Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Washington; Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, 36439-36443 [E8-14518]

Download as PDF 36439 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA REGULATIONS—Continued State effective date State citation Title/subject * 62–210.300 ............... * * Permits Required ....................... * 02/02/06 62–210.350 ............... Public Notice and Comment ...... 02/02/06 * 62–210.370 ............... * * Emissions Computation and Reporting. * 02/02/06 * * * EPA approval date * 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. * * * 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. * * * * * * Chapter 62–212 Explanation Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review * 62–212.300 ............... * * General Preconstruction Review Requirements. * 02/02/06 * 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. 62–212.400 ............... 02/02/06 62–212.500 ............... Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). Preconstruction Review for Nonattainment Areas. 02/02/06 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. * 62–212.720 ............... * * Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs). * 02/02/06 * 06/27/08 [Insert citation of publication]. * * * * * 4. Section 52.530 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: I § 52.530 quality. Significant deterioration of air (a) EPA approves the Florida Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, as incorporated into this chapter, for power plants subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act. * * * * * [FR Doc. E8–14400 Filed 6–26–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2007–0998; FRL–8684–1] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Washington; Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Washington. The Washington State Department of VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:06 Jun 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 Ecology submitted the Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan on April 25, 2007. In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act), EPA is approving Washington’s revision because the State adequately demonstrates that the Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area will maintain air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO) through the year 2016. DATES: This rule is effective on August 26, 2008, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 28, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal 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–2007–0998, by any of the following methods: • https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. • Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. • Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Office of Air, PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * Except provisions at 62– 212.300(3)(a)1, which are being conditionally approved. * * 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– 0998. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// 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 https:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https:// 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 E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM 27JNR1 36440 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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 docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone number: (206) 553–6121, e-mail address: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, fax number: (206) 553–0110, or Gina Bonifacino at telephone number: (206) 553–2970, email address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information II. What is the Purpose of this Action? III. What is the Background for this Action? IV. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Been Involved in this Rulemaking Process? V. Evaluation of Washington’s Submittal VI. Transportation and General Conformity VII. Final Action VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:06 Jun 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (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 Code of Federal Regulations (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 Action? EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Second 10-year CO Maintenance Plan for the Vancouver, Washington Air Quality Maintenance Area. Vancouver attained the CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1996 and has not violated the standard since 1990. The second 10year CO maintenance plan submitted by the state of Washington is designed to keep the Vancouver area in attainment for the CO standard for a second tenyear period beyond redesignation. III. What Is the Background for This Action? Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, any area designated before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) was to be designated upon enactment by operation of law. Under section 107(d)(1)(A) of the Act, States were required by 120 days after enactment of the CAAA, to submit lists designating all areas of the State as attainment, unclassifiable, or nonattainment. Accordingly, on March 15, 1991, letters were submitted by the governors of Washington and Oregon to the EPA Region 10 Administrator recommending PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the Vancouver and Portland areas, respectively, be designated as nonattainment for CO. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) the areas were designated by EPA as nonattainment for CO and classified as ‘‘moderate’’ with design values less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm) under the provisions outlined in sections 186 and 187 of the Act. On September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50423) EPA divided the Portland-Vancouver area into separate nonattainment areas for each state. The State of Washington, following the requirements of the Act, prepared and submitted revisions to the Washington 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 October 21, 1996 (61 FR 54560). The first 10-year CO maintenance plan included a commitment for periodic review of the plan and submission of the second 10year maintenance plan. The State of Washington submitted a second 10-year maintenance plan to EPA on April 25, 2007. The national 8-hour CO ambient standard is attained when the daily average 8-hour CO concentration of 9.0 ppm is not exceeded more than once a year. Since the redesignation of the Vancouver area to attainment for CO on October 21, 1996, the second highest concentration in any calendar year measured by the approved monitoring network was 6.7 ppm, which is less than 9.0 ppm. Therefore the area is attaining the CO NAAQS. In addition, areas that can demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters may use a Limited Maintenance Plan option. The current 8hour CO design value for the Vancouver area is 4.8 ppm based on 2004–2005 data. The State of Washington has opted to develop a Limited Maintenance Plan to fulfill the Vancouver Area second 10year maintenance period required by the Act. IV. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Been Involved in This Rulemaking Process? Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us. The state of Washington held a public hearing on March 1, 2007 in Vancouver, Washington. A notice of public hearing E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM 27JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations was published in The Columbian on January 29, 2007. A notice was also published in the Washington State Register on February 7, 2007. This SIP revision became State effective on April 9, 2007, and was submitted by the Governor’s designee to us on April 25, 2007. EPA has evaluated the State’s submittal and determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the Act. V. Evaluation of Washington’s Submittal EPA has reviewed the State’s revised CO maintenance plan for the Vancouver air quality maintenance. This revision provides the second 10-year update to the maintenance plan for the area, as required by section 175A(b) of the Act. The following is a summary of the requirements and EPA’s evaluation of how each requirement is met. A. Base Year Emissions Inventory The plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. The Vancouver CO second 10-year maintenance plan contains an emissions inventory for the base year 2002 that is consistent with EPA’s most recent guidance on maintenance plan emission inventories. The emissions inventory is a list, by source, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the Vancouver CO area. 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 is in a ‘‘typical winter day’’ format. The table below shows the pounds of CO emitted per winter day in 2002 by source category. 2002 EMISSION INVENTORY, MAIN SOURCE CATEGORY SUBTOTALS Main source category C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in accordance with 50 CFR part 58. The State of Washington has an approved monitoring network that includes the Vancouver area. The monitoring network was most recently approved by EPA on November 16, 2007. In 2006, the Southwest Clean Air Agency requested permission to remove the CO monitor at the Atlas and Cox site in Vancouver and EPA concurred that monitoring could be discontinued at the site. The State is continuing to verify attainment by conducting a triennial review of CO emissions from the countywide emissions inventory. D. Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions. The Vancouver Area CO Maintenance Plan contains a Total ........................... 570,669 tiered level of response should the triennial emission inventory show that B. Demonstration of Maintenance annual county-wide on road mobile The maintenance plan demonstration emissions have increased over 2005 requirement is considered to be satisfied levels. The contingency plan calls for Point Sources ................... Onroad Mobile Sources .... Non-road Mobile Sources Area Sources .................... jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES CO emissions pounds per winter day (lb/d) for areas using the Limited Maintenance Plan option, which are required to demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The State of Washington has opted to develop a Limited Maintenance Plan to fulfill the Vancouver Area second 10-year maintenance period required by the Act. With the Limited Maintenance Plan option, there is no requirement to project emissions of air quality over the maintenance period. EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of prevention of significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in Vancouver occurred in 1990 and monitored CO levels have been steadily in decline ever since. The current 8-hour CO design value for the Vancouver CO area is 4.8 ppm based on 2004–2005 data, which is below the limited maintenance plan requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the Vancouver area has adequately demonstrated that it will maintain the CO NAAQS into the future. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:06 Jun 26, 2008 4,396 383,058 56,837 126,377 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 36441 analysis of appropriate emission reduction measures and their implementation. VI. Transportation and General Conformity Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects that are funded under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area. While EPA’s Limited Maintenance Plan option does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under the Limited Maintenance Plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited. 1. Transportation Conformity While areas with maintenance plans approved under the Limited Maintenance Plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that: a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108; E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM 27JNR1 36442 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES c. The MPO’s interagency consultation procedures meet applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105; d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125. EPA meets at least annually with the Washington Department of Ecology, the Southwest Clean Air Agency, the Federal Highway Administration, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, and the Washington Department of Transportation to review documentation and the Transportation Improvement Plan for the Vancouver area and determine if the area is meeting the transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR part 93. Vancouver is currently meeting the requirements under 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. On November 19, 2007, EPA posted a notice finding the Vancouver CO second 10-year maintenance plan adequate for transportation conformity purposes. (See 72 FR 65019.) VII. Final Action In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act), EPA is approving this revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) because the State adequately demonstrates that the Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area will maintain air quality standards for CO through the year 2016. EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 26, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by July 28, 2008. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:06 Jun 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on August 26, 2008 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. VIII. 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, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 • 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. 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 action 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 26, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 10, 2008. Michelle Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: I E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM 27JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Rules and Regulations PART 52—[AMENDED] I. Background 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: A. Medicare Overpayment Medicare overpayments are Medicare funds an individual, provider, or supplier has received that exceed amounts due and payable under the Medicare statute and regulations (plus any applicable interest and penalties assessed on the overpayment). Section 400.202 defines a ‘‘supplier’’ as ‘‘a physician or other practitioner, or an entity other than a provider, that furnishes health care services under Medicare.’’ Generally, overpayments result when payment is made by Medicare for items or services that are not covered, exceeds the amount allowed by Medicare for an item or service, or is made for items or services that should have been paid by another insurer (for example, Medicare secondary payer obligations). Once a determination and any necessary adjustments in the amount of the overpayment have been made, the remaining amount is a debt owed to the United States Government. Section 1870 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides a framework within which liability for such Medicare overpayments is determined and recoupment of overpayments is pursued. This framework prescribes a decision making process that the agency follows when pursuing the recoupment of Medicare overpayments. The regulation governing the liability for Medicare overpayments is located at 42 CFR part 401 (subpart F). I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart WW—Washington 2. Section 52.2475 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: I § 52.2475 Approval of plans. (a) * * * (4) Vancouver. (i) EPA approves as a revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan, the Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology on April 25, 2007. (ii) [Reserved] * * * * * [FR Doc. E8–14518 Filed 6–26–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 401 [CMS–6032–F] RIN 0938–AO27 Medicare Program; Use of Repayment Plans Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Final rule. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: This final rule modifies Medicare regulations to implement section 935(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 pertaining to the use of repayment plans (also known as extended repayment schedules or ‘‘ERS’’) for Medicare provider and supplier overpayments. Under this provision, we are granting a provider or a supplier an ERS under certain terms and conditions as defined in the statute. This final rule establishes criteria and procedures to apply this requirement and to define the concepts of ‘‘hardship’’ and ‘‘extreme hardship.’’ DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective on July 28, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Noplock, (410) 786–3378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:06 Jun 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 B. Statutory Authority The Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–508) (FCCA), 80 Stat. 308 (amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104– 134) (DCIA) (codified at 31 U.S.C. 3711)) is the Federal government’s basic statutory authority for debt management practices. The Congress intended the FCCA to reduce the amount of litigation previously required to collect claims and to reduce the volume of private relief legislation in the Congress. The FCCA was intended to be independent of the other authorities we use to collect debt and added to, rather than supplanted, our other authorities, including common law authority. The FCCA authorized the head of an agency to collect claims in any amount. This statute also provided that the head of an agency may, under certain conditions, compromise a claim, or suspend or terminate collection action on a claim. Uncollectible claims in excess of $100,000, exclusive of interest, must be referred to the Department of Justice for compromise. The FCCA was PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 36443 amended in 1996 and is now referred to as the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–134) (DCIA), 110 Stat. 1321, 1358 (April 26, 1996) (codified at 31 U.S.C. 3711). In the November 2, 1977 Federal Register (42 FR 57351), the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) published a rule to delegate authority to the Department Claims Officer generally, and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (the Administrator) for necessary claims collection actions under our programs. The authority delegated to the Administrator covers all of our activities in the Medicare program (Title XVIII) and pertains to claims up to $20,000. (This amount has been increased to $100,000; see 31 U.S.C. 3711.) In the August 29, 1983 Federal Register (48 FR 39060), we published the ‘‘Federal Claims Collection Act; Claims Collection and Compromise’’ final rule with comment period in accordance with the FCCA. In that final rule with comment period, we adopted the applicable debt collection tools made available to us under the FCCA including the ability to collect or compromise claims, or suspend or terminate collection action, as appropriate. The final rule with comment period also set forth the requirements we use to evaluate debtors’ requests for extended repayment agreements specified in § 401.607. As part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–191) (HIPAA), the Congress added section 1893 to the Act establishing the Medicare integrity program (MIP) to carry out Medicare program integrity activities that are funded from the Medicare Trust Funds. Section 1893 of the Act expands our contracting authority to allow us to contract with eligible entities to perform MIP activities. These activities include review of provider and supplier activities including medical, fraud, and utilization review; cost report audits; Medicare secondary payer determinations; education of providers, suppliers, beneficiaries, and other persons regarding payment integrity and benefit quality assurance issues; and developing and updating a list of durable medical equipment items that are subject to prior authorization (42 U.S.C. 1395ddd). These MIP contractors assist us in the identification and collection of Medicare provider and supplier overpayments. E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM 27JNR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 125 (Friday, June 27, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36439-36443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14518]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0998; FRL-8684-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: 
Washington; Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-Year 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of 
Washington. The Washington State Department of Ecology submitted the 
Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide 
Maintenance Plan on April 25, 2007. In accordance with the requirements 
of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act), EPA is approving Washington's 
revision because the State adequately demonstrates that the Vancouver 
Air Quality Maintenance Area will maintain air quality standards for 
carbon monoxide (CO) through the year 2016.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 26, 2008, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 28, 2008. If EPA 
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal 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-2007-0998, by any of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.
     Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office 
of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 
Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani 
Vaupel, 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-
2007-0998. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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

[[Page 36440]]

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 docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone 
number: (206) 553-6121, e-mail address: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, fax 
number: (206) 553-0110, or Gina Bonifacino at telephone number: (206) 
553-2970, e-mail address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What is the Purpose of this Action?
III. What is the Background for this Action?
IV. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Been Involved in this 
Rulemaking Process?
V. Evaluation of Washington's Submittal
VI. Transportation and General Conformity
VII. Final Action
VIII. 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 Code of Federal Regulations (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 Code of 
Federal Regulations (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 Action?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Second 10-year CO 
Maintenance Plan for the Vancouver, Washington Air Quality Maintenance 
Area. Vancouver attained the CO national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) in 1996 and has not violated the standard since 1990. The 
second 10-year CO maintenance plan submitted by the state of Washington 
is designed to keep the Vancouver area in attainment for the CO 
standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, any area designated before 
the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) 
was to be designated upon enactment by operation of law. Under section 
107(d)(1)(A) of the Act, States were required by 120 days after 
enactment of the CAAA, to submit lists designating all areas of the 
State as attainment, unclassifiable, or nonattainment.
    Accordingly, on March 15, 1991, letters were submitted by the 
governors of Washington and Oregon to the EPA Region 10 Administrator 
recommending the Vancouver and Portland areas, respectively, be 
designated as nonattainment for CO. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) 
the areas were designated by EPA as nonattainment for CO and classified 
as ``moderate'' with design values less than or equal to 12.7 parts per 
million (ppm) under the provisions outlined in sections 186 and 187 of 
the Act. On September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50423) EPA divided the Portland-
Vancouver area into separate nonattainment areas for each state.
    The State of Washington, following the requirements of the Act, 
prepared and submitted revisions to the Washington 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 October 21, 1996 
(61 FR 54560). 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. The State of Washington submitted a second 
10-year maintenance plan to EPA on April 25, 2007.
    The national 8-hour CO ambient standard is attained when the daily 
average 8-hour CO concentration of 9.0 ppm is not exceeded more than 
once a year. Since the redesignation of the Vancouver area to 
attainment for CO on October 21, 1996, the second highest concentration 
in any calendar year measured by the approved monitoring network was 
6.7 ppm, which is less than 9.0 ppm. Therefore the area is attaining 
the CO NAAQS.
    In addition, areas that can demonstrate design values at or below 
7.65 ppm (85 percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 
consecutive quarters may use a Limited Maintenance Plan option. The 
current 8-hour CO design value for the Vancouver area is 4.8 ppm based 
on 2004-2005 data. The State of Washington has opted to develop a 
Limited Maintenance Plan to fulfill the Vancouver Area second 10-year 
maintenance period required by the Act.

IV. How Have the Public and Stakeholders Been Involved in This 
Rulemaking Process?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur 
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us. The state of 
Washington held a public hearing on March 1, 2007 in Vancouver, 
Washington. A notice of public hearing

[[Page 36441]]

was published in The Columbian on January 29, 2007. A notice was also 
published in the Washington State Register on February 7, 2007. This 
SIP revision became State effective on April 9, 2007, and was submitted 
by the Governor's designee to us on April 25, 2007. EPA has evaluated 
the State's submittal and determined that the State met the 
requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 
110(a)(2) of the Act.

V. Evaluation of Washington's Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the State's revised CO maintenance plan for the 
Vancouver air quality maintenance. This revision provides the second 
10-year update to the maintenance plan for the area, as required by 
section 175A(b) of the Act. The following is a summary of the 
requirements and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is met.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    The plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to 
identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain 
the CO NAAQS. The Vancouver CO second 10-year maintenance plan contains 
an emissions inventory for the base year 2002 that is consistent with 
EPA's most recent guidance on maintenance plan emission inventories. 
The emissions inventory is a list, by source, of the air contaminants 
directly emitted into the Vancouver CO area. 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 is in a ``typical winter day'' format. The table 
below shows the pounds of CO emitted per winter day in 2002 by source 
category.

         2002 Emission Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          CO emissions
                                                           pounds per
                 Main source category                   winter day  (lb/
                                                               d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.........................................             4,396
Onroad Mobile Sources.................................           383,058
Non-road Mobile Sources...............................            56,837
Area Sources..........................................           126,377
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................           570,669
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance

    The maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be 
satisfied for areas using the Limited Maintenance Plan option, which 
are required to demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85 
percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive 
quarters. The State of Washington has opted to develop a Limited 
Maintenance Plan to fulfill the Vancouver Area second 10-year 
maintenance period required by the Act.
    With the Limited Maintenance Plan option, there is no requirement 
to project emissions of air quality over the maintenance period. EPA 
believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 
85 percent of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of 
prevention of significant deterioration requirements, the control 
measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide 
adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period. 
The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in Vancouver occurred in 
1990 and monitored CO levels have been steadily in decline ever since. 
The current 8-hour CO design value for the Vancouver CO area is 4.8 ppm 
based on 2004-2005 data, which is below the limited maintenance plan 
requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the Vancouver area has adequately 
demonstrated that it will maintain the CO NAAQS into the future.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance 
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued 
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in 
accordance with 50 CFR part 58. The State of Washington has an approved 
monitoring network that includes the Vancouver area. The monitoring 
network was most recently approved by EPA on November 16, 2007. In 
2006, the Southwest Clean Air Agency requested permission to remove the 
CO monitor at the Atlas and Cox site in Vancouver and EPA concurred 
that monitoring could be discontinued at the site. The State is 
continuing to verify attainment by conducting a triennial review of CO 
emissions from the countywide emissions inventory.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions. The Vancouver Area CO Maintenance Plan contains 
a tiered level of response should the triennial emission inventory show 
that annual county-wide on road mobile emissions have increased over 
2005 levels. The contingency plan calls for analysis of appropriate 
emission reduction measures and their implementation.

VI. Transportation and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation 
plans, programs, and projects that are funded under 23 U.S.C. or the 
Federal Transit Act conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that 
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, 
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the 
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. 
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating 
that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate 
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the 
emissions budget for the area.
    While EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan option does not exempt an area 
from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may 
demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under 
the Limited Maintenance Plan option, emissions budgets are treated as 
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period 
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would 
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO 
NAAQS would result. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general 
conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' 
specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the 
budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.
1. Transportation Conformity
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the Limited 
Maintenance Plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas 
remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40 
CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance 
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal 
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;

[[Page 36442]]

    c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less 
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and 
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as 
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon 
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as 
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    EPA meets at least annually with the Washington Department of 
Ecology, the Southwest Clean Air Agency, the Federal Highway 
Administration, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation 
Council, and the Washington Department of Transportation to review 
documentation and the Transportation Improvement Plan for the Vancouver 
area and determine if the area is meeting the transportation conformity 
requirements under 40 CFR part 93. Vancouver is currently meeting the 
requirements under 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
    On November 19, 2007, EPA posted a notice finding the Vancouver CO 
second 10-year maintenance plan adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes. (See 72 FR 65019.)

VII. Final Action

    In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act 
(the Act), EPA is approving this revision to the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) because the State adequately demonstrates that the Vancouver 
Air Quality Maintenance Area will maintain air quality standards for CO 
through the year 2016. EPA is publishing this action without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 
and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules 
section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a 
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP 
revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective 
August 26, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives 
adverse comments by July 28, 2008.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on August 26, 2008 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

VIII. 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, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this 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 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.
    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 action 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 26, 2008. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

[[Page 36443]]

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 WW--Washington

0
2. Section 52.2475 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2475  Approval of plans.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Vancouver.
    (i) EPA approves as a revision to the Washington State 
Implementation Plan, the Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 
10-year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan submitted by the Washington 
Department of Ecology on April 25, 2007.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-14518 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P