Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Infrastructure Requirements for the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 62368-62378 [2014-24723]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62368
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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’’
1 In the EPA’s 2012 PM
2.5 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.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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 24hour 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
2 William 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.
3 William 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 24hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ Memorandum to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X,
September 25, 2009.
4 Stephen 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
• 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.
5 Washington’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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62369
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
6 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
Continued
17OCP1
62370
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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.
7 See, 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)).
8 The 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
9 See, 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).
10 On 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
11 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of
new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new
indicator species for the new NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
12 The 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.
14 The 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62371
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
15 By 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.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
62372
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
16 For 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).
17 The 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
18 See, 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
regulatory provisions contained in the
SIP under WAC 173–400–230
Regulatory Actions and WAC 173–400–
240 Criminal Penalties, as well as the
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality
enforcement-related statutory provisions
Monitoring/Data System
of Chapter 70.94 RCW, Washington
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires
Clean Air Act. All of these enforcement
SIPs to include provisions to provide for provisions remain unchanged since the
establishment and operation of ambient EPA’s last review and approval of the
air quality monitors, collecting and
1997 ozone infrastructure submittal.
analyzing ambient air quality data, and
Washington also cites the EPA-approved
making these data available to the EPA
minor source permitting program
upon request.
contained in the SIP under WAC 173–
State submittal: Washington derives
400–110 New Source Review and WAC
its general statutory authority to
173–400–113 Requirements for New
establish and operate ambient air
Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable
quality monitors from RCW 70.94.331(5) Areas. Specifically, WAC 173–400–
Powers and Duties of Department which 113(3) ensures that, ‘‘[a]llowable
states, ‘‘[t]he department is directed to
emissions from the proposed new
conduct or cause to be conducted a
source or modification will not delay
continuous surveillance program to
the attainment date for an area not in
monitor the quality of the ambient
attainment nor cause or contribute to a
atmosphere as to concentrations and
violation of any ambient air quality
movements of air contaminants and
standard.’’ 20 Washington also notes that
conduct or cause to be conducted a
any major PSD sources in attainment or
program to determine the quantity of
unclassifiable areas would be addressed
emissions to the atmosphere.’’
under the existing EPA FIP codified in
Regulatory authority is contained in the 40 CFR 52.2497.
EPA-approved SIP provisions of WAC
EPA analysis: With regard to the
173–400–105 Records, Monitoring and
requirement to have a program
Reporting.
providing for enforcement of all SIP
EPA analysis: Washington submitted
measures, we are proposing to find that
a comprehensive air quality monitoring
the Washington provisions provide the
plan to meet the requirements of 40 CFR state with authority to enforce the air
part 58, which the EPA approved on
quality regulations, permits, and orders
April 15, 1981. This air quality
promulgated pursuant to the SIP.
monitoring plan has been updated
Washington may issue emergency
annually, with the most recent submittal orders to reduce or discontinue
dated May 2013. The EPA approved the emission of air contaminants where air
plan on March 10, 2014. The letter
emissions cause or contribute to
approving the plan is included in the
imminent and substantial endangerment
docket for this action. Most notable is
under the EPA-approved provisions of
the establishment of a near roadway
WAC 173–435 Emergency Episode Plan.
monitoring site in the Seattle-TacomaEnforcement cases may be referred to
Bellevue Metropolitan Statistical Area,
the State Attorney General’s Office for
in accordance with the EPA’s most
civil or criminal enforcement.
recent ambient monitoring requirements Therefore, we are proposing to approve
for PM2.5 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). the Washington SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
Washington provides air quality
110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for
monitoring data summaries and a map
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
of the state air monitoring network at:
To generally meet the requirements of
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard to
Default.htm. Therefore, we are
the regulation of construction of new or
proposing to approve the Washington
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA modified stationary sources, a state is
required to have PSD, nonattainment
section 110(a)(2)(B) for the PM2.5
NSR, and minor NSR permitting
NAAQS.
programs adequate to implement the
110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement
PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained above, in
of Control Measures
20 On October 3, 2014, following the State’s
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires
infrastructure submission, the EPA approved
states to include a program providing
updates to portions of WAC 173–400, including
for enforcement of all SIP measures and regulations related to minor new source review (79
the regulation of construction of new or FR 59653). The EPA’s final approval of the updates
modified stationary sources, including a to WAC 173–400 is not effective until November 3,
2014. In the interim, the EPA notes that both the
program to meet PSD and
version of WAC 173–400 currently approved in the
nonattainment NSR requirements.
SIP (effective June 2, 1995) and the recent updates
State submittal: The Washington
(effective November 3, 2014) provide broad, general
authority to maintain and protect the NAAQS.
submittal refers to EPA-approved
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the PM2.5
NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62373
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
21 On 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.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 sub-
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62375
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
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
62376
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
(https://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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62377
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
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
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–9917–41Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois;
Amendments to Gasoline Vapor
Recovery Requirements for Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62368-62378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
([micro]/m \3\) to 35 [micro]/m \3\, and retaining the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]/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 [micro]/m
\3\ (78 FR 3086, published January 15, 2013).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 [mu]g/m
\3\ and a 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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''
[[Page 62369]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ William 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.
\3\ William 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.
\4\ Stephen 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Washington'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 62370]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, 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)).
\8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP
submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, 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).
\10\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 62371]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The 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.
\14\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SIP-approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ By 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 62372]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For 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).
\17\ The 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).
\18\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 62373]]
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Darrington 24-hour design value (DV) = 27 [micro]/m\3\,
annual DV = 6.8 [micro]/m\3\; Marysville 24-hour DV = 26 [micro]/
m\3\, annual DV = 7.7 [micro]/m\3\; Tacoma 24-hour DV = 32 [micro]/
m\3\, annual DV = 7.8 [micro]/m\3\; and Yakima 24-hour DV = 33
[micro]/m\3\, annual DV = 9.1 [micro]/m.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-Tacoma-
Bellevue 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 62374]]
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 sub-
element is satisfied when new major sources and major modifications in
Washington are subject to a SIP-approved 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 sub-element 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 SIP-approved
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 sub-
[[Page 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 https://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
[[Page 62376]]
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-to-date WAQA information on-line at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm.
EPA analysis: Under the EPA-approved 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
(https://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
[[Page 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 EPA-approved
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
[[Page 62378]]
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
