Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Washington: Puget Sound Ozone Maintenance Plan, 25010-25014 [2014-09878]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25010
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
round census reporting. Further, on
April 8, 2009, the Judges published a
notice of inquiry (NOI) to obtain
additional information concerning the
likely costs and benefits stemming from
the adoption of the proposed census
reporting provision as well as
information on any alternatives to the
proposal that might accomplish the
same goals as the proposal in a less
burdensome way, particularly with
respect to small entities. 74 FR 15901.
On October 13, 2009, the Judges
published a final rule amending the
interim regulations and establishing
requirements for census reporting for all
but those broadcasters who pay no more
than the minimum fee for their use of
the license. 74 FR 52418. The Judges
adopted the regulations substantially as
proposed in the NPRM with minor
modifications in response to comments
received. The final regulations
established requirements by which
copyright owners may receive
reasonable notice of the use of their
sound recordings and under which
records of use were to be kept and made
available by entities of all sizes
performing sound recordings. See, e.g.,
17 U.S.C. 114 (f)(4)(A). As with the
interim regulations adopted in 2006, the
final regulations adopted in 2009
represented baseline requirements. In
other words, digital audio services
remained free to negotiate other formats
and technical standards for data
maintenance and delivery and to use
those in lieu of regulations adopted by
the Judges, upon agreement with the
Collective. The Judges indicated that
they had no intention of codifying these
negotiated variances in the future unless
and until they come into such
standardized use as to effectively
supersede the existing regulations.
On October 28, 2009, College
Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI), American
Council on Education and
Intercollegiate Broadcasting Systems,
Inc. (collectively, Petitioners) made a
motion with the Judges for clarification
with respect to one issue raised by the
final regulation. Petitioners noted that
the final regulation exempted
minimum-fee webcasters that are FCClicensed broadcasters from the census
reporting requirement, but did not
appear to exempt minimum-fee
educational stations that are not FCClicensed broadcasters from the same
requirement. Petitioners asked the
Judges to ‘‘clarify’’ that the exemption
extended to minimum fee unlicensed
educational stations.
On November 12, 2009, before the
Judges ruled on this motion, CBI filed a
Petition for Review of the final
regulation with the United States Court
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) (Appeal No. 09–
1276). This appeal was held in abeyance
pending the outcome of an appeal of the
Judges’ final determination in Docket
No. 2009–1 CRB Webcasting III. The
D.C. Circuit concluded that appeal on
July 6, 2012, holding that the manner by
which the Judges were appointed was
unconstitutional, and dictating a
statutory remedy. Intercollegiate Broad.
Sys. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 684 F.3d
1332, 1340–41 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 2735 (2013). The D.C.
Circuit remanded the final
determination to the Judges,1 and also
transferred CBI’s appeal to the United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia. See Order in Appeal No. 09–
1276 (D.C. Cir. October 28, 2013).
In light of the foregoing proceedings,
the Judges recognize the need to clarify
the effectiveness of the final regulation.
Consequently, the Judges performed a
de novo review of the comments
underlying the final regulation and
affirm the adoption of this regulation as
published at 74 FR 52418 on October
11, 2009, in its entirety and without
change (including the reasons set forth
in the preamble thereto), thereby
removing any doubt as to the
effectiveness of the final regulation.
Such affirmation also ensures the
continuous effectiveness of the rules
concerning notice and recordkeeping for
users of copyrighted sound recordings.
On October 21, 2013, the Judges
received a petition from SoundExchange
seeking modifications to the notice and
recordkeeping final regulation. The
Judges will address the Petitioner’s
motion for clarification, as well as
SoundExchange’s petition, in a separate
notice also published today in the
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 370
Copyright, Sound recordings.
Final Regulation
For the reasons set forth in the
foregoing preamble, the Copyright
Royalty Judges affirm adoption of the
final rule revising 37 CFR part 370,
which was published at 74 FR 52418 on
October 13, 2009, without change.
1 The Judges issued their Initial Determination on
Remand in the Webcasting III proceeding, see
Determination After Remand of Rates and Terms
for Royalty Years 2011–2015, Docket No. 2009–1
CRB Webcasting III (Jan. 9, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Dated: February 20, 2014.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
James H. Billington,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2014–09799 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0122; FRL 9910–02–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Washington:
Puget Sound Ozone Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking a direct final
action to approve a maintenance plan
for the Central Puget Sound area to
maintain the 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
through 2015. This plan was submitted
by the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology or ‘‘the State’’) as a
revision to its State Implementation
Plan (SIP) on January 10, 2008. This
action finds that the maintenance plan
for this area meets all relevant Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements for approval,
and demonstrates that the Central Puget
Sound area will remain in attainment
with the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS
through 2015.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 1,
2014, without further notice, unless the
EPA receives adverse comment by June
2, 2014. If the 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–2008–0122, by any of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: R10-Public_Comments@
epa.gov.
• Mail: Keith Rose, 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:
Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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–2008–
0122. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the 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
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:
Keith Rose at telephone number: (206)
553–1949, email address: rose.keith@
epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10
address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regulatory Context
B. Requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1)
Maintenance Plans
C. How have the Tribal Governments been
involved in this process?
II. Summary of SIP Revision and the EPA’s
Evaluation
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Regulatory Context
On November 15, 1990, the CAA
Amendments of 1990 were enacted.
Under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, the
EPA designated the Central Puget Sound
area, also called the Seattle-Tacoma area
(which includes all of Pierce County,
almost all of King County except the
northeast corner, and part of Snohomish
County), as nonattainment because the
area violated the 1-hour ozone standard
during the years 1989–1991. As a result,
the EPA classified the Central Puget
Sound area as ‘‘marginal’’ under section
181(a)(1) of the CAA (56 FR 56847,
November 6, 1991). On January 28,
1993, the State of Washington submitted
a SIP demonstrating compliance with
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On August
21, 1995, the State submitted a revision
to the Washington Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) Program to
satisfy the requirements of sections
182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of the CAA and
40 CFR part 51, subpart S. This SIP
revision requires vehicle owners in the
Central Puget Sound area to comply
with the Washington I/M program. The
EPA approved this I/M program revision
on September 25, 1996 (61 FR 50235).
On March 4, 1996, the State submitted
to the EPA a request to redesignate the
Central Puget Sound area to attainment
for the 1-hour ozone standard, and a
maintenance plan demonstrating
maintenance of the ozone standard
through 2010. On September 26, 1996,
the EPA determined that the Puget
Sound area had attained the ozone
NAAQS, redesignated the Central Puget
Sound area to attainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, and approved the
associated maintenance plan (61 FR
50438). On December 17, 2003, Ecology
submitted a second 10-year
maintenance plan demonstrating that
the Central Puget Sound area would
maintain air quality standards for ozone
through the year 2016. The EPA
approved the second 10-year
maintenance plan on August 5, 2004 (69
FR 47365).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25011
In 2008, the EPA revised the level of
the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm
(73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The
Central Puget Sound area was
subsequently designated attainment/
unclassifiable for the new 8-hour
standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012).
B. Requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires,
in part, that states submit to the EPA
plans to maintain any NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA. Areas like the
Central Puget Sound area that were
maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, but unclassifiable/attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, are
required to submit a plan to
demonstrate the continued maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA
established a deadline of three years
after the effective date of the 1997 8hour ozone designations as the deadline
for submission of these plans.
On May 20, 2005, the EPA issued
guidance for States in preparing
maintenance plans under section
110(a)(1) of the CAA for areas that are
required to do so under 40 CFR 51.905.1
At a minimum, the maintenance plan
should include the following five
components:
1. An attainment inventory, which is
based on actual typical summer day
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) from a base year chosen
by the State;
2. A maintenance demonstration
which shows how the area will remain
in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard for 10 years after the effective
date of the designation;
3. A commitment to continue to
operate ambient air quality monitors to
verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard;
4. A contingency plan that will ensure
that any violation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will be promptly corrected; and
5. An explanation of how the State
will verify continued attainment of the
standard under the maintenance plan.
On January 10, 2008, the EPA
received a SIP submittal from Ecology to
approve a maintenance plan submitted
under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to
maintain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone
for the Central Puget Sound area. The
EPA prepared a Technical Support
Document (TSD) with more detailed
information about this SIP submittal,
1 Memorandum titled ‘‘Maintenance Plan
Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas
Under Section 110(a)(l) of Clean Air Act’’ by Lydia
Wegman, Director, EPA Air Quality Strategies and
Standards Division, May 20, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
25012
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
which is available for review as part of
the docket for this action.
purposes of a Section 110(a)(1) ozone
maintenance plan.
C. How have the Tribal Governments
been involved in this process?
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The key element of a Section 110(a)(1)
ozone maintenance plan is a
demonstration of how an area will
remain in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard for the 10-year period
following the effective date of
designation as unclassifiable/
attainment. The end projection year is
10 years from the effective date of the
8-hour attainment designation, which
for the Central Puget Sound area was
June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858). Therefore,
this plan must demonstrate attainment
through year 2014. Ecology has
projected emissions for the year 2015,
which is more than 10 years from the
effective date of initial designations.
With regard to demonstrating continued
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard, Ecology projected that the
total emissions of ozone precursors in
the Central Puget Sound area will
significantly decrease from 2002 (the
base year) through 2015. In 2002, the
total anthropogenic emissions of VOCs
in the Central Puget Sound area were
474 tons/day, and 446 tons/day for NOX.
The 2015 anthropogenic emissions from
the Central Puget Sound area are
projected to be 346 tons/day for VOCs,
and 411 tons/day for NOX. Thus, the
total emissions of VOCs in 2015 are
projected to be about 27% lower than
the 2002 level, and total NOX emissions
in 2015 are projected to be about 8%
lower than the 2002 level.
The formation of ozone is dependent
on a number of variables which cannot
be estimated only through emissions
growth and reduction calculations.
These variables include weather and the
transport of ozone precursors from
outside the maintenance area. In order
to demonstrate continued maintenance
of the standards, a state may utilize
more sophisticated tools such as air
quality dispersion modeling to support
their analysis. In the SIP submittal,
Ecology used air quality dispersion
modeling to assess the comprehensive
impacts of growth through 2015 on
ozone levels in the area. The results of
this modeling demonstrate that the
highest predicted design value (the 3year average of the fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone value)
for the Central Puget Sound area in 2015
would be 0.068 ppm, which is below
both the 1997 and the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and would therefore be in
compliance with both ozone NAAQS.
Based on the estimated emissions of
VOCs and NOX submitted with this
maintenance plan, the EPA concludes
that this maintenance plan would not
Consistent with the EPA’s tribal
policy, the EPA offered government-togovernment consultations to the Tulalip
Tribes, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians,
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the
Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually
Indian Tribe, regarding the action in this
notice, because these tribes are located
in the Central Puget Sound ozone area
and may be affected by this action.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and the
EPA’s Evaluation
Ecology’s 8-hour 110(a)(1) ozone
maintenance plan for the Central Puget
Sound area addresses all five
maintenance plan components outlined
in the EPA’s guidance of May 20, 2005.
All of the 1-hour ozone control
measures previously approved into the
SIP for the Central Puget Sound area
remain in place in this 8-hour 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan and are used in the
maintenance demonstration. The five
components of the maintenance plan
and how they meet the EPA’s criteria,
are described below.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Attainment Inventory
An emissions inventory is an itemized
list of emission estimates for sources of
air pollution in a given area for a
specified time period. An attainment
inventory is a projection of an emission
inventory in a base year, when an area
was in attainment with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, to an appropriate attainment
year. Ecology provided a comprehensive
base year emissions inventory for NOX
and VOCs for the Central Puget Sound
area with the SIP submittal. Ecology
chose to use 2002 as the base year from
which it projected emissions. The SIP
submittal also includes an explanation
of the methodology used for
determining the anthropogenic (point,
area and mobile sources) emissions of
NOX and VOCs. On-road vehicle
emission controls required by the State
I/M program were included in the
attainment inventory. The inventory is
based on emissions on a ‘‘typical
summer day.’’ The term ‘‘typical
summer day’’ refers to a typical
weekday during the months when ozone
concentrations are typically the highest.
Based on our review of the
documentation submitted, the EPA
concludes that the attainment inventory
has been developed for the appropriate
season of an acceptable attainment year,
is based on appropriate factors and
methods, and is thus acceptable for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
cause an increase of direct emissions or
precursor emissions that would interfere
with the maintenance of any criteria
pollutant NAAQS in the Central Puget
Sound area. Therefore, the EPA
concludes that the maintenance
demonstration submitted by the State
meets the requirement of a section
110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan.
3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
With regard to the ambient air
monitoring component of the
maintenance plan, Ecology commits to
continue operating the current Puget
Sound ozone monitoring network in
accordance with all of the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 58
throughout the maintenance period to
verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard. Ecology will also submit
quality-assured ozone data to the EPA’s
Air Quality System within 90 days of
the end of each quarter. The State of
Washington’s ambient air monitoring
network meets all applicable EPA air
monitoring regulations, and was most
recently approved by the EPA on March
10, 2014. The EPA therefore finds that
the State’s ambient air monitoring
network satisfies the requirements of
CAA section 110(a).
4. Contingency Plan
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
the State to develop a contingency plan
that will ensure that any violation of a
NAAQS is promptly corrected. The
purpose of the contingency plan is to
provide a range of response actions that
may be selected for implementation in
the event of any violation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
There are two regulations adopted by
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the
local air agency with jurisdiction in the
Central Puget Sound area, on December
19, 2002, that are identified as
contingency measures in this
maintenance plan. These regulations
were included as contingency measures
in the ozone second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Central Puget
Sound area that was approved by the
EPA on August 5, 2004 (69 FR 47364
and 69 FR 47365). These contingency
measures are: (1) Regulation I, Section
8.06, Outdoor Burning Ozone
Contingency Measure, and (2)
Regulation II, Section 2.10, Gasoline
Station Ozone Contingency Measure.
Both the outdoor burning and the
gasoline station contingency regulations
would be triggered by a written finding
from the EPA of a quality-assured
violation of the ozone NAAQS and a
determination that future violations can
reasonably be addressed through
implementing these regulations. The
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
EPA finds that these contingency
measures satisfy the requirements of
CAA section 110(a).
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
Since 1991, there have been no
violations of either the 1997 or 2008 8hour ozone standards at any ozone
monitoring site in the Central Puget
Sound ozone area. Ecology will
continue to monitor ambient air quality
ozone levels in the Central Puget Sound
area and verify attainment of the ozone
NAAQS as described in the
maintenance plan. The State commits to
preparing summer day emission
inventories for the interim years of
2008, 2011 and 2014, and will compare
these emission inventory results with
the modeling emission inventories to
ensure continued compliance with the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA finds
that these methods to verify continued
attainment of the ozone NAAQS satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 110(a).
The EPA finds that the maintenance
plan for the Central Puget Sound ozone
area adequately addresses all five
components outlined in the EPA’s
guidance of May 20, 2005, for
developing maintenance plans under
110(a)(1) of the CAA.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving a maintenance
plan to maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Central Puget Sound
ozone area that was submitted by the
State of Washington as a revision to its
SIP on January 10, 2008. The
maintenance plan for this area meets all
CAA 110(a)(1) requirements and
demonstrates that the Central Puget
Sound ozone area will remain in
attainment with the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS through 2015. This
decision was reached after offering
consultation to the Tulalip Tribes, the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the
Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually
Indian Tribe. The EPA did not receive
any requests for consultation from these
tribes.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 CAA ; and
• Does not provide the 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 it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, except for
non-trust land within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly
provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey
Area and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with
EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the Tulalip
Tribes, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians,
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the
Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25013
Indian Tribe in letters dated December
24, 2013. The EPA did not receive a
request for consultation from these
tribes.
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. The 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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by July 1, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this
direct final rule are encouraged to file a
comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this
action published in the proposed rules
section of today’s Federal Register,
rather than file an immediate petition
for judicial review of this direct final
rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this
direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking.
This action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (See CAA section
307(b)(2).).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
25014
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Plan’’ at the end of the section with the
heading ‘‘Attainment and Maintenance
Planning—Ozone.’’ to read as follows:
Subpart WW—Washington
2. Section 52.2470 is amended in table
2 of paragraph (e) by adding an entry ‘‘8Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
Name of SIP provision
*
*
*
State
submittal
date
*
EPA approval date
*
Comments
*
*
*
*
*
*
Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Ozone
*
*
8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.
*
*
Seattle-Tacoma ......................
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–09878 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0599; FRL–9909–16–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California San
Francisco Bay Area and Chico
Nonattainment Areas; Fine Particulate
Matter Emissions Inventories;
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) published a direct final
rule that appeared in the Federal
Register on March 14, 2014. The
document approved revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) concerning emissions inventories
for the 2006 24-hour fine particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for the San Francisco Bay
Area and Chico PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. We are approving these emissions
inventories under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act). An error in the
amendatory instruction is identified and
corrected in this action.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 13,
2014 without further notice.
ADDRESSES: Docket: Generally,
documents in the docket for this action
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
2/5/08
*
5/2/14 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105–3901.
While all documents in the docket are
listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
Tharp, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4142,
tharp.lisa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
published a direct final rule on March
14, 2014 (79 FR 14404) approving
revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning
emissions inventories. In that approval
EPA erroneously added the incorrect
paragraph numbers to § 52.220,
paragraph (c). Therefore the amendatory
instruction is being corrected to reflect
the corrected section paragraph
numbering.
2. On page 14409, third column, third
line under the section heading § 52.220
Identification Plan, correct paragraph
number ‘‘(434)’’ to read ‘‘(435)’’; and
3. On page 14409, third column, line
twenty-two under the section heading
§ 52.220 Identification Plan, correct
paragraph number ‘‘(435)’’ to read
‘‘(436)’’.
Dated: April 18, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014–09721 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753; FRL–9910–32–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Determination of
Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Standard for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Correction
AGENCY:
In the direct final rule published in
the Federal Register on March 14, 2014
(79 FR 14404), the following corrections
are made:
1. On page 14409, third column, line
2 of amendatory instruction number 2,
correct ‘‘adding paragraphs (c)(434) and
(435) to’’ to read ‘‘adding paragraphs
(c)(435) and (436) to’’;
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making a determination
of attainment regarding the PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the
Pittsburgh Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’). EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25010-25014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09878]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0122; FRL 9910-02-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Washington: Puget Sound Ozone Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a direct
final action to approve a maintenance plan for the Central Puget Sound
area to maintain the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) through 2015. This plan was submitted by the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology or ``the State'') as a revision to its
State Implementation Plan (SIP) on January 10, 2008. This action finds
that the maintenance plan for this area meets all relevant Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements for approval, and demonstrates that the Central
Puget Sound area will remain in attainment with the 1997 and 2008 ozone
NAAQS through 2015.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 1, 2014, without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 2, 2014. If the 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-2008-0122, by any of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
Mail: Keith Rose, 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: Keith Rose, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are
[[Page 25011]]
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-
2008-0122. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 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: Keith Rose at telephone number: (206)
553-1949, email address: rose.keith@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region
10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regulatory Context
B. Requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans
C. How have the Tribal Governments been involved in this
process?
II. Summary of SIP Revision and the EPA's Evaluation
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Regulatory Context
On November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted.
Under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, the EPA designated the Central
Puget Sound area, also called the Seattle-Tacoma area (which includes
all of Pierce County, almost all of King County except the northeast
corner, and part of Snohomish County), as nonattainment because the
area violated the 1-hour ozone standard during the years 1989-1991. As
a result, the EPA classified the Central Puget Sound area as
``marginal'' under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA (56 FR 56847, November
6, 1991). On January 28, 1993, the State of Washington submitted a SIP
demonstrating compliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On August 21,
1995, the State submitted a revision to the Washington Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program to satisfy the requirements of
sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51, subpart
S. This SIP revision requires vehicle owners in the Central Puget Sound
area to comply with the Washington I/M program. The EPA approved this
I/M program revision on September 25, 1996 (61 FR 50235). On March 4,
1996, the State submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the
Central Puget Sound area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard,
and a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance of the ozone standard
through 2010. On September 26, 1996, the EPA determined that the Puget
Sound area had attained the ozone NAAQS, redesignated the Central Puget
Sound area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and approved the
associated maintenance plan (61 FR 50438). On December 17, 2003,
Ecology submitted a second 10-year maintenance plan demonstrating that
the Central Puget Sound area would maintain air quality standards for
ozone through the year 2016. The EPA approved the second 10-year
maintenance plan on August 5, 2004 (69 FR 47365).
In 2008, the EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone standard to
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The Central Puget Sound area
was subsequently designated attainment/unclassifiable for the new 8-
hour standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012).
B. Requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states submit
to the EPA plans to maintain any NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. Areas
like the Central Puget Sound area that were maintenance areas for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, but unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, are required to submit a plan to demonstrate the continued
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA established a deadline
of three years after the effective date of the 1997 8-hour ozone
designations as the deadline for submission of these plans.
On May 20, 2005, the EPA issued guidance for States in preparing
maintenance plans under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for areas that are
required to do so under 40 CFR 51.905.\1\ At a minimum, the maintenance
plan should include the following five components:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum titled ``Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for
Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(l) of Clean Air
Act'' by Lydia Wegman, Director, EPA Air Quality Strategies and
Standards Division, May 20, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An attainment inventory, which is based on actual typical summer
day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) from a base year chosen by the State;
2. A maintenance demonstration which shows how the area will remain
in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for 10 years after the
effective date of the designation;
3. A commitment to continue to operate ambient air quality monitors
to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;
4. A contingency plan that will ensure that any violation of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS will be promptly corrected; and
5. An explanation of how the State will verify continued attainment
of the standard under the maintenance plan.
On January 10, 2008, the EPA received a SIP submittal from Ecology
to approve a maintenance plan submitted under section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA to maintain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone for the Central Puget Sound
area. The EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) with more
detailed information about this SIP submittal,
[[Page 25012]]
which is available for review as part of the docket for this action.
C. How have the Tribal Governments been involved in this process?
Consistent with the EPA's tribal policy, the EPA offered
government-to-government consultations to the Tulalip Tribes, the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the
Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe, regarding the
action in this notice, because these tribes are located in the Central
Puget Sound ozone area and may be affected by this action.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and the EPA's Evaluation
Ecology's 8-hour 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for the Central
Puget Sound area addresses all five maintenance plan components
outlined in the EPA's guidance of May 20, 2005. All of the 1-hour ozone
control measures previously approved into the SIP for the Central Puget
Sound area remain in place in this 8-hour 110(a)(1) maintenance plan
and are used in the maintenance demonstration. The five components of
the maintenance plan and how they meet the EPA's criteria, are
described below.
1. Attainment Inventory
An emissions inventory is an itemized list of emission estimates
for sources of air pollution in a given area for a specified time
period. An attainment inventory is a projection of an emission
inventory in a base year, when an area was in attainment with the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, to an appropriate attainment year. Ecology provided a
comprehensive base year emissions inventory for NOX and VOCs
for the Central Puget Sound area with the SIP submittal. Ecology chose
to use 2002 as the base year from which it projected emissions. The SIP
submittal also includes an explanation of the methodology used for
determining the anthropogenic (point, area and mobile sources)
emissions of NOX and VOCs. On-road vehicle emission controls
required by the State I/M program were included in the attainment
inventory. The inventory is based on emissions on a ``typical summer
day.'' The term ``typical summer day'' refers to a typical weekday
during the months when ozone concentrations are typically the highest.
Based on our review of the documentation submitted, the EPA concludes
that the attainment inventory has been developed for the appropriate
season of an acceptable attainment year, is based on appropriate
factors and methods, and is thus acceptable for the purposes of a
Section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The key element of a Section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan is a
demonstration of how an area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard for the 10-year period following the effective date of
designation as unclassifiable/attainment. The end projection year is 10
years from the effective date of the 8-hour attainment designation,
which for the Central Puget Sound area was June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858).
Therefore, this plan must demonstrate attainment through year 2014.
Ecology has projected emissions for the year 2015, which is more than
10 years from the effective date of initial designations. With regard
to demonstrating continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard,
Ecology projected that the total emissions of ozone precursors in the
Central Puget Sound area will significantly decrease from 2002 (the
base year) through 2015. In 2002, the total anthropogenic emissions of
VOCs in the Central Puget Sound area were 474 tons/day, and 446 tons/
day for NOX. The 2015 anthropogenic emissions from the
Central Puget Sound area are projected to be 346 tons/day for VOCs, and
411 tons/day for NOX. Thus, the total emissions of VOCs in
2015 are projected to be about 27% lower than the 2002 level, and total
NOX emissions in 2015 are projected to be about 8% lower
than the 2002 level.
The formation of ozone is dependent on a number of variables which
cannot be estimated only through emissions growth and reduction
calculations. These variables include weather and the transport of
ozone precursors from outside the maintenance area. In order to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the standards, a state may utilize
more sophisticated tools such as air quality dispersion modeling to
support their analysis. In the SIP submittal, Ecology used air quality
dispersion modeling to assess the comprehensive impacts of growth
through 2015 on ozone levels in the area. The results of this modeling
demonstrate that the highest predicted design value (the 3-year average
of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone value) for the
Central Puget Sound area in 2015 would be 0.068 ppm, which is below
both the 1997 and the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and would therefore be in
compliance with both ozone NAAQS.
Based on the estimated emissions of VOCs and NOX
submitted with this maintenance plan, the EPA concludes that this
maintenance plan would not cause an increase of direct emissions or
precursor emissions that would interfere with the maintenance of any
criteria pollutant NAAQS in the Central Puget Sound area. Therefore,
the EPA concludes that the maintenance demonstration submitted by the
State meets the requirement of a section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance
plan.
3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the
maintenance plan, Ecology commits to continue operating the current
Puget Sound ozone monitoring network in accordance with all of the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance
period to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard. Ecology will
also submit quality-assured ozone data to the EPA's Air Quality System
within 90 days of the end of each quarter. The State of Washington's
ambient air monitoring network meets all applicable EPA air monitoring
regulations, and was most recently approved by the EPA on March 10,
2014. The EPA therefore finds that the State's ambient air monitoring
network satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a).
4. Contingency Plan
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires the State to develop a
contingency plan that will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is
promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to provide a
range of response actions that may be selected for implementation in
the event of any violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
There are two regulations adopted by the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency, the local air agency with jurisdiction in the Central Puget
Sound area, on December 19, 2002, that are identified as contingency
measures in this maintenance plan. These regulations were included as
contingency measures in the ozone second 10-year maintenance plan for
the Central Puget Sound area that was approved by the EPA on August 5,
2004 (69 FR 47364 and 69 FR 47365). These contingency measures are: (1)
Regulation I, Section 8.06, Outdoor Burning Ozone Contingency Measure,
and (2) Regulation II, Section 2.10, Gasoline Station Ozone Contingency
Measure. Both the outdoor burning and the gasoline station contingency
regulations would be triggered by a written finding from the EPA of a
quality-assured violation of the ozone NAAQS and a determination that
future violations can reasonably be addressed through implementing
these regulations. The
[[Page 25013]]
EPA finds that these contingency measures satisfy the requirements of
CAA section 110(a).
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
Since 1991, there have been no violations of either the 1997 or
2008 8-hour ozone standards at any ozone monitoring site in the Central
Puget Sound ozone area. Ecology will continue to monitor ambient air
quality ozone levels in the Central Puget Sound area and verify
attainment of the ozone NAAQS as described in the maintenance plan. The
State commits to preparing summer day emission inventories for the
interim years of 2008, 2011 and 2014, and will compare these emission
inventory results with the modeling emission inventories to ensure
continued compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA finds that
these methods to verify continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 110(a).
The EPA finds that the maintenance plan for the Central Puget Sound
ozone area adequately addresses all five components outlined in the
EPA's guidance of May 20, 2005, for developing maintenance plans under
110(a)(1) of the CAA.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving a maintenance plan to maintain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Central Puget Sound ozone area that was submitted by
the State of Washington as a revision to its SIP on January 10, 2008.
The maintenance plan for this area meets all CAA 110(a)(1) requirements
and demonstrates that the Central Puget Sound ozone area will remain in
attainment with the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2015. This
decision was reached after offering consultation to the Tulalip Tribes,
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the
Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The EPA did not
receive any requests for consultation from these tribes.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA ; and
Does not provide the 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 it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, except for non-trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the Tulalip Tribes, the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the
Nisqually Indian Tribe in letters dated December 24, 2013. The EPA did
not receive a request for consultation from these tribes.
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. The 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 1, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA
can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (See CAA section 307(b)(2).).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
[[Page 25014]]
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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 52.2470 is amended in table 2 of paragraph (e) by adding an
entry ``8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan'' at the end of the
section with the heading ``Attainment and Maintenance Planning--
Ozone.'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or submittal EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment and Maintenance Planning--Ozone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Seattle-Tacoma..... 2/5/08 5/2/14 [Insert page
Maintenance Plan. number where the
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-09878 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
