62368 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 In the EPA’s 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS revision, we 

left unchanged the existing welfare (secondary) 

standards for PM2.5 to address PM-related effects 

such as visibility impairment, ecological effects, 

damage to materials and climate impacts. This 

includes an annual secondary standard of 15.0 mg/ 

m 3 and a 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m 3. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 

7, 2014. 

Myron A. Jenkins, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24616 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0744, FRL–9918–05– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from Washington 

demonstrating that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, October 17, 

2006, and December 14, 2012 

(collectively the PM2.5 NAAQS). 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 September 22, 

2014, Washington certified that the 

Washington SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5

NAAQS, except for those requirements 

related to the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting program 

currently operated under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP), certain 

elements of the regional haze program 

currently operated under a FIP, and 

specific requirements related to 

interstate transport which will be 

addressed in a separate submittal. The 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Washington’s SIP is adequate for 

purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of the CAA with the 

exceptions noted above. The EPA is 

proposing to find that the SIP 

deficiencies related to PSD permitting 

and regional haze, however, have been 

adequately addressed by the existing 

EPA FIPs and, therefore, no further 

action is required by Washington or the 

EPA for those elements. The EPA will 

address the remaining interstate 

transport requirements in a separate 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0744, 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– 

150), 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– 

0744. 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 

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 July 18, 1997, the EPA 

promulgated a new 24-hour and a new 

annual NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised 

the standards for PM2.5, tightening the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 

micrograms per cubic meter (m/m 3) to 

35 m/m 3, and retaining the annual PM2.5

standard at 15 m/m 3 (71 FR 61144). 

Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, 

the EPA revised the level of the health 

based (primary) annual PM2.5 standard 

to 12 m/m 3 (78 FR 3086, published 

January 15, 2013).1

States must submit SIPs meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) 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, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 

standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62369 

2William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, October 2, 2007. 

3William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ Memorandum to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, 

September 25, 2009. 

4Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘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 1–10, September 13, 2013. 

5Washington’s submittal does not address CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On April 29, 2014, the 

U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded a D.C. 

Circuit Court ruling related to interstate transport. 

See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 

12–1182, 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 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

6For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

Continued 

requirements. To help states meet this 

statutory requirement, the EPA issued 

guidance to states. On October 2, 2007, 

the EPA issued guidance to address 

infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.2

Subsequently, on September 25, 2009, 

the EPA issued guidance to address SIP 

infrastructure elements for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS.3 Finally, on 

September 13, 2013, the EPA issued 

guidance to address infrastructure SIP 

elements generally for all NAAQS, 

including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.4 As 

noted in the guidance documents, 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. On September 22, 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

except for certain requirements related 

to PSD permitting, regional haze, and 

interstate transport described in the 

‘‘Analysis of the State’s Submittal’’ 

section below. Washington’s submittal 

also included a demonstration for 

infrastructure requirements related to 

the 2008 ozone and 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide NAAQS addressed in a separate 

EPA proposal. 

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. 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.5

• 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 guidance clarified that two 

elements identified in CAA section 

110(a)(2) are 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 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 PM2.5 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.6 The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

7See, 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)). 

8The 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. 

9See, 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). 

10On 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. 

11For 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. 

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.7 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.8 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.9 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 subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.10

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.11

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62371 

12The 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. 

13 ‘‘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. 

14The 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). 

15By 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. 

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.12 The EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).13 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.14 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 

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.15 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62372 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16For 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). 

17The 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). 

18See, 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). 

19 Darrington 24-hour design value (DV) = 27 m/ 

m3, annual DV = 6.8 m/m3; Marysville 24-hour DV 

= 26 m/m3, annual DV = 7.7 m/m3; Tacoma 24-hour 

DV = 32 m/m3, annual DV = 7.8 m/m3; and Yakima 

24-hour DV = 33 m/m3, annual DV = 9.1 m/m.3

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.16

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

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.17

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.18

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, 

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: The Washington 

submittal cites an overview of the air 

quality laws including portions of 

Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of 

Washington (RCW) Washington Clean 

Air Act and Chapter 43.21A RCW 

Department of Ecology. These 

underlying statutory authorities remain 

substantially unchanged since the EPA’s 

last comprehensive review for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS infrastructure 

certification (77 FR 30902, May 24, 

2012). The only statutory changes that 

occurred since the EPA’s last review 

were in 2012, when the Washington 

State Legislature revised Chapter 70.94 

RCW to address the Tacoma-Pierce 

County PM2.5 nonattainment area and 

other areas at risk for PM2.5

nonattainment statewide. These 

statutory changes allowed state and 

local agencies to take a more 

precautionary approach in protecting 

and maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to residential wood burning 

devices and impaired air quality burn 

bans. 

Washington also included an 

overview of state and local regulations 

approved into the SIP, codified in 40 

CFR part 52, subpart WW. These 

regulations include minor stationary 

source permitting, visible emissions 

requirements, and other basic program 

elements that apply to all NAAQS 

reviewed as part of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS infrastructure certification. 

Other cited regulations were developed 

as part of previous nonattainment area 

strategies such as open burning 

restrictions originally promulgated to 

address coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

nonattainment, but provide important 

co-benefits for PM2.5. Most notable for 

the control of PM2.5 is the EPA’s recent 

approval of Chapter 173–433 

Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) Solid Fuel Burning Devices, 

codifying the 2012 statutory changes to 

Washington’s residential wood 

combustion control program (79 FR 

26628, May 9, 2014). Also notable is the 

EPA’s recent approval of Chapter 173– 

476 WAC Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, mirroring the Federal PM2.5

NAAQS (79 FR 12077, March 4, 2014). 

These state-wide ambient air quality 

standards ensure that the general minor 

stationary source permitting programs 

codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, 

cover the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA analysis: Washington’s PM2.5

problems are heavily dominated by 

residential wood combustion during 

winter inversion episodes that can last 

up to several days. As a result, 

Washington experiences spikes in the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard during these 

short-term meteorological conditions, 

but otherwise has generally low levels 

of PM2.5 for the rest of the year. For 

example, in the Tacoma-Pierce County 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, emissions are 

74% wood smoke, 9% on road motor 

vehicles, 5% non-road vehicles and 

engines, and 2% large industry on days 

when PM2.5 NAAQS violations are most 

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

Other communities historically at risk of 

elevated PM2.5 levels such as 

Darrington, Marysville, and Yakima, 

also experience heavy influence from 

residential wood combustion. For this 

reason, the state-wide revisions to 

Chapter 173–433 WAC are a major step 

forward in controlling PM2.5 in 

Washington State. Monitors historically 

violating or close to violating the PM2.5

NAAQS in all four communities are 

now attaining the standards based on 

2011–2013 data.19 Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Washington 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62373 

20On October 3, 2014, following the State’s 

infrastructure submission, the EPA approved 

updates to portions of WAC 173–400, including 

regulations related to minor new source review (79 

FR 59653). The EPA’s final approval of the updates 

to WAC 173–400 is not effective until November 3, 

2014. In the interim, the EPA notes that both the 

version of WAC 173–400 currently approved in the 

SIP (effective June 2, 1995) and the recent updates 

(effective November 3, 2014) provide broad, general 

authority to maintain and protect the NAAQS. 

21On 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. 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

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. 

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. The letter 

approving the plan is included in the 

docket for this action. Most notable is 

the establishment of a near roadway 

monitoring site in the Seattle-TacomaBellevue Metropolitan Statistical Area, 

in accordance with the EPA’s most 

recent ambient monitoring requirements 

for PM2.5 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). 

Washington provides air quality 

monitoring data summaries and a map 

of the state air monitoring network at: 

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

Default.htm. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Washington 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(B) for the PM2.5

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. 

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.’’ 20 Washington also notes that 

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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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. 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, and codified in 40 CFR part 

52, subpart WW is adequate to regulate 

emissions of PM2.5. Lastly, as previously 

discussed, the PSD permitting program 

in Washington is operated under an 

EPA FIP. As noted in the EPA’s 

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.21

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: Washington indicated 

in the submittal that the State intends to 

fulfill any remaining requirements 

related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

in a separate submittal. With respect to 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirements, Washington’s certification 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62374 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 partially approved, partially 

disapproved, and supplemented with a 

FIP (79 FR 33438, June 11, 2014). 

EPA analysis: As noted above, this 

action does not address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On January 13, 2009, 

the EPA determined that Washington 

met the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(74 FR 1501). Washington did not 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the September 22, 2014 submittal. We 

intend to address the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 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 SIPapproved PSD program that 

satisfactorily implements the PM2.5

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 that one way the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility 

sub-element (prong 4) can be satisfied 

for any relevant NAAQS is through an 

air agency’s confirmation in its 

infrastructure SIP submission that it has 

an approved regional haze SIP that fully 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 or 51.309. As noted in the EPA’s 

2013 infrastructure guidance, ‘‘[i]f the 

EPA determines the SIP to be 

incomplete or partially disapproves an 

infrastructure SIP submission for prong 

4, a FIP obligation will be created. If a 

FIP or FIPs are already in effect that 

correct all regional haze SIP 

deficiencies, there will be no additional 

practical consequences from the partial 

disapproval for the affected air agency, 

the sources within its jurisdiction, or 

the EPA. The EPA will not be required 

to take further action with respect to 

prong 4 because the FIP already in place 

would satisfy the requirements with 

respect to prong 4. In addition, unless 

the infrastructure SIP submission is 

required in response to a SIP call under 

CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179 would 

not apply because the deficiencies are 

not with respect to a submission that is 

required under CAA title I part D. 

Nevertheless, the EPA continues to 

encourage all air agencies that may be 

subject to full or partial FIPs for regional 

haze requirements to consider adopting 

additional SIP provisions that would 

allow the EPA to fully approve the 

regional haze SIP and thus to withdraw 

the FIP and approve the infrastructure 

SIP with respect to prong 4.’’ Because a 

partial FIP is currently in place to 

address regional haze impacts from 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, the 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

Washington SIP with respect to the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility subelement for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

International transport provisions: CAA 

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

include provisions ensuring 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). On May 24, 2012, 

the EPA approved the Washington SIP 

as meeting the requirements of submstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62375 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (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 oversight of SIP obligations. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the PM2.5 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. Meanwhile, 

WAC 173–400–105(2) allows Ecology to 

require 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. 

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 PM2.5

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: Ecology 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). 

In the case of an imminent danger to 

public health and safety, for example 

wildfires, Washington State can use the 

above mentioned regulatory authorities, 

and the statutory authorities of RCW 

70.94.710 through 70.94.730, to declare 

an air pollution emergency for PM2.5, 

working closely with other agencies to 

alert the public and take necessary steps 

to mitigate risk. 

EPA analysis: 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, 

‘‘[r]egardless 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, ‘‘[t]he 

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 PM2.5 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 Federal 

requirements, including revisions of 

NAAQS, SIPs, and responding to EPA 

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 Clean Air 

Act and the Washington Clean Air Act. 

In practice, Ecology regularly submits 

revisions to the EPA to revise the SIP. 

The EPA 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), as well as the 

PM2.5 related rule revisions cited in the 

discussion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

(79 FR 12077, March 4, 2014). 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

approve the Washington SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the PM2.5 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62376 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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: Ecology’s 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 state 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 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 (Prevention 

of significant deterioration of air 

quality) which requires written approval 

from the EPA and an opportunity for 

public comment. 

EPA analysis: As noted in Ecology’s 

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. Modeling was used 

for development of 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 PM2.5 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62377 

the reasonable cost of reviewing, acting 

upon, implementing and enforcing a 

permit. 

State submittal: 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). In January 2014, Ecology 

submitted SIP revisions to Chapter 173– 

400 WAC that specify that sources 

applying for permits are required to pay 

the fees. For example, WAC 173–400– 

111(1)(e) that describes requirements for 

the Notice of Construction permits, 

states that ‘‘[a]n application is not 

complete until any permit application 

fee required by the permitting authority 

has been paid.’’ WAC 173–400– 

560(4)(c), describing general order of 

approval requirements, states that ‘‘[a]n 

application shall be incomplete until a 

permitting authority has received any 

required fees.’’ In addition to the SIP 

updates that were submitted by Ecology 

in January, Ecology is proposing to 

include the following new language in 

the SIP found under WAC 173–400– 

111(3)(i): ‘‘[a]ll fees required under 

chapter 173–455 WAC (or the applicable 

new source review fee table of the local 

air pollution control authority) have 

been paid.’’ This language asserts 

permitting authorities’ fee requirements. 

By including this new language in the 

SIP, Ecology does not propose to 

incorporate the referenced chapter 173– 

455 WAC in the SIP. 

EPA analysis: The EPA approved the 

Washington title V permitting program 

on August 13, 2001, with an effective 

date of September 12, 2001 (66 FR 

42439). With respect to New Source 

Review, the EPA finalized approval of 

Ecology’s update to WAC 173–400–111 

in the SIP on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 

59653). In this action, the EPA is 

proposing to approve WAC 173–400– 

111(3)(i) submitted by Ecology on 

September 22, 2014. With the proposed 

inclusion of WAC 173–400–111(3)(i) in 

the SIP, the EPA is proposing to 

conclude that Washington will satisfy 

its obligations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

September 22, 2014, submittal from 

Washington to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the requirements of sections 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 

2006, and 2012. Specifically, we are 

proposing to find that the current EPAapproved Washington SIP meets the 

following CAA section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 1997, 

2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), 

(C)—except for those elements covered 

by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II) (prong 4)— 

except for those elements covered by the 

regional haze 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). We are also proposing 

inclusion of WAC 173–400–111(3)(i) in 

the SIP with respect to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) requirements. 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 

with respect to the PSD and regional 

haze FIPs. The EPA, likewise, 

anticipates no additional FIP 

responsibilities for PSD and regional 

haze as a result of this proposed partial 

disapproval. Interstate transport 

requirements with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

and 2012 PM2.5 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land in 

Washington except as specifically noted 

below and is also not approved to apply 

in any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Washington’s SIP is approved to apply 

on non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 8, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24723 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0123; FRL–9917–41- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Amendments to Gasoline Vapor 

Recovery Requirements for Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency on January 17, 2014, 

concerning the state’s gasoline vapor 

recovery requirements. The SIP revision 

phases out the Stage II vapor recovery 

program requirements in the Illinois 

portion of the Chicago ozone 

nonattainment area as a component of 

the Illinois ozone SIP. The SIP revision 

also includes amendments to the state’s 

permitting regulations applicable to 

storage tanks and fuel dispensing, 

including repealing the Stage I vapor 

recovery registration provisions due to 

overlapping Federal notification 

requirements and state tracking systems 

for gasoline dispensing operations. 

Finally, the SIP revision includes other 

clarifying and clean-up amendments at 

35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 201, 218, and 

219. The submittal also includes a 

demonstration under section 110(l) of 

the Clean Air Act that shows there are 

no emissions impacts associated with 

the removal of the program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0123, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source 

Program Manager, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061, 

acevedo.francisco@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 24, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24464 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0529; FRL–9915–52– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, California Air 

Resources Board—Consumer 

Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the California Air Resources 

Board Portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

consumer products. We are proposing to 

approve a local rule that regulates these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATE: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by November 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0529, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS