 16, 20 

(January 2, 2001); 59 FR 42552, 42555 

(August 18, 1994). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10644 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0218; FRL–9135–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District, 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District, and South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD), San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD), and South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1