27102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule establishes a 

safety zone for waters of the 

Monongahela River, from mile 68.0 to 

68.8. This rule is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

34(g) of figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction an environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1; 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 2. Temporary § 165.T08–0284 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T08–0284 Safety Zone, Monongahela 

River, Pittsburgh, PA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the 

Monongahela River, mile 68.0 to 68.8, 

extending the entire width of the 

waterway. 

(b) Effective date. This rule is 

effective, and will be enforced, from 

9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June 12, 

2015 and June 13, 2015. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a 

designated representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Pittsburgh or a designated 

representative. The Captain of the 

Pittsburgh representative may be 

contacted at 412–221–0807. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or their 

designated representative. Designated 

Captain of the Port representatives 

include United States Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a 

designated representative will inform 

the public through broadcast notices to 

mariners of the enforcement period for 

the safety zone as well as any changes 

in the planned schedule. 

Dated: April 27, 2015. 

L.N. Weaver, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Pittsburgh. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11442 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0744; FRL–9927–45– 

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 (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving 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 its SIP 

to ensure that it meets the infrastructure 

requirements necessary to implement 

the new or revised NAAQS. On 

September 22, 2014, Washington made 

a SIP submission to establish that the 

Washington SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5

NAAQS, except for certain elements 

related to the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting program 

currently addressed under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP), certain 

elements of the regional haze program 

currently addressed under a FIP, and 

specific requirements related to 

interstate transport which the State will 

address in a separate submittal. The 

EPA has determined that Washington’s 

SIP is adequate for purposes of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of the 

CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS, with the 

exceptions noted above. The SIP 

deficiencies related to PSD permitting 

and regional haze, however, have 

already 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: This final rule is effective June 

11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0744. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air 

Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The 

EPA requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27103 

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/ 

m3 and a 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3. 

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. 

5Following the EPA’s October 17, 2014 proposed 

action the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the EPA subsequently proposed to partially approve 

Washington’s PSD permitting program while 

retaining a FIP for certain facilities, emission 

categories, and geographic areas (80 FR 838, January 

7, 2015). The EPA’s action on Washington’s PSD 

SIP submission does not affect the findings of this 

final infrastructure action because a FIP or partial 

FIP for PSD continues to remain in place. 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information please contact Jeff Hunt at 

(206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by 

using the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials ‘‘Act’’ or 

‘‘CAA’’ mean or refer to the Clean Air 

Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The words ‘‘EPA’’, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or 

‘‘our’’ mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials ‘‘SIP’’ mean or refer 

to State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words ‘‘Washington’’ and 

‘‘State’’ mean the State of Washington. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

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/m3) to 35 

m/m3, and retaining the annual PM2.5

standard at 15 m/m3 (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/m3 (78 FR 3086, published 

January 15, 2013).1

States must make SIP submissions 

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’’ 

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 

applicable CAA section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, states may make a SIP 

submission to EPA certifying how the 

existing SIP meets applicable 

requirements. 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 

proposal for this action (79 FR 62368, 

October 17, 2014).5

II. Response to Comments 

The EPA received two sets of 

comments on our proposal. 

Commenter #1: The commenter raised 

several issues related to wood smoke. 

First, the commenter thanked the EPA 

for our involvement in addressing wood 

smoke health risks in Washington State. 

Second, the commenter expressed 

disappointment with the Washington 

State Legislature for not taking seriously 

the toxicity and multiple health hazards 

of wood smoke. Third, the commenter 

requested that the EPA establish 

filtration controls on wood smoke 

emissions from restaurants and food 

trucks, such as pizza and barbeque 

establishments. Fourth, the commenter 

noted several apartment buildings in the 

Seattle area that have uncertified wood 

burning devices and requested a date for 

removal or upgrade of the existing 

devices. 

Response #1: The EPA appreciates the 

commenter’s general concerns with 

respect to wood smoke. However, the 

commenter raises issues that are outside 

the scope of an action related to 

infrastructure SIP requirements. In this 

context, the EPA is merely evaluating 

the State’s September 22, 2014, 

submission intended to establish that 

the Washington SIP meets the basic 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In this final 

action, the EPA is determining that the 

State has met those requirements, 

except for certain elements related to 

the PSD and regional haze FIPs, and 

specific requirements related to 

interstate transport which the state will 

address in a separate submission. The 

points raised, and requests made, by the 

commenter are thus not germane to this 

specific rulemaking action. 

The EPA notes that there have been 

improvements related to wood smoke in 

Washington through other substantive 

actions. The EPA’s involvement in 

addressing wood smoke health risks in 

SIP provisions is driven by our CAA 

statutory authorities and 

responsibilities. Under CAA section 

109, the EPA sets NAAQS for six criteria 

pollutants, including particulate matter. 

These NAAQS are set using the best 

available scientific and health studies, 

with a focus on protecting sensitive 

populations such as asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly (78 FR 3086, 

January 15, 2013). Under part D of the 

CAA, Plan Requirements for 

Nonattainment Areas, the states have an 

obligation to develop and submit SIP 

provisions that provide for attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS in 

designated nonattainment areas. The 

EPA has the authority and responsibility 

to review this type of SIP submission to 

assure that they meet applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Through this process, the EPA recently 

worked with the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) and 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) 

to address PM2.5 nonattainment in the 

Tacoma area (74 FR 58688, November 

13, 2009). This resulted in more 

stringent statutory and regulatory 

provisions related to residential wood 

stoves at both the local level (78 FR 

32131, May 29, 2013) and the state level 

(79 FR 26628, May 9, 2014). Currently 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

27104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/15f53

e4f3ac23a8088256b6e00039415/df888e71a7de53

a388257bef0077c3b8!OpenDocument. 

7http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/reportenvironmental-violations. 

8Standards of Performance for New Residential 

Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters 

and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters (80 FR 13672, March 16, 2015). 9Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Washington; Redesignation 

to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County 

Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated 

Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard (80 FR 7347, February 

10, 2015). 

10 205_supporting materials_AMP 350MX 88101 

WA 2006–13 14Nov14 

all areas in Washington State are 

meeting the NAAQS, including the 

Tacoma area (77 FR 53772, September 4, 

2012). 

The commenter also requested EPA 

intervention in regulating wood smoke 

emissions from restaurants and food 

trucks, such as pizza and barbeque retail 

establishments. Currently the EPA has 

not promulgated Federal emission 

limitations or control technologies 

specific to food preparation at 

restaurants and other retail food 

establishments; nor is the EPA seeking 

comment on this issue at this time. If 

necessary for purposes of attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS, it may 

be necessary for states to control 

emissions from such sources in SIP 

provisions. However, the EPA would 

typically expect such actions to occur in 

the context of the nonattainment plan 

requirements of CAA sections 172 and 

189 rather than the general 

infrastructure provisions of CAA section 

110. Given that all areas in Washington 

State are currently attaining the PM2.5

NAAQS, however, there appears to be 

no need for such regulations for these 

sources at this time. To the extent that 

particulate matter emissions from retail 

food establishments could trigger air 

permitting obligations, these would be 

addressed under the EPA’s requirements 

for state minor source permitting 

programs under 40 CFR 51.160 through 

51.164 (larger commercial or industrial 

food preparation facilities could be 

subject to other air permitting 

requirements). The EPA’s minor source 

permitting requirements generally give 

states and local authorities discretion to 

regulate sources in ways that most 

effectively address pollution problems 

in that area. In the case of PSCAA, with 

jurisdiction in the Seattle area, the EPA 

approved minor source permitting rules 

that exclude ‘‘restaurants and other 

retail food-preparing establishments’’ 

under PSCAA Regulation I—section 

6.03(b)(13).6 To the extent that 

restaurants and food trucks may violate 

other regulatory provisions of the SIP, 

such as the EPA-approved opacity limits 

of PSCAA Regulation I—section 9.03, 

the EPA provides a citizen hotline for 

possible Federal oversight and 

enforcement.7

Lastly, the commenter alleged that 

nearby Seattle apartment buildings are 

using uncertified wood burning devices 

and requested that a date be set for 

removal or upgrade of the devices. This 

comment is also one that falls outside of 

the scope of the current action, where 

the EPA is finalizing its determination 

that Washington’s SIP satisfies the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) (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). 

Additionally, Federal action is being 

taken separately to address emissions 

from wood burning stoves. On March 

16, 2015, the EPA finalized updated 

Federal standards for residential wood 

burning devices.8 The EPA’s final 

rulemaking explicitly stated that it 

would not ban the use of uncertified 

devices that are already in existing 

homes. In this respect, Washington’s 

statutes and regulations are already 

more stringent than the Federal 

requirements. Under Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC) 173–433– 

155 Criteria for Prohibiting Solid Fuel 

Burning Devices that are not Certified, 

Ecology or a local clean air agency may 

prohibit uncertified solid fuel burning 

devices in a nonattainment area or an 

area with an approved PM2.5

maintenance plan, if certain criteria are 

met. Beginning in 2015, this provision 

will apply to the Tacoma PM2.5 area as 

a maintenance plan requirement.9

However the commenter’s request to 

expand the ban on uncertified solid fuel 

devices in other geographic areas of the 

State is outside the scope of this current 

rulemaking action which is limited to 

the consideration of the adequacy of 

Washington’s SIP submission with 

respect to the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA. 

Commenter #2: The commenter states 

that the EPA cannot approve 

Washington’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) because the emergency 

episode plan (contingency plan) 

contained in WAC 173–435 does not 

specify a significant harm level or action 

levels for PM2.5. The commenter also 

states that the sampling procedures, 

equipment, and methods contained in 

the contingency plan (WAC 173–435– 

070) were written with coarse 

particulate (PM10) in mind and need to 

be updated to reflect PM2.5. Lastly, the 

commenter notes that Washington’s 

contingency plan provisions contain no 

significant harm level or updated 

sampling, monitoring, and equipment 

provisions for lead (Pb). 

Response #2: The EPA’s September 

2013 infrastructure guidance (2013 

guidance) makes recommendations to 

states for how to meet the two 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G): 

(the requirement to have state 

emergency episode authority 

comparable to CAA section 303, and the 

requirement to have an adequate 

contingency plan for the NAAQS at 

issue). With respect to the first 

requirement, the EPA recommended 

that ‘‘[t]o meet Element G requirements, 

the best practice for an air agency 

submitting an infrastructure SIP would 

be to submit . . . the statutory or 

regulatory provision that provides the 

air agency or official with authority 

comparable to that of the EPA 

Administrator under section 303 . . . 

along with a narrative explanation of 

how they meet the requirements of this 

element.’’ With respect to the second 

requirement, the EPA recommended 

that ‘‘[t]he air agency is also required to 

submit, for approval into the SIP, an 

adequate contingency plan to 

implement the air agency’s emergency 

episode authority. This can be met by 

submitting a contingency plan that 

meets the applicable requirements of 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 

through 51.153) (‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’’) for the 

relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is 

covered by those regulations.’’ 

The regulations at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart H do not address PM2.5

specifically and do not identify a 

significant harm level or priority 

classification levels for PM2.5. However, 

the EPA has recommended to states, 

through the September 25, 2009 

guidance, which remains in effect and is 

referenced in the 2013 guidance, that 

states only need to develop contingency 

plans for any area that has monitored 

and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels 

greater than 140.4 ug/m3 since 2006. 

The EPA has evaluated PM2.5 regulatory 

monitoring data in the State of 

Washington since 2006 and we have 

confirmed that no values greater than 

140.4 ug/m3 have been recorded. Please 

see Monitoring Report in the docket for 

this action.10 In the absence of a 

significant harm level and classification 

levels for PM2.5 the 2013 guidance 

states, ‘‘the EPA believes that the central 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27105 

11Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ 

Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1–10, October 14, 2011. 

components of a contingency plan 

would be to reduce emissions from the 

source(s) at issue (if necessary by 

curtailing operations of . . . PM2.5

sources) and public communication as 

needed.’’ We believe that, based on our 

guidance, Washington’s general 

regulatory authority under WAC 173– 

435 and statutory authority under 

Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 

70.94.710 through 70.94.730, which 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to an imminent and 

substantial endangerment, are 

comparable to CAA section 303. The 

adequacy of these authorities (including 

the sampling, equipment, and methods 

provision identified by the commenter) 

were evaluated as part of the proposed 

action, and we find that they are 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

We note that this action does not 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

comment regarding Pb is outside the 

scope of this action. The EPA previously 

took final action to approve the 

Washington SIP for Pb infrastructure 

requirements on July 23, 2014 (79 FR 

42683). In that action, we relied on the 

EPA’s guidance that, with respect to 

lead, ‘‘[i]f a state believes, based on its 

inventory of lead sources and historic 

ambient monitoring data, that it does 

not need a more specific contingency 

plan beyond having authority to restrain 

any source from causing or contributing 

to an imminent and substantial 

endangerment, then the state could 

provide such a detailed rationale in 

place of a specific contingency plan.’’ 11

For Washington, there were no facilities 

that emitted lead at the emissions 

inventory thresholds, therefore the EPA 

accepted Washington’s demonstration 

that there was not a need for more 

specific contingency planning beyond 

having general authority to restrain 

sources comparable to CAA section 303. 

The EPA made this final determination 

on July 23, 2014, and therefore the 

comment on this issue is not timely for 

consideration regarding the Washington 

Pb SIP, nor relevant to this action which 

is limited in scope to the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is not reopening this issue by 

responding to this commenter 

concerning the Pb NAAQS, and is 

merely providing this response for 

informational purposes. 

We are finalizing our approval of the 

Washington SIP for purposes of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006 

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving the September 

22, 2014, infrastructure SIP submittal 

from Washington demonstrating that the 

SIP meets the applicable requirements 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 

2006, and 2012. Specifically, we have 

determined 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 finalizing our 

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

the SIP with respect to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) permit fee requirements, as 

described in the proposal for this action. 

Also, as discussed in the proposal for 

this action, the EPA anticipates that 

there would be no additional 

consequences to Washington or to 

sources in the State resulting from the 

partial disapproval of portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submission because 

there are already PSD and regional haze 

FIPs in place to address those 

infrastructure SIP requirements. The 

EPA likewise anticipates no additional 

FIP responsibilities for PSD and regional 

haze as a result of this 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. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

As discussed in the proposal for this 

action, the State requested that the EPA 

revise our incorporation by reference of 

WAC 173–400–111(3)(i) in the SIP to 

include the text that ‘‘[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 minor 

change to the incorporation by reference 

of the SIP was made to ensure that all 

infrastructure requirements under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(L) are met. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

Washington Department of Ecology 

regulations contained in WAC 173–400– 

111. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

27106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 provided a consultation 

opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a 

letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA 

did not receive a request for 

consultation. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 13, 2015. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 28, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart WW—Washington 

■ 2. Section 52.2470 is amended by: 

■ a. In Table 2—Additional Regulations 

Approved for Washington Department 

of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction, 

revising paragraph (c) entry 173–400– 

111; 

■ b. In Table 2—Attainment, 

Maintenance, and Other Plans for 

‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements—1997, 2006, and 2012 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Standards’’, adding to paragraph (e) an 

entry at the end of the section with the 

undesignated center heading ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport.’’ 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) DIRECT

JURISDICTION

[Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, 

San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities 

subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–400–700, WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012] 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources 

173–400–111 ................. Processing Notice of Construction Applications 

for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable 

Sources.

12/29/12 5/12/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–400– 

111(3)(h); The part of 

173–400–111(8)(a)(v) 

that says, • ‘‘and 

173–460–040,’’; 173– 

400–111(9). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27107 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements—1997, 

2006, and 2012 Fine 

Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) Standards.

Statewide .............................................................. 9/22/14 5/12/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses 

the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–11343 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[GN Docket No. 13–185; FCC 14–31] 

Commercial Operations in the 1695– 

1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155– 

2180 MHz Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rules; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) announces the effective 

date to the amendment regarding Fixed 

and Mobile allocations for the 2025– 

2110 MHz band to the Federal Table of 

Frequency Allocations. This document 

is consistent with the Commission’s 

Report and Order, Commercial 

Operations in the 1695–1710 MHz, 

1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz 

Bands, stating that it would publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date of this 

amendment. 

DATES: The amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 

published at 79 FR 32366, 32407 (Jun. 

4, 2014) is effective May 12, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Repasi, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, at (202) 418–0768 or 

Ronald.Repasi@fcc.gov or Peter 

Daronco, Broadband Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 

418–7235 or Peter.Daronco@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Report and Order, FCC 14–31, 79 FR 

32366 (Jun. 4, 2014) (correcting 

amendments at 79 FR 59138 (Oct. 1, 

2014) the Commission adopted an 

amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 adding 

Fixed and Mobile allocations for the 

2025–2110 MHz band to the Federal 

Table of Frequency Allocations. The 

FCC determined that this rule change 

would not take effect until the FCC 

announces the effective date in the 

Federal Register, which was dependent 

upon: (1) The auction for 1755–1780 

MHz being able to close under the 

requirements of 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(16)(B) 

(Commission shall not conclude any 

auction of eligible frequencies if total 

cash proceeds attributable to such 

spectrum are less than 110 percent of 

the total estimated Federal relocation or 

sharing costs); and (2) satisfaction of a 

joint certification requirement in section 

1062(b)(1)(B) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. 

See Report and Order, 79 FR 32366, 

32295–96, 32403 paragraphs 209, 213, 

257 (Jun. 4, 2014). 

On January 30, 2015, the Commission 

announced the closing of the AWS–3 

auction (Auction 97), noting that the net 

total winning bids for licenses in the 

paired 1755/2155–80 MHz band 

exceeded the reserve price for the band 

set to satisfy the statutory 110 percent 

provision noted above. See Auction of 

Advanced Wireless Service (AWS–3) 

Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders 

Announced for Auction 97, Public 

Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 630 (WTB 2015). On 

May 4, 2015, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) filed a letter 

enclosing copies of identical letters 

dated January 16, 2015, from the 

Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 

Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff to leaders of the Senate 

and House Committees on Armed 

Services; the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation; 

and the House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, jointly certifying that 

the 2025–2110 MHz band and other 

alternative frequencies specified in the 

letters provide comparable technical 

characteristics to restore essential 

military capability that will be lost as a 

result of the DoD surrendering use of the 

1755–1780 MHz band. See GN Docket 

No. 13–185, Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, from Kathy D. Smith, 

Chief Counsel, NTIA (dated May 4, 

2015) (available online at http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/

view?id=60001030820). Now that the 

two conditions have been satisfied, the 

Commission is publishing a document 

in the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of the amendment to 47 

CFR 2.106 (adopted in FCC 14–31) 

adding Fixed and Mobile allocations for 

the 2025–2110 MHz band to the Federal 

Table of Frequency Allocations. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11352 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES