73508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, 

weekdays, at the above address. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

through TTY by calling the Federal 

Relay Service, toll free, at 800–877– 

8339. Copies of all comments submitted 

are available for inspection and 

downloading at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alicia Anderson, Grant Policy and 

Management Division, Office of 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 6142, Washington, DC 20410– 

7000; telephone number 202–708–3000 

(this is not a toll-free number). Hearingand speech-impaired persons may 

access this number through TTY by 

calling the Federal Relay Service, toll 

free, at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 7, 2014, at 79 FR 60590, HUD 

published a proposed rule that would 

implement amendments made by the 

Section 202 Supportive Housing for the 

Elderly Act of 2010 (Section 202 Act of 

2010) and the Frank Melville 

Supportive Housing Investment Act of 

2010 (Melville Act) to the authorizing 

statutes for HUD’s supportive housing 

for the elderly program, known as the 

Section 202 program, and the 

supportive housing for persons with 

disabilities program, known as the 

Section 811 program. These two statutes 

were enacted on January 4, 2011, and 

made important reforms to the Section 

202 and Section 811 programs, several 

of which have already been 

implemented through separate 

issuances, as discussed in the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this proposed rule. In addition to 

proposing regulations to implement 

reforms of these two statutes, this 

proposed rule would implement several 

other changes to align with the 

amendments made by the January 4, 

2011, statutes, and streamline the 

Section 202 and Section 811 programs 

to better provide supportive housing for 

the elderly and persons with 

disabilities. 

HUD’s proposed rule would establish 

the requirements and procedures for the 

use of new project rental assistance for 

supportive housing for persons with 

disabilities; the implementation of an 

enhanced project rental assistance 

contract; allowance of a set-aside for a 

number of units for elderly individuals 

with functional limitations or other 

category of elderly persons as defined in 

the notice of funding availability 

(NOFA); make significant changes for 

the prepayment of certain loans for 

supportive housing for the elderly; 

implement a new form of rental 

assistance called Senior Preservation 

Rental Assistance Contracts (SPRACs); 

modernize the capital advance for 

supportive housing for persons with 

disabilities; and provide grant assistance 

for applicants without sufficient capital 

to prepare a site for a funding 

competition. This rulemaking also 

proposes to establish the regulations for 

the Service Coordinators in Multifamily 

Housing program and the Assisted 

Living Conversion program. 

As noted in the Summary of this 

notice, HUD provided a 60-day public 

comment period that closed on 

December 8, 2014. As HUD also noted, 

the response to HUD’s solicitation of 

public comment was lower than what 

HUD expected, and HUD is therefore 

reopening the public comment period 

and seeking comments through January 

15, 2015. 

Dated: December 5, 2014. 

Benjamin T. Metcalf, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily 

Housing. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29078 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5576–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0186; FRL–9920–20– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Preconstruction 

Requirements—Nonattainment New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

an April 5, 2013 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 

District Department of the Environment 

(DDOE) for the District of Columbia 

(DC). This revision pertains to DC’s 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) program, notably provisions for 

Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 

and preconstruction permitting 

requirements for major sources of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0186 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: kreider.andrew@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0186, 

Andrew Kreider, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Permits and Air 

Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0186. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73509 

1See, ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Reconsideration;’’ (68 FR 63021). 

2 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). 

3 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

4The court’s opinion did not specifically address 

the point that implementation under subpart 4 

requirements would still require consideration of 

subpart 1 requirements, to the extent that subpart 

4 did not override subpart 1. EPA assumes that the 

court presumed that EPA would address this issue 

of potential overlap between subpart 1 and subpart 

4 requirements in subsequent actions. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th floor, Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 5, 2013, DDOE submitted a 

SIP revision request to EPA. This SIP 

revision request, if approved, would 

revise DC’s currently approved 

nonattainment NSR program by 

amending Chapters 1 and 2 under Title 

20 of DC Municipal Regulations 

(DCMR). Generally, the revisions 

incorporate provisions related to two 

Federal rulemaking actions: The 2002 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NSR): 

Baseline Emissions Determination, 

Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, 

Plantwide Applicability Limitations, 

Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects’’ 

(2002 NSR Rules; 67 FR 80186); and the 

2008 ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule; 73 FR 28321). 

The 2002 NSR Reform rules made 

changes to five areas of the NSR 

programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: 

(1) Provided a new method for 

determining baseline actual emissions; 

(2) adopted an actual-to-projected-actual 

methodology for determining whether a 

major modification has occurred; (3) 

allowed major stationary sources to 

comply with a Plantwide Applicability 

Limit (PAL) to avoid having a 

significant emissions increase that 

triggers the requirements of the major 

NSR program; (4) provided a new 

applicability provision for emissions 

units that are designated clean units; 

and (5) excluded pollution control 

projects (PCPs) from the definition of 

‘‘physical change or change in the 

method of operation.’’ On November 7, 

2003, EPA published a notice of final 

action on its reconsideration of the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules,1 which added a 

definition for ‘‘replacement unit’’ and 

clarified an issue regarding PALs. For 

additional information on the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, see EPA’s December 31, 

2002 final rulemaking action entitled: 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NSR): 

Baseline Emissions Determination, 

Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, 

Plantwide Applicability Limitations, 

Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects’’ 

(67 FR 80186), the 2003 final 

reconsideration: ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Reconsideration’’ (68 FR 63021), 

and http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

were finalized and effective (March 3, 

2003), industry, state, and 

environmental petitioners challenged 

numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, along with portions of 

EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, 

August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) 

issued a decision on the challenges to 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New York 

v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (New York 

I). 

In summary, the D.C. Circuit vacated 

portions of the rules pertaining to clean 

units and PCPs, remanded a portion of 

the rules regarding recordkeeping and 

the term ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ found 

in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 

51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did 

not comment on the other provisions 

included as part of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 

32526), EPA took final action to revise 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove 

from federal law all provisions 

pertaining to clean units and the PCP 

exemption that were vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit. 

The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as 

the 2007 ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule)),2 was also the 

subject of litigation before the D.C. 

Circuit in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA.3 On January 4, 2013, 

the court remanded to EPA both the 

2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The court 

found that in both rules EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

solely pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of title I of the CAA (subpart 

1), rather than pursuant to the 

additional implementation provisions 

specific to particulate matter in subpart 

4 of part D of title I (subpart 4).4 As a 

result, the court remanded both rules 

and instructed EPA ‘‘to re-promulgate 

these rules pursuant to subpart 4 

consistent with this opinion.’’ Although 

the D.C. Circuit declined to establish a 

deadline for EPA’s response, EPA 

intends to respond promptly to the 

court’s remand and to promulgate new 

generally applicable implementation 

regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

subpart 4. In the interim, however, 

states and EPA still need to proceed 

with implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in a timely and effective 

fashion in order to meet statutory 

obligations under the CAA and to assure 

the protection of public health intended 

by those NAAQS. In a June 2, 2014 final 

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions 

for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Final 

Rule,’’ (79 FR 31566), EPA identified the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. That 

rulemaking also established a December 

31, 2014 deadline for the submission of 

any additional attainment related SIP 

elements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 

4. 

Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5

final rule authorized states to adopt 

provisions in their nonattainment NSR 

rules that would allow major stationary 

sources and major modifications 

locating in areas designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset 

emissions increases of direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors with 

reductions of either direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors in 

accordance with offset ratios contained 

in the approved SIP for the applicable 

nonattainment area. The inclusion, in 

whole or in part, of the interpollutant 

offset provisions for PM2.5 is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

discretionary on the part of the states. In 

the preamble to the 2008 final rule, EPA 

included preferred or presumptive offset 

ratios, applicable to specific PM2.5

precursors that states may adopt in 

conjunction with the new interpollutant 

offset provisions for PM2.5, and for 

which the state could rely on the EPA’s 

technical work to demonstrate the 

adequacy of the ratios for use in any 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. Alternatively, 

the preamble indicated that states may 

adopt their own ratios, subject to the 

EPA’s approval, that would have to be 

substantiated by modeling or other 

technical demonstrations of the net air 

quality benefit for ambient PM2.5

concentrations. The preferred ratios 

were subsequently the subject of a 

petition for reconsideration, which the 

Administrator granted. EPA continues 

to support the basic policy that sources 

may offset increases in emissions of 

direct PM2.5 or of any PM2.5 precursor in 

a PM2.5 nonattainment area with actual 

emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 or 

PM2.5 precursors in accordance with 

offset ratios as approved in the SIP for 

the applicable nonattainment area. 

However, we no longer consider the 

preferred ratios set forth in the preamble 

to the 2008 final rule for PM2.5 NSR 

implementation to be presumptively 

approvable. Instead, any ratio involving 

PM2.5 precursors adopted by the state for 

use in the interpollutant offset program 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that shows the net air 

quality benefits of such ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 

will be applied. 

A Technical Support Document (TSD) 

is included in the docket for this action, 

and contains additional detail regarding 

the history and background of the 

Federal counterparts to the regulations 

included in DDOE’s submittal, which 

will not be restated here. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Generally, the revision submitted by 

DDOE involves amendments to sections 

199.1 (Definitions and Abbreviations) 

and 200 (General Permit Requirements), 

repealing and replacing section 204 

(Permit Requirements for Sources 

Affecting Non-attainment Areas), 

repealing section 206 (Notice and 

Comment Prior to Permit Issuance), 

adding sections 208 (General and Nonattainment Areas) and 210 (Notice and 

Comment Prior to Permit Issuance), and 

adding specific definitions to section 

299 (Definitions and Abbreviations). 

Additionally, several non-substantive, 

clarifying and organizational revisions 

were submitted. Following is EPA’s 

rationale for the proposed approval. 

A. NSR Reform 

DDOE has not adopted the full suite 

of NSR reform regulations, opting 

instead for a ‘‘hybrid’’ approach, 

tailored to the particular air quality 

challenges and source universe in DC. 

The vast majority of sources in DC are 

institutional (e.g. hospitals, 

universities). Because it focused on 

large industrial source categories, much 

of the analysis performed by EPA in 

support of the 2002 Reform Rules may 

not be applicable in DC. However, as 

EPA stated in the preamble of the 2002 

NSR Rules: ‘‘. . . state and local 

jurisdictions have significant freedom to 

customize their NSR programs. Ever 

since the current NSR regulations were 

adopted in 1980, we have taken the 

position that States may meet the 

requirements of part 51 ‘with different 

but equivalent regulations. 45 FR 

52676.’ Several States have, indeed, 

implemented programs that work every 

bit as well as our own base programs, 

yet depart substantially from the basic 

framework established in our rules 

. . .’’ (See 67 FR 80241). Therefore, EPA 

is able to approve state SIP revisions 

that are at least as stringent as the 

Federal rules even if they contain 

provisions that differ. EPA’s proposed 

approval in this case, therefore, hinges 

upon the determination that the 

proposed revisions are at least 

equivalent to the Federal program and 

do not constitute an impermissible 

backslide under the CAA. 

1. Calculating Emissions Increases 

In order for a physical change or 

change in the method of operation at a 

major stationary source to be considered 

a major modification and trigger NSR 

requirements, the net emissions increase 

resulting from the project at hand must 

exceed the significance threshold(s) for 

one or more pollutant. One of the 

primary components of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules was a change in the 

regulations governing how to quantify 

the emissions increase relative to the 

pre-project baseline. Federal regulations 

allow the use of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions’’ (BAE) to determine a 

facility’s emissions prior to the change. 

For a facility that is not an electric 

generating unit (EGU), BAE is calculated 

by selecting any 24-month period 

during the preceding ten years and 

computing the average emission rate. 

The ‘‘look-back’’ period for EGUs is five 

years. DDOE has not adopted the 

Federal regulations relating to the 

calculation of BAE; rather, DDOE has 

retained the pre-NSR reform definition 

of ‘‘actual emissions.’’ Actual emissions 

are calculated by averaging the 

emissions in the 24-month period 

immediately preceding the project at 

hand. The revisions to the definition of 

‘‘actual emissions’’ submitted by DDOE 

do not substantively change the lookback period for calculating actual 

emissions. Rather, they clarify that 

DDOE may allow the use of a different 

time period within the last five years if 

a demonstration can be made that it is 

more representative of the facility’s 

operations. Additionally, the revisions 

require that the same 24-month period 

be used for all pollutants. These 

proposed revisions differ from the 

Federal regulations which allow 

different 24-month periods to be used 

for different pollutants. 

Once the baseline has been 

established, it is necessary to calculate 

the increase resulting from the project 

relative to that baseline. Federal 

regulations allow a source to use 

‘‘projected actual emissions’’ (PAE) 

which predict future emissions, based 

on several factors including business 

projections. PAE also allows a source to 

exclude from consideration those 

emissions which could legally and 

physically have been emitted prior to 

the modification. DDOE’s regulations 

(and indeed EPA’s pre-reform 

regulations) require sources to use the 

full potential to emit (PTE) to calculate 

the increase, and do not allow for the 

exclusion of emissions that the facility 

could have accommodated prior to the 

change. This is codified in the 

definition of ‘‘net emissions increase,’’ 

previously at 20 DCMR section 199.1. In 

the proposed revisions, that definition is 

re-codified under section 299.1, 

however the substantive requirements 

are not changed. It is also important to 

note that, because DDOE’s regulations 

do not allow for the use of PAE, and 

because every source wishing to 

construct or modify in DC must receive 

authorization from DDOE prior to doing 

so, the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

provisions of NSR Reform do not apply. 

2. Plantwide Applicability Limits 

(PALs) 

The most notable component of the 

2002 NSR Reform rules being adopted 

by DC are provisions for DDOE to issue 

Plantwide Applicability Limits, or 

PALs. A PAL is a facility-wide, 

pollutant specific limit that allows 

sources to make modifications without 

triggering major NSR requirements, as 

long as the plantwide emissions of that 

pollutant do not exceed the PAL. EPA’s 

rationale for adopting PALs in 2002 was 

that they would encourage the 

installation of newer, more efficient, 

and lower emitting equipment by 

providing sources the flexibility to do so 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73511 

without triggering NSR requirements. 

For sources, the trade-off for this 

flexibility is a number of enhanced 

monitoring requirements. 

Under Federal regulations, a PAL is 

set by calculating the facility’s BAE of 

the PAL pollutant (as described above), 

and adding the significance level for 

that pollutant, as defined by 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(x)(A). Federal PALs have a 

term of ten years. The PAL provisions 

being proposed by DC for approval into 

the SIP differ from the Federal PAL 

regulations in two ways. First, PALs 

issued by DDOE have a five year term, 

rather than a ten year term. Second, as 

previously discussed, DDOE has not 

adopted BAE provisions for calculating 

the pre-project emissions baseline. 

Therefore, in order to establish the PAL, 

the significance level for the PAL 

pollutant is added to the pre-NSR 

Reform definition of ‘‘actual emissions.’’ 

B. PM2.5

The PM2.5 provisions submitted by 

DDOE for approval into the DC SIP 

largely mirror the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

which: (1) Required NSR permits to 

address directly emitted PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants; (2) established 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); (3) 

established PM2.5 emission offsets; and 

(4) required states to account for gases 

that condense to form particles 

(condensables) in PM2.5 emission limits. 

Additionally, DDOE’s submittal 

includes provisions allowing sources to 

offset emissions increases of direct 

PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors 

with reductions of either direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors in 

accordance with offset ratios contained 

in the approved SIP for the applicable 

nonattainment area. DDOE’s submittal 

does not, however, contain the 

presumptive offset trading ratios from 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that were 

subject to the petition for 

reconsideration. As previously 

discussed, while the presumptively 

approvable interpollutant trading ratios 

from the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule are no 

longer supported, EPA does continue to 

support the policy allowing an 

interpollutant offset program. However, 

in order for sources in DC to utilize such 

a program, DDOE must develop and 

submit to EPA for approval, a technical 

demonstration justifying the ratios to be 

used, and showing the net air quality 

benefits of such ratio for the PM2.5

nonattainment area in which it will be 

applied. 

EPA is in the process of evaluating the 

requirements of subpart 4 as they 

pertain to nonattainment NSR. In 

particular, subpart 4 includes section 

189(e) of the CAA, which requires the 

control of major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors (and hence under the 

court decision, PM2.5 precursors) 

‘‘except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

which exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

The evaluation of which precursors 

need to be controlled to achieve the 

standard in a particular area is typically 

conducted in the context of the state’s 

preparing and the EPA’s reviewing of an 

area’s attainment plan SIP. In this case, 

there was previously only one 

designated PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

the DC portion of the Washington, DCMD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to this nonattainment 

area, DDOE submitted an attainment 

plan on April 2, 2008. On January 12, 

2009, EPA finalized a clean data 

determination for the area, (74 FR 1146), 

which suspended the requirement for 

DDOE to submit, among other things, an 

attainment plan SIP for the area. 

Accordingly, on February 6, 2012, 

DDOE withdrew the attainment plan 

SIP, and it is no longer before EPA. 

Moreover, on October 6, 2014, (FR 

60081), EPA took final action to 

redesignate the Metro-Washington area 

to attainment. This redesignation 

absolves the District of any further 

obligation to comply with the subpart 4 

requirements for nonattainment NSR as 

to this area unless and until there is a 

future designation of nonattainment for 

a PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not 

evaluating the April 5, 2013 submittal 

for the purposes of determining 

compliance with the subpart 4 

requirements. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that with the proposed 

amendments to the DC Municipal 

Regulations, DDOE’s nonattainment 

NSR program is equivalent to, and at 

least as stringent as Federal regulations. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the DC SIP revision which was 

submitted on April 5, 2013. EPA is not 

acting on DDOE’s submittal for purposes 

of determining compliance with the 

subpart 4 requirements relating to PM2.5. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

relating to the District of Columbia’s 

nonattainment NSR program, does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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

Dated: November 28, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29128 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0821; FRL–9920–35– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

New Mexico; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

and Repeal of Cement Kilns Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of New 

Mexico addressing the applicable 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110 for the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for Lead (Pb), which requires 

that each state adopt and submit a SIP 

to support implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

new or revised NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

Additionally, we are proposing to 

approve a revision to the New Mexico 

SIP that repeals an existing state-wide 

cement kilns rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R06–OAR–2011–0821, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Mr. Terry Johnson at 

johnson.terry@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Deliveries 

are accepted only between the hours of 

8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on 

legal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011– 

0821. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The files will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Terry Johnson, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–2154; fax number 

214–665–6762; email address 

johnson.terry@epamail.epa.gov for 

information concerning the 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS, or Mr. Alan Shar, telephone 

(214) 665–6691, email address 

shar.alan@epa.gov for information 

concerning the revision to the SIP to 

repeal the cement kilns rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Applicable Elements of Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) Related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

III. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of New Mexico’s 2008 

Pb NAAQS Infrastructure Submission 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of New Mexico’s SIP 

Revision Repealing the Cement Kilns 

Rule 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA is proposing action on a 

September 9, 2011 SIP submission from 

New Mexico that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states 

to make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 42 

U.S.C. Sec. 7410(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS