Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon; Portland Carbon Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, 52956-52960 [05-17537]
Download as PDF
52956
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
take as may be required under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Revise § 250.223 to read as follows:
§ 250.223 What mitigation measures
information must accompany the EP?
If you propose to use any measures
beyond those required by the
regulations in this part to minimize or
mitigate environmental impacts from
your proposed exploration activities, a
description of the measures you will use
must accompany your EP. If there is a
reason to believe that protected species
may be incidentally taken by planned
exploration activities, you must include
mitigation measures designed to avoid
or minimize the incidental take of
threatened and endangered species
listed under the Endangered Species
Act. You must also describe your
mitigation measures for marine
mammals, as appropriate, if you have
not already received authorization for
incidental take as may be required
under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
5. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1)
in § 250.227 to read as follows:
§ 250.227 What environmental impact
analysis (EIA) information must accompany
the EP?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Be as detailed as necessary to
assist the Regional Supervisor in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other
relevant Federal laws such as the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Analyze the potential direct and
indirect impacts (including those from
accidents, cooling water intake
structures, and those identified in
relevant Endangered Species Act
biological opinions such as, but not
limited to, noise, vessel collisions, and
marine trash and debris) that your
proposed exploration activities will
have on the identified resources,
conditions, and activities;
*
*
*
*
*
6. In § 250.247 revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 250.247 What biological, physical, and
socioeconomic information must
accompany the DPP or DOCD?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Biological environment reports.
Site-specific information on
chemosynthetic communities, federally
listed threatened or endangered species,
VerDate Aug<18>2005
13:21 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
marine mammals protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act,
sensitive underwater features, marine
sanctuaries, critical habitat designated
under the Endangered Species Act, or
other areas of biological concern.
*
*
*
*
*
7. In § 250.252 revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 250.252 What environmental monitoring
information must accompany the DPP or
DOCD?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Monitoring systems. A description
of any existing and planned monitoring
systems that are measuring, or will
measure, environmental conditions or
will provide project-specific data or
information on the impacts of your
development and production activities.
If there is a reason to believe that
protected species may be incidentally
taken by planned development and
production activities, you must describe
how you will monitor for incidental
take of threatened and endangered
species listed under the Endangered
Species Act and for marine mammals, as
appropriate, if you have not already
received authorization for incidental
take of marine mammals as may be
required under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Revise § 250.254 to read as follows:
§ 250.254 What mitigation measures
information must accompany the DPP or
DOCD?
If you propose to use any measures
beyond those required by the
regulations in this part to minimize or
mitigate environmental impacts from
your proposed development and
production activities, a description of
the measures you will use must
accompany your DPP or DOCD. If there
is a reason to believe that protected
species may be incidentally taken by
planned development and production
activities, you must include mitigation
measures designed to avoid or minimize
that incidental take of threatened and
endangered species listed under the
Endangered Species Act. You must also
describe your mitigation measures for
marine mammals, as appropriate, if you
have not already received authorization
for incidental take as may be required
under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
9. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1)
in § 250.261 to read as follows:
§ 250.261 What environmental impact
analysis (EIA) information must accompany
the DPP or DOCD?
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00015
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
(a) * * *
(3) Be as detailed as necessary to
assist the Regional Supervisor in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other
relevant Federal laws such as the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Analyze the potential direct and
indirect impacts (including those from
accidents, cooling water intake
structures, and those identified in
relevant Endangered Species Act
biological opinions such as, but not
limited to, those from noise, vessel
collisions, and marine trash and debris)
that your proposed development and
production activities will have on the
identified resources, conditions, and
activities;
*
*
*
*
*
10. Revise the introductory paragraph
to § 250.282 to read as follows:
§ 250.282 Do I have to conduct postapproval monitoring?
After approving your EP, DPP, or
DOCD, the Regional Supervisor may
direct you to conduct monitoring
programs, including monitoring in
accordance with the Endangered
Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. You must retain copies
of all monitoring data obtained or
derived from your monitoring programs
and make them available to MMS upon
request.
The Regional Supervisor may require
you to:
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–17543 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket ID #: R10–OAR–2005–OR–0001;
FRL–7964–7]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans: Oregon;
Portland Carbon Monoxide Second 10Year Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve
the second 10-year maintenance plan for
carbon monoxide (CO) for the Portland,
Oregon CO Attainment Area.
Specifically, in this action EPA
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
proposes to approve the following:
Oregon’s demonstration that the
Portland CO Attainment Area will
maintain air quality standards for CO
through the year 2017; a revised CO
motor vehicle emissions budget for
transportation conformity purposes
using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model
and latest growth and planning
assumptions; and revised state
implementation plan (SIP) control
strategies and contingency measures.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. R10–OAR–
2005–OR–0001, by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Agency Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
3. Mail: Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics,
Attn: Connie Robinson, Mail code:
AWT–107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101.
4. Hand Delivery: Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10, Attn:
Connie Robinson (AWT–107), 1200
Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during EPA’s normal hours of operation,
and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. R10–OAR–2005–OR–
0001. 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 email. The EPA EDOCKET and the
Federal regulations.gov Web site are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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
EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
VerDate Aug<18>2005
13:21 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET on line or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information
may not be publicly available, such as
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
EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and
Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. Please contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Connie Robinson, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200
Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; phone:
(206) 553–1086; fax number: (206) 553–
0110; e-mail address:
robinson.connie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed
Rulemaking?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is the Status of Current CO Levels
in the Portland Area and How Do They
Compare With the Federal Standards?
V. How Have the Public and Stakeholders
Been Involved in This Rulemaking
Process?
VI. What Are the Sources and Magnitude of
CO Emitted in the Portland Maintenance
Area?
VII. How Does the State Demonstrate
Maintenance of the CO Standard for the
Second 10-Year Period?
VIII. What Control Measures Are Being
Proposed for This Second 10–Year Plan?
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52957
IX. What Contingency Measures Are
Considered, in Case of the Monitored
Exceedance or Violation of the Federal
Standard?
X. How Does this Action Affect
Transportation Conformity?
XI. In Conclusion, How Would This EPA
Approval Affect the General Public and
Citizens of the Portland Area?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through RME,
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 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 solicit comment on the
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
52958
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
State of Oregon’s plan to replace the
existing CO maintenance plan for the
Portland area in Oregon with a second
10-year maintenance plan to
demonstrate continued maintenance of
the CO ambient air quality standard
through 2017.
The State of Oregon presented a trend
analysis of the historical CO monitored
data for the Portland area demonstrating
that since the Portland area was
redesignated to attainment, CO
concentrations have fallen steadily. That
trend reflects a national pattern of new
vehicles producing considerably
reduced amounts of CO.
Implementation of new national 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
Oregon’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 24month grace period for conformity. All
conformity determinations that are
initiated after January 29, 2004 must use
a MOBILE6 model. The Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) used MOBILE6.2 to estimate CO
emissions for the Portland area for the
next 10-year maintenance period
through 2017 and conducted a technical
analysis with MOBILE6.2 that showed
new motor vehicle emissions will not
cause or contribute to violations of the
air quality standards. EPA agrees with
this analysis and proposes to approve
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets
for conformity determinations.
The State of Oregon took this
rulemaking opportunity to change
several of the emission control strategies
and contingency measures. EPA finds
these changes acceptable and proposes
to approve them in this rulemaking.
III. What Is the Background for This
Action?
In a March 15, 1991 letter to the EPA
Region 10 Administrator, the Governor
of Oregon recommended the Portland
area be designated as nonattainment for
CO as required by section 107(d)(1)(A)
of the Clean Air Act (the ‘‘Act’’). The
area was designated by EPA as
nonattainment for CO and classified as
‘‘moderate’’ with a design value less
than or equal to 12.7 parts per million
(ppm) under the provisions outlined in
sections 186 and 187 of the Act.
The State of Oregon, following the
requirements of the Act, prepared and
submitted revisions to the Oregon SIP
that first included an attainment plan,
and then developed a plan to
demonstrate maintenance of the
standard for a 10-year period beyond the
statutory attainment date. EPA
published approval of a redesignation
request to attainment and the first 10year maintenance plan on September 2,
1997.
The first 10-year CO maintenance
plan included a commitment for
periodic review of the plan and
submission of the second 10-year
maintenance plan to EPA during the last
two years of the first 10-year
maintenance period. The planning effort
included detailed technical analyses
such as preparation of base and future
year emissions inventories, review of
control measures for CO, etc. The results
of this planning effort provide the basis
of today’s proposed approval by EPA.
IV. What Is the Status of Current CO
Levels in the Portland 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 for two consecutive
years. Since the redesignation of the
Portland area to attainment for CO on
October 2, 1997, the second highest
concentration in a calendar year
measured by the approved monitoring
network was 7.3 ppm, which is less
than 9.0 ppm.
V. How Have the Public and
Stakeholders Been Involved in This
Rulemaking Process?
ODEQ met directly with a variety of
stakeholder groups, including
representative of the petroleum and
ethanol industries, the Oregon
Environmental Council and with other
state agencies to seek input on the CO
maintenance plan. Those state agencies
included the Oregon Department of
Energy, Agriculture, and Economic and
Community Development. Notices were
published in the newspaper and public
hearings were conducted by ODEQ.
ODEQ responded to all comments and
the Environmental Quality Commission
adopted the revisions to the SIP under
OAR 340–200–0040 on December 10,
2004, effective December 25, 2004.
VI. What Are the Sources and
Magnitude of CO Emitted in the
Portland Maintenance Area?
An emissions inventory was prepared
for the Portland area for the base year
of 1999. The year 1999 was selected for
the inventory because that year reflected
the highest ambient CO concentrations
in Portland’s recent history and
therefore represented a conservative
base for demonstrating future
compliance with the CO NAAQS. The
emissions inventory is a list, by source,
of the air contaminants directly emitted
into the Portland CO Area’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. Because violations of the
CO NAAQS are most like to occur on
winter weekdays, the inventory
prepared reflects a ‘‘design day’’ with
ambient temperatures, traffic volumes
and other emission source activity
levels of a typical winter weekday in
1999.
In addition to the base year 1999
inventory, emission forecasts were
prepared for 2005, 2010 and 2017.
These projected inventories were
prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance. The projections in Table 1
below show that total calculated CO
emissions, are not expected to exceed
the level of the 1999 base year inventory
during the second 10-year maintenance
plan period.
TABLE 1.—1999 BASE YEAR ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND *2005, *2010 AND *2017 PROJECTED EMISSIONS
[Pounds CO/winter day]
Emissions
1999
Point Source ....................................................................................
Area Source .....................................................................................
VerDate Aug<18>2005
13:21 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
*2005
106,590
809,454
Sfmt 4702
*2010
67,401
872,852
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
71,085
925,684
06SEP1
*2017
76,241
999,648
52959
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—1999 BASE YEAR ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND *2005, *2010 AND *2017 PROJECTED EMISSIONS—Continued
[Pounds CO/winter day]
Emissions
1999
*2005
*2010
*2017
Non-Road Mobile .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
372,098
1,525,114
530,435
1,226,323
619,753
975,074
690,469
834,301
Total ..........................................................................................
2,813,256
2,697,011
2,591,596
2,600,659
* Without oxy fuel program and without enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) testing.
The large decrease in point source
emissions between 1999 and 2005 is the
result of permanent closure of a large
aluminum company. 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.
VII. How Does the State Demonstrate
Maintenance of the CO Standard for the
Second 10-Year Period?
The current, EPA-approved first 10year CO maintenance plan used a
rollforward approach to demonstrate
maintenance of the CO standard. A
review and update of this methodology
to a probabilistic rollback approach
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
analysis showed that the CO standard
was maintained on all three permanent
monitoring sites in 1999 with at least
99% probability. The probabilistic
rollback approach demonstrated
regional, long-term maintenance by
demonstrating that maintenance at the
monitoring site with the highest design
value (82nd and Division) will be
maintained for a second 10-year period
with the same level of assurance.
VIII. What Control Measures Are Being
Proposed for This Second 10-Year
Plan?
The second 10-year plan changes the
I/M program requirement for CO from
the current Enhanced I/M program to a
basic I/M program for CO. Moderate CO
Attainment areas were only required to
implement a basic I/M program. This is
a change to the CO SIP only. The Ozone
Maintenance Plan continues to require
the Enhanced I/M Program. ODEQ will
consider vehicles that meet the
enhanced test requirement as also
meeting the basic test requirement. If
the Ozone Plan is changed to a basic I/
VerDate Aug<18>2005
13:21 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
M program, it will already be approved
for CO.
The Oxygenated Fuel Program
remains a control measure in the
Portland CO maintenance area until
October 31, 2007 when it will be
discontinued. It will then become a
contingency measure in the second 10year maintenance plan as required by
175A(d).
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) continues to be required. The
plan also continues to offer an industrial
Growth Allowance that may be used by
new or expanding sources instead of
securing emission offsets.
The Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) in this plan replace the TCMs
specified in the first Portland Area CO
Maintenance Plan. The emission
reduction benefits of these TCMs are
included in the emission projections on
which the Portland Area CO
Maintenance Plan is based. The revised
TCMS are:
Transit Service Increase: Region
transit service revenue hours (weighted
by capacity) shall be increased 1.0% per
year. The increase shall be assessed on
the basis of a 5-year rolling average of
actual hours for assessments conducted
between 2006 and 2017.
Bicycle Paths: Jurisdictions and
government agencies shall program a
minimum of 28 miles of bikeways or
trails within the Portland metropolitan
area between the years 2006 through
2017.
Pedestrian Paths: Jurisdictions and
government agencies shall program at
least nine miles of pedestrian paths in
mixed use centers between the years
2006 through 2017.
Oregon has a TCM substitution policy
under which identified TCMs may be
substituted in whole, or in part, with
other TCMs providing equivalent
emission reductions. See 62 FR 4621,
September 2, 1997. Appendix D9–2 of
the second 10-year maintenance plan
identifies the requirements for TCM
substitutions.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IX. What Contingency Measures Are
Considered, in Case of the Monitored
Exceedance or Violation of the Federal
Standard?
The maintenance plan is to contain
contingency measures to ensure that the
State will promptly correct any
violation of the standard that occurs
during the maintenance period. The
contingency measures in the second 10year maintenance plan for the Portland
area are based on risk of violation and
actual violation.
If monitored CO levels at any
monitoring site register a second high
concentration equaling or exceeding 8.1
ppm during a calendar year, ODEQ will
form a planning group to evaluate the
implementation of additional emission
strategies. Additional strategies to be
considered include, but are not limited
to: Increased parking pricing in the
Central City, increased funding for
transit, value pricing on major roadways
that increase vehicle travel capacity, a
trip reduction program, modified
regional parking ratios, and accelerated
implementation of bicycle and
pedestrian networks.
If the Portland area violates the
NAAQS for CO, the following
contingency measures will
automatically be implemented. New
Source Review requirements will be
changed. The requirement to install Best
Available Control Technology will be
replaced with Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate technology. The
downtown parking lid will be reinstated
if the violation occurs in the downtown
area formerly subject to the parking lid
requirement. If the violation occurs in
2007 or later, the Oxygenated Fuel
Program will be reinstated.
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 SIP. In
short, a transportation plan is deemed to
conform to the applicable SIP if the
emissions resulting from
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
52960
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 Portland
area for 2005, 2010 and 2017 are shown
in Table 2.
TABLE 2.—PORTLAND MAINTENANCE AREA CO MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS
[Pounds per winter day]
Year
2005
2010
2017
Budget ......................................................................................................................................................
1,238,575
1,033,578
1,181,341
For the purpose of demonstrating
transportation conformity in the
timeframe of the area’s transportation
plan for all years beyond 2017, motor
vehicle emissions must be less than or
equal to the maintenance plan’s motor
vehicle emissions budget for 2017.
XI. In Conclusion, How Would This
EPA Approval Affect the General
Public and Citizens of the Portland
Area?
This action proposes to approve
measures adopted by ODEQ to ensure
maintenance of the Federal air quality
standards for CO in the Portland 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.
XII. 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
VerDate Aug<18>2005
13:21 Sep 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 23, 2005.
Julie M. Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
10.
[FR Doc. 05–17537 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R09–OAR–2005–AZ–0003; FRL–7960–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Arizona; Correction of
Redesignation of Phoenix To
Attainment for the Carbon Monoxide
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend
the regulations that identify revisions to
the Arizona state implementation plan
and the regulations that identify area
designations within Arizona. In so
doing, EPA is acting pursuant to the
Agency’s authority under the Clean Air
Act to correct errors made in approving
plan revisions and area redesignations.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to
correct an error in the adoption and
submittal date shown for a revision to
the implementation plan that EPA
recently approved and to correct a
transcription error in, and to make a
more general correction to, the
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52956-52960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17537]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket ID : R10-OAR-2005-OR-0001; FRL-7964-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon;
Portland Carbon Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the second 10-year maintenance
plan for carbon monoxide (CO) for the Portland, Oregon CO Attainment
Area. Specifically, in this action EPA
[[Page 52957]]
proposes to approve the following: Oregon's demonstration that the
Portland CO Attainment Area will maintain air quality standards for CO
through the year 2017; a revised CO motor vehicle emissions budget for
transportation conformity purposes using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model
and latest growth and planning assumptions; and revised state
implementation plan (SIP) control strategies and contingency measures.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. R10-OAR-
2005-OR-0001, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
3. Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, Attn: Connie Robinson, Mail code: AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
4. Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Attn:
Connie Robinson (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, 9th
floor. Such deliveries are only accepted during EPA's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. R10-OAR-2005-
OR-0001. 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 EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web site are
``anonymous access'' systems, 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 EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102). For additional instructions on submitting comments,
go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, such as 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
EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and
Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, from 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Please contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Robinson, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-
107, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553-1086; fax
number: (206) 553-0110; e-mail address: robinson.connie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rulemaking?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is the Status of Current CO Levels in the Portland Area and
How Do They Compare With the Federal Standards?
V. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Been Involved in This
Rulemaking Process?
VI. What Are the Sources and Magnitude of CO Emitted in the Portland
Maintenance Area?
VII. How Does the State Demonstrate Maintenance of the CO Standard
for the Second 10-Year Period?
VIII. What Control Measures Are Being Proposed for This Second 10-
Year Plan?
IX. What Contingency Measures Are Considered, in Case of the
Monitored Exceedance or Violation of the Federal Standard?
X. How Does this Action Affect Transportation Conformity?
XI. In Conclusion, How Would This EPA Approval Affect the General
Public and Citizens of the Portland Area?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
RME, 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 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 solicit comment on
the
[[Page 52958]]
State of Oregon's plan to replace the existing CO maintenance plan for
the Portland area in Oregon with a second 10-year maintenance plan to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO ambient air quality
standard through 2017.
The State of Oregon presented a trend analysis of the historical CO
monitored data for the Portland area demonstrating that since the
Portland area was redesignated to attainment, CO concentrations have
fallen steadily. That trend reflects a national pattern of new vehicles
producing considerably reduced amounts of CO. Implementation of new
national 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 Oregon'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 a MOBILE6 model. The
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) used MOBILE6.2 to
estimate CO emissions for the Portland area for the next 10-year
maintenance period through 2017 and conducted a technical analysis with
MOBILE6.2 that showed new motor vehicle emissions will not cause or
contribute to violations of the air quality standards. EPA agrees with
this analysis and proposes to approve revised motor vehicle emissions
budgets for conformity determinations.
The State of Oregon took this rulemaking opportunity to change
several of the emission control strategies and contingency measures.
EPA finds these changes acceptable and proposes to approve them in this
rulemaking.
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
In a March 15, 1991 letter to the EPA Region 10 Administrator, the
Governor of Oregon recommended the Portland area be designated as
nonattainment for CO as required by section 107(d)(1)(A) of the Clean
Air Act (the ``Act''). The area was designated by EPA as nonattainment
for CO and classified as ``moderate'' with a design value less than or
equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm) under the provisions outlined in
sections 186 and 187 of the Act.
The State of Oregon, following the requirements of the Act,
prepared and submitted revisions to the Oregon SIP that first included
an attainment plan, and then developed a plan to demonstrate
maintenance of the standard for a 10-year period beyond the statutory
attainment date. EPA published approval of a redesignation request to
attainment and the first 10-year maintenance plan on September 2, 1997.
The first 10-year CO maintenance plan included a commitment for
periodic review of the plan and submission of the second 10-year
maintenance plan to EPA during the last two years of the first 10-year
maintenance period. The planning effort included detailed technical
analyses such as preparation of base and future year emissions
inventories, review of control measures for CO, etc. The results of
this planning effort provide the basis of today's proposed approval by
EPA.
IV. What Is the Status of Current CO Levels in the Portland 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 for two consecutive years. Since the
redesignation of the Portland area to attainment for CO on October 2,
1997, the second highest concentration in a calendar year measured by
the approved monitoring network was 7.3 ppm, which is less than 9.0
ppm.
V. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Been Involved in This
Rulemaking Process?
ODEQ met directly with a variety of stakeholder groups, including
representative of the petroleum and ethanol industries, the Oregon
Environmental Council and with other state agencies to seek input on
the CO maintenance plan. Those state agencies included the Oregon
Department of Energy, Agriculture, and Economic and Community
Development. Notices were published in the newspaper and public
hearings were conducted by ODEQ. ODEQ responded to all comments and the
Environmental Quality Commission adopted the revisions to the SIP under
OAR 340-200-0040 on December 10, 2004, effective December 25, 2004.
VI. What Are the Sources and Magnitude of CO Emitted in the Portland
Maintenance Area?
An emissions inventory was prepared for the Portland area for the
base year of 1999. The year 1999 was selected for the inventory because
that year reflected the highest ambient CO concentrations in Portland's
recent history and therefore represented a conservative base for
demonstrating future compliance with the CO NAAQS. The emissions
inventory is a list, by source, of the air contaminants directly
emitted into the Portland CO Area'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. Because
violations of the CO NAAQS are most like to occur on winter weekdays,
the inventory prepared reflects a ``design day'' with ambient
temperatures, traffic volumes and other emission source activity levels
of a typical winter weekday in 1999.
In addition to the base year 1999 inventory, emission forecasts
were prepared for 2005, 2010 and 2017. These projected inventories were
prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. The projections in Table 1
below show that total calculated CO emissions, are not expected to
exceed the level of the 1999 base year inventory during the second 10-
year maintenance plan period.
Table 1.--1999 Base Year Actual Emissions and *2005, *2010 and *2017 Projected Emissions
[Pounds CO/winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions 1999 *2005 *2010 *2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source............................ 106,590 67,401 71,085 76,241
Area Source............................. 809,454 872,852 925,684 999,648
[[Page 52959]]
Non-Road Mobile......................... 372,098 530,435 619,753 690,469
On-Road Mobile.......................... 1,525,114 1,226,323 975,074 834,301
-------------------
Total............................... 2,813,256 2,697,011 2,591,596 2,600,659
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Without oxy fuel program and without enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) testing.
The large decrease in point source emissions between 1999 and 2005
is the result of permanent closure of a large aluminum company. 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.
VII. How Does the State Demonstrate Maintenance of the CO Standard for
the Second 10-Year Period?
The current, EPA-approved first 10-year CO maintenance plan used a
rollforward approach to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard. A
review and update of this methodology to a probabilistic rollback
approach 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 analysis
showed that the CO standard was maintained on all three permanent
monitoring sites in 1999 with at least 99% probability. The
probabilistic rollback approach demonstrated regional, long-term
maintenance by demonstrating that maintenance at the monitoring site
with the highest design value (82nd and Division) will be maintained
for a second 10-year period with the same level of assurance.
VIII. What Control Measures Are Being Proposed for This Second 10-Year
Plan?
The second 10-year plan changes the I/M program requirement for CO
from the current Enhanced I/M program to a basic I/M program for CO.
Moderate CO Attainment areas were only required to implement a basic I/
M program. This is a change to the CO SIP only. The Ozone Maintenance
Plan continues to require the Enhanced I/M Program. ODEQ will consider
vehicles that meet the enhanced test requirement as also meeting the
basic test requirement. If the Ozone Plan is changed to a basic I/M
program, it will already be approved for CO.
The Oxygenated Fuel Program remains a control measure in the
Portland CO maintenance area until October 31, 2007 when it will be
discontinued. It will then become a contingency measure in the second
10-year maintenance plan as required by 175A(d).
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) continues to be required.
The plan also continues to offer an industrial Growth Allowance that
may be used by new or expanding sources instead of securing emission
offsets.
The Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in this plan replace the
TCMs specified in the first Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan. The
emission reduction benefits of these TCMs are included in the emission
projections on which the Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan is based.
The revised TCMS are:
Transit Service Increase: Region transit service revenue hours
(weighted by capacity) shall be increased 1.0% per year. The increase
shall be assessed on the basis of a 5-year rolling average of actual
hours for assessments conducted between 2006 and 2017.
Bicycle Paths: Jurisdictions and government agencies shall program
a minimum of 28 miles of bikeways or trails within the Portland
metropolitan area between the years 2006 through 2017.
Pedestrian Paths: Jurisdictions and government agencies shall
program at least nine miles of pedestrian paths in mixed use centers
between the years 2006 through 2017.
Oregon has a TCM substitution policy under which identified TCMs
may be substituted in whole, or in part, with other TCMs providing
equivalent emission reductions. See 62 FR 4621, September 2, 1997.
Appendix D9-2 of the second 10-year maintenance plan identifies the
requirements for TCM substitutions.
IX. What Contingency Measures Are Considered, in Case of the Monitored
Exceedance or Violation of the Federal Standard?
The maintenance plan is to contain contingency measures to ensure
that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard that
occurs during the maintenance period. The contingency measures in the
second 10-year maintenance plan for the Portland area are based on risk
of violation and actual violation.
If monitored CO levels at any monitoring site register a second
high concentration equaling or exceeding 8.1 ppm during a calendar
year, ODEQ will form a planning group to evaluate the implementation of
additional emission strategies. Additional strategies to be considered
include, but are not limited to: Increased parking pricing in the
Central City, increased funding for transit, value pricing on major
roadways that increase vehicle travel capacity, a trip reduction
program, modified regional parking ratios, and accelerated
implementation of bicycle and pedestrian networks.
If the Portland area violates the NAAQS for CO, the following
contingency measures will automatically be implemented. New Source
Review requirements will be changed. The requirement to install Best
Available Control Technology will be replaced with Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate technology. The downtown parking lid will be reinstated
if the violation occurs in the downtown area formerly subject to the
parking lid requirement. If the violation occurs in 2007 or later, the
Oxygenated Fuel Program will be reinstated.
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
SIP. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to the
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from
[[Page 52960]]
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 Portland area for 2005, 2010 and 2017 are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2.--Portland Maintenance Area CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
[Pounds per winter day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2005 2010 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget........................ 1,238,575 1,033,578 1,181,341
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of demonstrating transportation conformity in the
timeframe of the area's transportation plan for all years beyond 2017,
motor vehicle emissions must be less than or equal to the maintenance
plan's motor vehicle emissions budget for 2017.
XI. In Conclusion, How Would This EPA Approval Affect the General
Public and Citizens of the Portland Area?
This action proposes to approve measures adopted by ODEQ to ensure
maintenance of the Federal air quality standards for CO in the Portland
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.
XII. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 23, 2005.
Julie M. Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-17537 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P