Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27533 

is being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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 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 proposed 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 the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 10, 2014. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11075 Filed 5–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0333, FRL–9910–95– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of 

Washington (Washington or the State) 

demonstrating that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for lead on October 15, 

2008. The CAA requires that each state, 

after a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated, review their SIP to ensure 

that it meets the infrastructure 

requirements necessary to implement 

the new or revised NAAQS. On April 1, 

2014, Washington certified that the 

Washington SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for purposes of 

the 2008 lead NAAQS, except for those 

requirements related to the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting program currently operated 

under a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP). The EPA is proposing to find that 

Washington’s 2008 lead SIP is adequate 

for purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of CAA section 110, with 

the exception of the requirements 

related to PSD permitting and portions 

of the interstate transport requirements. 

The EPA finds that the SIP deficiencies 

related to PSD permitting, however, 

have been adequately addressed by the 

existing EPA FIP and, therefore, no 

further action is required by Washington 

or the EPA. The EPA will address the 

remaining interstate transport 

requirements in a separate action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0333, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: 

Jeff Hunt, 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–2014– 

0333. 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 

the disclosure of which 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. 1.) ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air 

Division Directors, Regions I–X, October 14, 2011, 

and 2.) ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 

Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, September 13, 2013. 

2Washington’s submittal does not address CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). At the time of the State’s 

submission, in accordance with the panel of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submittals were not required until 

the EPA quantified the State’s obligations under 

that section. See EME Homer City generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). On April 29, 

2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12–182, 572 

U.S. __ slip op. (2014). The EPA intends to address 

Washington’s obligations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the lead NAAQS in 

a separate action. In contrast, portions of the 

Washington SIP submittal relating to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), were 

submitted. In this notice, we are proposing to act 

on Washington’s submittal for purposes of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 

lead NAAQS. 

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 

the disclosure of which 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, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at: (206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@

epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 

address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements 

III. The EPA’s Approach to Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

IV. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised 

the level of the primary and secondary 

lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3. The 

CAA requires SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) be submitted by states within three 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised standard. CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements to 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS to the EPA no later than 

October 15, 2011. 

To help states meet this statutory 

requirement, the EPA issued guidance 

to address infrastructure SIP elements 

under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2).1

As noted in the guidance, to the extent 

an existing SIP already meets the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, states 

may certify that fact via a letter to the 

EPA. The certification should address 

all requirements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements as 

applicable for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

Such certification should include 

documentation demonstrating a 

correlation between each infrastructure 

element specified at 110(a)(2) and an 

equivalent state authority in the existing 

or submitted SIP. As for all SIP 

submittals, a state should provide 

reasonable public notice of, and an 

opportunity for a public hearing on, the 

certification before it is submitted to the 

EPA. 

CAA section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to the EPA for a new or 

revised NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In the case 

of the 2008 lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met the basic program 

elements required in CAA section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions. On April 1, 2014, 

Washington made a submittal to the 

EPA certifying that the current 

Washington SIP meets the CAA section 

110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS, 

except for certain requirements related 

to PSD permitting, described in the 

‘‘Analysis of the State’s Submittal’’ 

section of this publication. The 

submittal included an analysis of 

Washington’s SIP as it relates to each 

section of the infrastructure 

requirements with regard to the 2008 

lead NAAQS. Washington provided 

notice and an opportunity for public 

comment on the submittal from 

February 14, 2014, through March 24, 

2014. A notice offering the public an 

opportunity to comment and request a 

hearing was published in the Daily 

Journal of Commerce on February 14, 

2014. The Washington Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) also issued a news 

release, fact sheet, and hearing notice on 

Ecology’s public involvement Web site 

and interested parties email list. Ecology 

received no requests for a public 

hearing. The EPA has evaluated 

Washington’s submittal and determined 

that Washington has met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. 

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. These 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements, with their corresponding 

CAA subsection, are listed below: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.2

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

The EPA’s October 14, 2011, guidance 

restated our interpretation that two 

elements identified in CAA section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27535 

3For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

5The EPA notes that this ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that 

various subparts of part D set specific dates for 

submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 

designated nonattainment areas for various 

pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides 

specific dates for submission of emissions 

inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years 

after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action on 

the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather, are 

due at the time the nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due pursuant to 

CAA section 172 and the various 

pollutant specific subparts 2–5 of part 

D. These requirements are: (i) 

Submissions required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection 

refers to a permit program as required in 

part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) 

submissions required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, 

this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). 

Furthermore, the EPA interprets the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C, title I of the 

CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. 

III. The EPA’s Approach to Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

The EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Washington that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.3 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for the 

EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) 

and section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while the 

EPA has long noted that this literal 

reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent and would create a conflict 

with the nonattainment provisions in 

part D of title I of the CAA, which 

specifically address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.4 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires the EPA to 

establish a schedule for submission of 

such plans for certain pollutants when 

the Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.5 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, the EPA must 

determine which provisions of section 

110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether the 

EPA must act upon such SIP submission 

in a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, the 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow states 

to make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, the EPA can elect to 

act on such submissions either 

individually or in a larger combined 

action.6 Similarly, the EPA interprets 

the CAA to allow it to take action on the 

individual parts of one larger, 

comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, the EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to the EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed 

action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), the EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

8For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

9The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the 

CAA requires the EPA to provide guidance or to 

promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and 

requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not the EPA 

provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 

submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in 

order to assist states, as appropriate. 

10 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

11The EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did 

not make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance 

shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to 

review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 

interpreted the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created 

by ongoing litigation, the EPA elected not to 

provide additional guidance on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the 

guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, 

whether the EPA elects to provide guidance on a 

particular section has no impact on a state’s CAA 

obligations. 

elements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.7

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, the EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS. The states’ attendant 

infrastructure SIP submissions for each 

NAAQS therefore could be different. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that a state might need to meet in its 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could 

be very different for different pollutants, 

for example because the content and 

scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.8

The EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

the EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, the EPA also has to 

identify and interpret the relevant 

elements of section 110(a)(2) that 

logically apply to these other types of 

SIP submissions. For example, section 

172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D have 

to meet the ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, 

attainment plan SIP submissions must 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable 

emission limits and control measures 

and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air 

agency resources and authority. By 

contrast, it is clear that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 

PSD program required in part C of title 

I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, the EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, the EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, the EPA has elected to 

use guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.9 The EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).10 The EPA 

developed this document to provide 

states with up-to-date guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 

the EPA describes the duty of states to 

make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements 

within three years of promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. The EPA also 

made recommendations about many 

specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 

that are relevant in the context of 

infrastructure SIP submissions.11 The 

guidance also discusses the 

substantively important issues that are 

germane to certain subsections of 

section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA 

interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 

submissions need to address certain 

issues and need not address others. 

Accordingly, the EPA reviews each 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

compliance with the applicable 

statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), 

as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submissions to ensure that the 

state’s SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains the EPA’s interpretation that 

there may be a variety of ways by which 

states can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

the EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure 

SIP submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, the EPA’s review 

of infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and the EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 

By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under the EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27537 

12By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were 

to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate 

that provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

13For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah 

to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related 

to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 14The EPA has used this authority to correct 

errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to 

PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA section 

110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions 

that the Agency determined it had approved in 

error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 

FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American 

Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada 

SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) 

(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 

(November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and 

Nevada SIPs). 

15See, e.g., the EPA’s disapproval of a SIP 

submission from Colorado on the grounds that it 

would have included a director’s discretion 

provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, 

including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 

disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 

FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions the EPA considers irrelevant 

in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, the EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates 

whether the state has an EPA-approved 

minor new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

the EPA does not think it is necessary 

to conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

that may be contrary to the CAA and the 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

may be contrary to the CAA because 

they purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of the EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). Thus, the EPA 

believes it may approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission without 

scrutinizing the totality of the existing 

SIP for such potentially deficient 

provisions and may approve the 

submission even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.12 It is important to 

note that the EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission should 

not be construed as explicit or implicit 

re-approval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

The EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

The EPA believes that this approach to 

the review of a particular infrastructure 

SIP submission is appropriate, because 

it would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and the EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when the EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. The EPA believes that 

a better approach is for states and the 

EPA to focus attention on those 

elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

most likely to warrant a specific SIP 

revision due to the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, the EPA’s 2013 

Guidance gives simpler 

recommendations with respect to 

carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, the EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow the EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action, depending 

upon the nature and severity of the 

alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) 

authorizes the EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ 

whenever the EPA determines that a 

state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 

mitigate interstate transport, or to 

otherwise comply with the CAA.13

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.14

Significantly, the EPA’s determination 

that an action on a state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission is not the appropriate 

time and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude the EPA’s subsequent reliance 

on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as 

part of the basis for action to correct 

those deficiencies at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, the EPA believes that 

section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the 

statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 

the course of addressing such deficiency 

in a subsequent action.15

IV. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other 

Control Measures 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16Washington State did make changes to the 

Washington Clean Air Act modifying particulate 

matter control measures for residential wood 

combustion, effective June 2012. However, these 

changes are unrelated to the regulation of the lead 

NAAQS. The EPA also notes that on January 27, 

2014, Ecology submitted an updated version of 

Chapter 173–400 of the Washington Administrative 

Code, General Regulations for Air Pollution 

Sources, however the EPA has not yet made a 

proposed determination on that submittal. 

17See Scope of Action on Infrastructure 

Submittals. 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

State submittal: Washington’s 

previous infrastructure certification for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS outlined the 

State’s overarching regulatory and 

statutory authorities to set emission 

limits and require control measures 

generally for all criteria pollutants. 

These statutory authorities include 

portions of Chapter 70.94 Revised Code 

of Washington (RCW) Washington Clean 

Air Act and Chapter 43.21A RCW 

Department of Ecology. As noted in 

Washington’s submittal for the lead 

NAAQS, the underlying statutory 

authorities remain unchanged since the 

EPA’s last review and approval of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure 

certification (May 24, 2012; 77 FR 

30902).16 Like ozone, the State has a 

long history of regulating lead, therefore 

the broad regulatory authorities to 

address criteria pollutants generally, 

codified in the SIP at 40 CFR part 52, 

subpart WW, continue to protect and 

maintain the lead NAAQS. The most 

significant change to the SIP since the 

EPA’s last review is Washington’s 

submittal of Washington Administrative 

Code (WAC) section 173–476–120 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead 

(Pb) which set state standards for lead 

that match the EPA lead NAAQS. The 

EPA approved WAC 173–476–120 on 

March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12077). 

Washington’s submittal includes an 

analysis of potential lead sources in the 

State. In 2010, the EPA improved the 

existing lead monitoring network by 

requiring monitors be placed in areas 

with sources such as industrial facilities 

with lead emissions of 0.5 tons or more. 

Washington currently has no known 

industrial facilities with lead emissions 

at these updated monitoring thresholds; 

nor are there any nonattainment areas 

for lead in the State. Because leaded 

aviation gasoline was considered a 

possible threat to attainment, the EPA 

required a year-long monitoring study of 

airports with estimated lead emissions 

between 0.50 and 1.0 tons per year, 

including two airports in Washington: 

Auburn Municipal Airport and Harvey 

Field in Snohomish. Monitoring results 

at these Washington airports showed 

little risk of future nonattainment, with 

concentrations well below one-half the 

2008 lead NAAQS, as discussed in the 

evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), 

below. Given the lack of air emissions 

in the State at current reporting and 

monitoring thresholds for lead, 

Washington determined that no new 

control measures or emission standards 

would be necessary at this time. If any 

new facilities are found to emit lead, 

Washington determined that the 

existing EPA-approved minor source 

permitting program and the PSD FIP 

would adequately address these 

situations in the future. 

EPA analysis: The EPA agrees with 

Washington’s determination that no 

new control measures or emission limits 

for lead seem necessary at this time, due 

to the lack of air emission sources in the 

State. The EPA is proposing to find that 

the existing Washington SIP, codified in 

40 CFR 52, subpart WW, is adequate to 

protect and maintain the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

The EPA is also proposing to find that 

Washington’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 2008 lead NAAQS, subject to the 

following qualifications. We are not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

operations at a facility. The EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have SSM provisions that are contrary 

to the CAA and existing EPA guidance 

and the EPA plans to address such state 

regulations.17 In the meantime, the EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. In addition, we 

are not proposing to approve or 

disapprove any existing state rules with 

regard to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. The EPA believes 

that a number of states may have such 

provisions that are contrary to the CAA 

and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 

45109, November 24, 1987) and the EPA 

plans to take action in the future to 

address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, we encourage any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision that is contrary to the 

CAA and the EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires 

SIPs to include provisions to provide for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to the EPA 

upon request. 

State submittal: Washington derives 

its general statutory authority to 

establish and operate ambient air 

quality monitors from RCW 70.94.331(5) 

Powers and Duties of Department which 

states, ‘‘[t]he department is directed to 

conduct or cause to be conducted a 

continuous surveillance program to 

monitor the quality of the ambient 

atmosphere as to concentrations and 

movements of air contaminants and 

conduct or cause to be conducted a 

program to determine the quantity of 

emissions to the atmosphere.’’ 

Regulatory authority is contained in the 

EPA-approved SIP provisions of WAC 

173–400–105 Records, Monitoring and 

Reporting. These authorities were 

reviewed by the EPA as part of the 

previous 1997 ozone infrastructure 

approval and have not changed since 

the EPA’s last review. 

With respect to lead, Washington’s 

submittal focuses primarily on the 

airport lead monitoring study conducted 

from December 2011 through December 

2012. This effort was part of a year-long 

EPA monitoring study of 15 airports 

with estimated lead emissions between 

0.50 and 1.0 ton per year, which 

included two airports in Washington: 

Auburn Municipal Airport and Harvey 

Field in Snohomish. The study found 

that the maximum three-month rolling 

average at the Auburn Airport was 0.055 

mg/m3 (37% of NAAQS) and at Harvey 

Field was 0.032 mg/m3 (21% of 

NAAQS). Because neither airport 

measured a three-month rolling average 

that exceeded 50% of the NAAQS, the 

lead monitoring at both airports was 

concluded December 2012, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Details 

on the EPA’s lead monitoring study can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

regs/nonroad/aviation/420f13032.pdf. 

EPA analysis: Washington submitted 

a comprehensive air quality monitoring 

plan to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 58, which the EPA approved on 

April 15, 1981. This air quality 

monitoring plan has been updated 

annually, with the most recent submittal 

dated May 2013. The EPA approved the 

plan on March 10, 2014, included in the 

docket for this action. This approved 

plan meets the EPA’s revised ambient 

monitoring requirements for lead 

promulgated on December 14, 2010 (75 

FR 81126) as specified in 40 CFR part 

58. Washington provides air quality 

monitoring data summaries and a map 

of the air monitoring network at: https:// 

fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27539 

18On January 27, 2014, Washington submitted 

PSD regulations for approval into the SIP. The EPA 

has not finalized our review of that submittal. The 

EPA’s proposed disapproval of the PSD elements in 

this action to rely on the existing PSD FIP is not 

a reflection on Ecology’s January 27, 2014, 

submittal. Instead, the EPA has determined that the 

existing PSD FIP currently provides protection and 

maintenance of the lead NAAQS so there is no 

compelling reason to delay a proposed 

determination on the adequacy of Ecology’s 

infrastructure certification. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Washington SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement 

of Control Measures 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

states to include a program providing 

for enforcement of all SIP measures and 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, including a 

program to meet PSD and 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 

State submittal: The Washington 

submittal refers to EPA-approved 

regulatory provisions contained in the 

SIP under WAC 173–400–230 

Regulatory Actions and WAC 173–400– 

240 Criminal Penalties, as well as the 

enforcement-related statutory provisions 

of Chapter 70.94 RCW, Washington 

Clean Air Act. All of these enforcement 

provisions remain unchanged since the 

EPA’s last review and approval of the 

1997 ozone infrastructure submittal 

(May 24, 2012; 77 FR 30902). 

Washington also cites the EPA-approved 

minor source permitting program 

contained in the SIP under WAC 173– 

400–110 New Source Review and WAC 

173–400–113 Requirements for New 

Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable 

Areas. Specifically, WAC 173–400– 

113(3) ensures that, ‘‘[a]llowable 

emissions from the proposed new 

source or modification will not delay 

the attainment date for an area not in 

attainment nor cause or contribute to a 

violation of any ambient air quality 

standard.’’ Washington also notes that 

there are no lead nonattainment areas in 

the State and any major PSD sources in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas would 

be addressed under the existing EPA FIP 

codified in 40 CFR 52.2497. 

EPA analysis: With regard to the 

requirement to have a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures, we are proposing to find that 

the Washington provisions provide the 

State with authority to enforce the air 

quality regulations, permits, and orders 

promulgated pursuant to the SIP. 

Washington may issue emergency 

orders to reduce or discontinue 

emission of air contaminants where air 

emissions cause or contribute to 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

under the EPA-approved provisions of 

WAC 173–435 Emergency Episode Plan. 

Enforcement cases may be referred to 

the State Attorney General’s Office for 

civil or criminal enforcement. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Washington SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for 

the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard to 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, a state is 

required to have PSD, nonattainment 

NSR, and minor NSR permitting 

programs adequate to implement the 

2008 lead NAAQS. As explained above, 

in the ‘‘CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements’’ discussion, we 

are not evaluating nonattainment related 

provisions in this action, such as the 

nonattainment NSR program required 

by part D, title I of the CAA. In addition, 

Washington has no designated 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. With regard to the minor NSR 

requirement of this element, we have 

determined that the Washington minor 

NSR program adopted pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA is 

adequate to regulate emissions of lead 

because WAC 173–400–113 prevents the 

cause or contribution to a violation of 

any ambient air quality standard. Lastly, 

as previously discussed, the PSD 

permitting program in Washington is 

operated under an EPA FIP. As noted in 

the EPA’s October 14, 2011, 

infrastructure guidance, when an area is 

already subject to a FIP for PSD 

permitting (whether or not a state, local, 

or tribal air agency has been delegated 

federal authority to implement the PSD 

FIP), the air agency may choose to 

continue to rely on the PSD FIP to have 

permits issued pursuant to the FIP. If so, 

the EPA could not fully approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission; however, 

the EPA anticipates that there would be 

no adverse consequences to the air 

agency or to sources from this partial 

disapproval of the infrastructure SIP. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

partially disapprove Washington’s SIP 

for those requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD.18

110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate Transport 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

state SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 

Further, this section requires state SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

or from interfering with measures 

required to protect visibility (i.e. 

measures to address regional haze) in 

any state (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). 

State submittal: In accordance with 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit opinion in EME Homer City 

generation, L.P. v. EPA, in effect at the 

time of the State’s submission, 

Washington’s certification notes that 

states were not required to submit SIPs 

addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until the EPA had 

quantified their obligations under that 

section. With respect to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements, 

Washington’s certification notes that a 

FIP is in place to address the PSD 

components. With respect to visibility, 

Washington submitted a regional haze 

plan in 2010, which the EPA proposed 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove and supplement with a FIP 

(December 30, 2013; 78 FR 79344). 

Notwithstanding the final outcome of 

the EPA’s proposed partial approval and 

partial FIP, the infrastructure submittal 

notes that Washington does not 

currently have any known sources of 

lead at 0.5 tons per year and concludes, 

based on the EPA’s October 14, 2011, 

infrastructure guidance, that lead is not 

a pollutant that contributes towards 

visibility problems and there are no 

impacts to Class I areas in neighboring 

states from sources of lead in 

Washington State. 

EPA analysis: As noted in the EPA’s 

October 14, 2011, infrastructure 

guidance, the physical properties of lead 

prevent emissions from experiencing 

the same travel or formation phenomena 

as fine particulate matter or ozone. 

Given the lack of significant stationary 

sources of lead in the State, it is 

extremely unlikely that Washington 

sources would contribute significantly 

to nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. On April 29, 2014, the United 

States Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded the decision of the D.C. 

Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, 

which had been relied upon by the State 

in making its infrastructure submission. 

The EPA intends to address the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate action. 

The EPA believes that the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD subelement is satisfied when new major 

sources and major modifications in 

Washington are subject to a SIPVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:05 May 13, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM 14MYP1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

approved PSD program that 

satisfactorily implements the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. As previously noted, a FIP is 

in place for the PSD program in 

Washington. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the Washington 

SIP with respect to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-element. 

The EPA believes, as noted in the 

October 14, 2011, infrastructure 

guidance that, with regard to the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility subelement, significant impacts from lead 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source and most, if not all lead 

stationary sources, are located at 

distances from Class I areas such that 

visibility impacts would be negligible. 

The EPA’s guidance notes that, ‘‘EPA’s 

experience with initial lead 

designations suggests that sources that 

emit less than 0.5 tpy [tons per year] or 

that are located more than 2 miles from 

a state border generally appear unlikely 

to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in another state.’’ While 

this statement specifically addressed 

interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 

(nonattainment and maintenance) the 

physical properties of lead remain the 

same with respect to prong 4 (visibility). 

In Washington there are currently no 

known sources emitting lead at 0.5 tons 

per year. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP for 

purposes of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements related 

to visibility for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and 

International transport provisions: CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 

include provisions insuring compliance 

with the applicable requirements of 

CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement). Specifically, CAA section 

126(a) requires new or modified major 

sources to notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from the source. 

State submittal: Washington’s 

submittal notes that the State has no 

pending obligations under section 115 

or 126(b) of the CAA. CAA section 

126(a) obligations are met through the 

current PSD FIP. 

EPA analysis: The EPA agrees that 

Washington has no pending interstate or 

international pollution obligations 

under CAA sections 115 and 126(b). 

Because Washington does not have SIPapproved provisions addressing the 

requirements and instead relies on the 

PSD FIP to satisfy its CAA section 

126(a) obligations, the EPA is proposing 

to partially disapprove the SIP for this 

element. However, as previously noted, 

the EPA anticipates that there would be 

no adverse consequences to Washington 

or to sources resulting from this 

proposed partial disapproval of the 

infrastructure SIP. 

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires 

states to provide (i) necessary 

assurances that the state will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), 

(ii) requires that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards 

under CAA section 128 and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any SIP 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such SIP provision. 

State submittal: Chapter 43.21A RCW 

Department of Ecology provides 

authority for the director to employ 

personnel necessary for administration 

of this chapter. Chapters 43.21A and 

70.94 RCW provide the rule-making 

authority for Ecology. Ecology’s Air 

Quality Program is funded through the 

following funding sources: the state 

general fund, section 105 of the CAA 

grant program, Air Operating Permit 

Account (permit fees from large 

industrial sources), and Air Pollution 

Control Account (permit fees for 

burning and annual fees for small 

industrial air pollution sources). 

The EPA-approved provisions of the 

Washington SIP under WACs 173–400– 

220 Requirements for Board Members 

and 173–400–260 Conflict of Interest 

provide that no state board or body 

which approves operating permits or 

enforcement orders, either in the first 

instance or upon appeal, shall be 

constituted of less than a majority of 

members who represent the public 

interest and who do not derive a 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to operating permits. 

State law also provides that any 

potential conflicts of interest by 

members of such board or body or the 

head of any executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

See RCW 34.05.425 Administrative 

Procedure Act; RCW 42.17 Public 

Disclosure Act; RCW 70.94.100 

Composition of Local Air Authorities’ 

Board; Conflict of Interest 

Requirements. 

Ecology works with other 

organizations and agencies and may 

enter into agreements allowing for 

implementation of the air pollution 

controls by another agency. However, 

RCW 70.94.370 states that no provision 

of this chapter or any recommendation 

of the state board or of any local or 

regional air pollution program is a 

limitation on the power of a state agency 

in the enforcement, or administration of 

any provision of law which it is 

specifically permitted or required to 

enforce or administer. 

EPA analysis: Regarding adequate 

personnel, funding and authority, the 

EPA believes the Washington SIP meets 

the requirements of this element. 

Washington receives CAA sections 103 

and 105 grant funds from the EPA and 

provides state matching funds necessary 

to carry out SIP requirements. Regarding 

the state board requirements under CAA 

section 128, the EPA approved WAC 

173–400–220 Requirements for Board 

Members and WAC 173–400–260 

Conflict of Interest as meeting the 

section 128 requirements on June 2, 

1995 (60 FR 28726). As part of the 

approval for the 1997 ozone 

infrastructure action, the EPA reviewed 

these provisions again and found that 

they still adequately met the section 128 

requirements (May 24, 2012; 77 FR 

30902). Finally, regarding state 

responsibility and oversight of local and 

regional entities, RCW 70.94.370 

provides Ecology with adequate 

authority to carry out SIP obligations 

with respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the CAA, which 

shall be available at reasonable times for 

public inspection. 

State submittal: The EPA-approved 

version of WAC 173–400–105 Records, 

Monitoring, and Reporting currently in 

the Washington SIP provides the 

authority to monitor stationary source 

emissions for compliance purposes and 

make the information available to the 

public. The language of WAC 173–400– 

105(1) provides general authority to 

require emission reporting, including 

lead emissions. Meanwhile, WAC 173– 

400–105(2) allows Ecology to require 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27541 

stack testing and/or ambient air 

monitoring, even if not required in a 

permit or other enforceable requirement 

as part of a continuous surveillance 

program to protect air quality. 

Washington currently has no known 

lead stationary sources at the EPA’s 

updated stationary source monitoring 

threshold of 0.5 tons per year. If 

additional stationary sources are found 

to emit lead above this threshold, 

Washington has adequate authority 

under WAC 173–400–105 to compel 

additional monitoring. 

EPA analysis: The EPA-approved 

regulatory provisions cited by 

Washington establish compliance 

requirements to monitor emissions, 

keep and report records, and collect 

ambient air monitoring data in 

accordance with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F). Additionally, Washington 

is required to submit emissions data to 

the EPA for purposes of the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 

the EPA’s central repository for air 

emissions data. The EPA published the 

Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) 

on December 5, 2008, which modified 

the requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data (73 FR 

76539). All states are required to submit 

a comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through the EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. The EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/eiinformation.html. 

Based on the analysis above, we are 

proposing to approve the Washington 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires 

states to provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including adequate contingency 

plans to implement the emergency 

episode provisions in their SIPs. 

State submittal: The State cites the 

EPA-approved Washington SIP 

provisions of WAC 173–435 Emergency 

Episode Plan, which are consistent with 

the EPA’s regulations contained in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150–51.153). 

Similar to the EPA regulations in 

subpart H, the Washington SIP does not 

contain specific requirements for lead; 

however the general emergency episode 

regulations provide the State with 

adequate authority to address other 

emissions that are causing imminent 

danger to public health or safety. 

EPA analysis: As noted in the October 

14, 2011, guidance, based on the EPA’s 

experience to date with the lead 

NAAQS and designating lead 

nonattainment areas, the EPA expects 

that an emergency episode associated 

with lead emissions would be unlikely 

and, if it were to occur, would be the 

result of a malfunction or other 

emergency situation at a relatively large 

source of lead. Accordingly, the EPA 

believes that the central components of 

a contingency plan would be to reduce 

emissions from the source at issue and 

public communication, as needed. 

Section 303 of the CAA provides 

authority to the EPA Administrator to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions which present 

an ‘‘imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment.’’ We find 

that the EPA-approved Washington SIP 

at WAC 173–435–050 Action Procedures 

provides Washington with comparable 

authority. Specifically, WAC 173–435– 

050(6) states, ‘‘regardless of whether any 

episode stages have previously been 

declared, whenever the governor finds 

that emissions are causing imminent 

danger to public health or safety, the 

governor may declare an air pollution 

emergency and order the persons 

responsible for the operation of sources 

causing the danger, to reduce or 

discontinue emissions consistent with 

good operating practice, safe operating 

procedures, and SERPs [source emission 

reduction plans], if any.’’ Further, WAC 

173–435–050(5) requires, ‘‘the broadest 

publicity practicable shall be given to 

the declaration of any episode stage. 

Such declaration shall, as soon as 

possible, be directly communicated to 

all persons responsible for the carrying 

out of SERPs within the affected area.’’ 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that 

SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) 

from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph 

110(a)(3)(C), whenever the 

Administrator finds on the basis of 

information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under the CAA. 

State submittal: Washington’s 

submittal refers to RCW 70.94 which 

gives Ecology the authority to 

promulgate rules and regulations to 

maintain and protect Washington’s air 

quality and to comply with the federal 

requirements, including revisions of 

NAAQS, SIPs, and responding to EPA’s 

findings. 

EPA analysis: RCW 70.94.510 

specifically requires Ecology to 

cooperate with the federal government 

in order to ensure the coordination of 

the provisions of the federal and state 

Clean Air Acts. In practice, the State 

regularly submits revisions to the EPA 

to revise the SIP. EPA most recently 

approved revisions to the Washington 

SIP on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61188, 

Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10

Limited Maintenance Plan), September 

17, 2013 (78 FR 57073, Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency Regulatory Updates), 

and May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131, 

Tacoma-Pierce County Nonattainment 

Area). Accordingly, we are proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan 

Revision Under Part D 

There are two elements identified in 

CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by 

the three-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but are rather 

due at the time of the nonattainment 

area plan requirements pursuant to 

section 172 and the various pollutant 

specific subparts 2–5 of part D. These 

elements are: (i) submissions required 

by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit 

program as required in part D, title I of 

the CAA, and (ii) submissions required 

by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D, title I of the 

CAA. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect 

to nonattainment NSR or CAA section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With 

Government Officials 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

states to provide a process for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

consultation with local governments 

and federal land managers carrying out 

NAAQS implementation requirements 

pursuant to Section 121. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to 

notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states 

to meet applicable requirements of part 

C, title I of the CAA related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection. 

State submittal: The State submittal 

cites the following regulatory provisions 

contained in the Washington SIP to 

meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

obligations: WAC 173–435–050 Action 

Procedures, WAC 173–400–151 Retrofit 

Requirements for Visibility, and WAC 

173–400–171 Public Involvement. 

Washington also cites the following 

statutory authorities: RCW 34.05 

Administrative Procedures Act, RCW 

42.30 Open Public Meetings, RCW 

70.94.141 Consultation, and RCW 

70.94.240 Air Pollution Control 

Advisory Council. In addition to these 

SIP measures, Ecology uses the 

Washington Air Quality Advisory 

(WAQA) tool for informing the public 

about the levels and health effects of air 

pollution. The public can access up-todate WAQA information on-line at 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/

Default.htm. 

EPA analysis: Under the EPAapproved provisions of WAC 173–400– 

171 Public Involvement, Ecology 

routinely coordinates with local 

governments, states, federal land 

managers and other stakeholders on air 

quality issues and provides notice to 

appropriate agencies related to 

permitting actions. Washington 

regularly participates in regional 

planning processes including the 

Western Regional Air Partnership which 

is a voluntary partnership of states, 

tribes, federal land managers, local air 

agencies and the EPA whose purpose is 

to understand current and evolving 

regional air quality issues in the West. 

Therefore the EPA is proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with 

government officials. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the 

public be notified if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

Washington actively participates and 

submits information to the EPA’s 

AIRNOW program which provides 

information to the public on the air 

quality in their locale. In addition, 

Washington provides the State’s annual 

network monitoring plan, annual air 

quality monitoring data summaries, 

specific warnings and advice to those 

persons who may be most susceptible, 

and a map of the air monitoring network 

to the public on their Web site (http:// 

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/ 

airhome.html). Therefore, we are 

proposing to find that the Washington 

SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for public 

notification for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

Turning to the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA, we have evaluated this 

requirement in the context of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD 

permitting. As discussed previously, 

PSD in Washington is operated under a 

FIP. We are proposing to disapprove the 

Washington SIP for the requirements of 

CAA 110(a)(2)(J) with regard to PSD. 

Instead the State and the EPA will 

continue to rely on the existing PSD FIP. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

the EPA recognizes that states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA. In the event of the 

establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus we find that there 

is no new applicable requirement 

relating to visibility triggered under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. 

Based on the above analysis, we are 

proposing to approve the Washington 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS, except for those elements 

related to PSD which we are proposing 

to partially disapprove. 

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/ 

Data 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that 

SIPs provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a national 

ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

State submittal: The Washington 

submittal states that air quality 

modeling is conducted during 

development of revisions to the SIP, as 

appropriate for the State to demonstrate 

attainment with required air quality 

standards. Modeling is also addressed in 

the permitting process (see discussion at 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)). Estimates of 

ambient concentrations are based on air 

quality models, data bases and other 

requirements specified in 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models) and are routinely used 

by Washington. Exceptions to using 

Appendix W are handled under the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 which 

requires written approval from the EPA 

and an opportunity for public comment. 

EPA analysis: As noted in the state 

submittal, Washington models estimates 

of ambient concentrations based on 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines 

on Air Quality Models) for both 

permitting and SIP development. Any 

change or substitution from models 

specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

W is subject to notice and opportunity 

for public comment. While Washington 

has no nonattainment areas for lead, 

modeling was used to support 

maintenance plans and redesignation to 

attainment requests for the former ozone 

nonattainment areas of Puget Sound and 

Vancouver, approved by the EPA on 

September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50438) and 

May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27204), 

respectively. More recently, modeling 

was used to develop control measures 

for the Tacoma-Pierce County fine 

particulate matter nonattainment area, 

although the area came into attainment 

before a formal SIP submission was 

required (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013). 

Based on the foregoing, we are 

proposing to approve Washington’s SIP 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs 

to require each major stationary source 

to pay permitting fees sufficient to cover 

the cost of reviewing, approving, 

implementing and enforcing a permit, 

until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the EPA’s approval of a fee program 

under title V. 

State submittal: The State’s submittal 

notes that there are no major stationary 

sources or nonattainment areas for lead 

in Washington, and facilities that would 

be subject to PSD permitting are covered 

under the EPA FIP. Notwithstanding 

that, Washington derives its authority to 

collect fees for new source review and 

title V sources from RCW 70.94.151, 

RCW 70.94.152, and RCW 70.94.162. 

The EPA reviewed Washington’s fee 

provisions and fully approved the title 

V program on August 13, 2001 (66 FR 

42439), with a revision approved on 

January 2, 2003 (67 FR 71479). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27543 

EPA analysis: As noted in the State’s 

submittal, the EPA approved the 

Washington title V permitting program 

on August 13, 2001, with an effective 

date of September 12, 2001 (66 FR 

42439). Meanwhile, Washington does 

not have a SIP-approved PSD permitting 

program and, therefore, is not required 

to have PSD permitting fees in its SIP. 

As discussed earlier in this notice, PSD 

permitting in Washington takes place by 

means of a FIP. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conclude that Washington 

has satisfied its current obligations 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 

2008 lead NAAQS by virtue of the 

EPA’s prior approval of Washington’s 

title V permitting program. 

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation 

by Affected Local Entities 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

State submittal: Washington cites the 

following regulations and statutes as 

pertinent to this infrastructure SIP 

requirement: WAC 173–400–171 Public 

Involvement, RCW 34.05 Administrative 

Procedure Act, RCW 42.30 Open Public 

Meetings Act, and RCW 70.94.240 Air 

Pollution Control Advisory Council. 

EPA analysis: As discussed in the 

preamble relating to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J), Ecology routinely 

coordinates with local governments and 

other stakeholders on air quality issues. 

The public involvement regulations 

cited in Washington’s submittal were 

previously approved into Washington’s 

federally-approved SIP on June 2, 1995 

(60 FR 28726). Therefore, the EPA 

proposes to find that Washington’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

VI. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to partially 

approve the April 1, 2014, submittal 

from Washington to demonstrate that 

the SIP meets the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for 

the lead NAAQS promulgated on 

October 15, 2008, except for the 

requirements related to PSD permitting 

and portions of the interstate transport 

requirements as discussed in detail 

above. Specifically, we are proposing to 

find that the current EPA-approved 

Washington SIP meets the following 

CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 lead NAAQS: (A), 

(B), (C)—except for those elements 

covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II)— 

except for those elements covered by the 

PSD FIP, (D)(ii)—except for those 

elements covered by the PSD FIP, (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J)—except for those 

elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K), 

(L), and (M). As previously noted, the 

EPA anticipates that there would be no 

adverse consequences to Washington or 

to sources in the State resulting from 

this proposed partial disapproval of the 

infrastructure SIP related to PSD. The 

EPA, likewise, has no additional FIP 

responsibilities as a result of this 

proposed partial disapproval for 

requirements related to PSD. Remaining 

interstate transport requirements arising 

under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2008 lead NAAQS will be addressed 

in a separate action. 

VII. 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 proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve technical 

standards; 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 nonetheless 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

September 3, 2013. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 5, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11073 Filed 5–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0228; FRL–9910–96– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho Franklin 

County Portion of the Logan 

Nonattainment Area; Fine Particulate 

Matter Emissions Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), dated 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS