Air Plan Approval; Washington; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2015 Ozone Standards, 10022-10025 [2021-03034]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10022
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by April 19, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action.
This action pertaining to West
Virginia’s limited maintenance plan for
the Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV area
(Weirton Area), comprising Brooke and
Hancock Counties may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
Applicable geographic area
*
*
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the
West Virginia Portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and
Hancock Counties.
*
*
Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV
Area Comprising Brooke and
Hancock Counties.
[FR Doc. 2021–03027 Filed 2–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0573, FRL–10018–
79–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Washington;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2015 Ozone
Standards
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Whenever the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates a
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Feb 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
State submittal date
12/10/19
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 8, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart XX—West Virginia
2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding the entry
‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Second
Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia
Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton,
OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and
Hancock Counties’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA approval date
*
*
2/18/2021, [insert Federal Register citation].
new or revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Clean
Air Act requires each state to make a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission to establish that its SIP
provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
revised NAAQS. This type of SIP
submission is commonly referred to as
an infrastructure SIP submission. The
EPA is approving the State of
Washington’s September 30, 2019 and
April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as
meeting specific infrastructure
requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective March
22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0573. All
PO 00000
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
*
*
Additional explanation
*
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. 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 is publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov, or
please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability
information.
Jeff
Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101,
at (206) 553–0256, or hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\18FER1.SGM
18FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background Information
On May 26, 2020, the EPA proposed
to approve Washington’s September 30,
2019 and April 3, 2020, SIP submissions
as meeting certain infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
2015 ozone NAAQS (85 FR 31421). The
initial public comment period for this
proposed action ended on June 25,
2020. Due to an administrative error, the
EPA omitted the technical support
document (TSD) relevant to the
proposed action from the docket during
the initial comment period, open from
May 26, 2020 to June 25, 2020. The EPA
corrected the administrative error and
on September 3, 2020, we provided an
additional 30 days for public comment
on the proposed action (85 FR 54960).
The public comment period ended on
October 5, 2020. The EPA received
adverse comments on the proposal.
II. Response to Comments
The EPA received two adverse
comments during the initial comment
period related to our administrative
docket error that left out the TSD
relevant to the proposed action. The
EPA addressed these comments by
including the TSD document in the
docket and providing an additional 30day comment period. The EPA received
one additional comment, unrelated to
our administrative docket error, during
the initial comment period. We have
summarized and responded to the
adverse comment below. The full text of
the submitted comment may be found in
the docket for this action.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Comment—Adequate Resources
Summary—An anonymous
commenter stated that, in its proposed
approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E),
the EPA failed to evaluate adequate
funding and resources necessary to
carry out the functions delegated to the
state and required by the state to carry
out the functions of the SIP. The
commenter asserted that the EPA must
audit Washington’s finances and
accounting to make an affirmative
determination as to whether the state
has the necessary funding and
resources. The anonymous commenter
also stated that the EPA should
affirmatively determine whether
Washington actually has the necessary
personnel to carry out and operate
programs required under the SIP in light
of recent COVID–19 concerns.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Feb 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
Response—CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to
provide necessary assurances that the
state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law
necessary to carry out the SIP during the
five years following the SIP
submission.1 CAA section 110 does not
mandate a specific methodology for the
EPA to evaluate the adequacy of
resources to implement the SIP. See 76
FR 42549 (July 19, 2011), at 42554. The
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
assertion that an audit of the state’s
finances and accounting practices is
required in order to satisfy the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i). The
EPA’s role in evaluating a SIP
submission is to assure that the air
agency’s SIP contains the necessary
structural requirements in order to meet
the requirements of a new or revised
NAAQS. The EPA’s role in approving an
infrastructure SIP submission is to
determine whether the submission
addresses the necessary requirements of
the Act, not to evaluate the way in
which a SIP is being implemented. See
Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas,
902 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2018).
In our proposed action, we identified
Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
70.94 2 as providing the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Director authority to hire personnel to
carry out duties of the department, in
coordination with local clean air
agencies and the Energy Facilities Site
Evaluation Council (funded and
authorized separately under RCW
80.50). According to the Washington
Department of Ecology Budget and
Program Overview 2019–2021, Ecology
has an operating budget of $43.7 million
to perform its air program functions
($10.1 million from federal funds, with
the remainder from state funds and
other permit and fee programs).
Specifically, Washington receives CAA
sections 103 and 105 grant funds from
the EPA and provides state matching
funds necessary to carry out SIP
requirements. As part of our September
3, 2020 reopening of the public
comment period, we supplemented the
docket with the general CAA section
105 program grant supporting materials
for informational purposes, including
1 EPA guidance identifies a five-year period
following the SIP submission as the relevant
timeframe for this evaluation. See Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
Regions 1 through 10, September 13, 2013, at page
40 (2013 guidance).
2 Recently re-codified to RCW 70A.15, with no
substantive changes to the statute.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10023
our most recent review of performance
metrics under the grant at the time.3 The
EPA expects that the COVID–19
pandemic may have impacts on state
revenues and could theoretically impact
a state’s ability to adequately implement
its SIP. However, the impacts of the
pandemic on Washington’s personnel
and resources available to satisfy the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E) in the future is speculative
at best. Based on assurances in the
state’s submission and the analysis
conducted as part of the EPA’s grant
programs, we have a reasonable basis to
conclude that Washington has satisfied
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E).
The EPA finds that Washington has
provided the necessary assurances of
adequate sources of personnel, funding,
and authority under state law to
implement its SIP for purposes of the
2010 SO2 and 2015 ozone NAAQS,
consistent with the EPA’s 2013
guidance. Therefore, it is appropriate to
finalize the proposed finding that
Washington’s SIP satisfies the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E).
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving Washington’s
September 30, 2019 and April 3, 2020,
infrastructure SIP submissions as
meeting specific infrastructure
requirements of the CAA. We find that
the Washington SIP meets the following
CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2015
ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) (except for
those provisions covered by the PSD
FIP), (D)(i)(II) (except for those
provisions covered by the PSD and
regional haze FIPs), (D)(ii) (except for
those provisions covered by the PSD
FIP), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (except for
those provisions covered by the PSD
FIP), (K), (L), and (M).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
3 The EPA subsequently updated our review of
performance metrics under the CAA section 105
grant program for Federal Fiscal Year 2020, which
is included in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\18FER1.SGM
18FER1
10024
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Washington’s SIP is approved to apply
on non-trust land within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly
provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey
Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the
EPA provided a consultation
opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a
letter dated July 15, 2019.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 19, 2021.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 9, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart WW—Washington
2. In § 52.2470, Table 2 in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry for
‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements—Sulfur Dioxide
Standards and 2015 Ozone Standards’’
immediately below the entry ‘‘Interstate
Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS’’
to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS
Applicable
geographic or nonattainment
area
Name of SIP provision
*
*
State
submittal
date
*
EPA approval date
*
Explanations
*
*
*
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
*
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements—Sulfur Dioxide Standards and 2015 Ozone Standards.
*
*
Statewide ..................................
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Feb 17, 2021
*
Jkt 253001
*
9/30/19 and
4/03/20
*
PO 00000
Frm 00014
*
2/18/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
Fmt 4700
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA section 110(a)(2) elements: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M).
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\18FER1.SGM
*
18FER1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2021–03034 Filed 2–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0364; FRL–10018–
18–Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; California; San
Diego Air Pollution Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a revision to the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or
‘‘District’’) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns the regulation of
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from large coating
operations for wood products. We are
SUMMARY:
you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3286 or by
email at schwartz.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On October 5, 2020 (85 FR 62687), the
EPA proposed to approve the rescission
of the following rule from the California
SIP.
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Adopted
Request for
rescission
submitted
SDAPCD .................................
67.11.1
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products .......................
09/25/2002
03/04/2015
We proposed to approve the
rescission of this rule because we
determined that the SIP revision, i.e.,
rule rescission, complies with the
relevant CAA requirements, including
CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Our
proposed action contains more
information on the rule and our
evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received no comments.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted.
Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving the rescission of this rule
from the California SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
approving the rescission of a local rule
from the California SIP that is no longer
needed to regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the ‘‘Act’’).
DATES: This rule will be effective on
March 22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0364. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If
10025
In this rule, the EPA is amending
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. The EPA is
removing SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 as
described in Table 1 of this preamble
from the California State
Implementation Plan, which is
incorporated by reference in accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Feb 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or 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 and will not impose
E:\FR\FM\18FER1.SGM
18FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10022-10025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0573, FRL-10018-79-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Washington; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2015 Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates
a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the
Clean Air Act requires each state to make a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission to establish that its SIP provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the revised NAAQS. This
type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP
submission. The EPA is approving the State of Washington's September
30, 2019 and April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as meeting specific
infrastructure requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide and 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0573. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256, or
[email protected].
[[Page 10023]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background Information
On May 26, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve Washington's September
30, 2019 and April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as meeting certain
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 2015 ozone NAAQS (85 FR 31421). The
initial public comment period for this proposed action ended on June
25, 2020. Due to an administrative error, the EPA omitted the technical
support document (TSD) relevant to the proposed action from the docket
during the initial comment period, open from May 26, 2020 to June 25,
2020. The EPA corrected the administrative error and on September 3,
2020, we provided an additional 30 days for public comment on the
proposed action (85 FR 54960). The public comment period ended on
October 5, 2020. The EPA received adverse comments on the proposal.
II. Response to Comments
The EPA received two adverse comments during the initial comment
period related to our administrative docket error that left out the TSD
relevant to the proposed action. The EPA addressed these comments by
including the TSD document in the docket and providing an additional
30-day comment period. The EPA received one additional comment,
unrelated to our administrative docket error, during the initial
comment period. We have summarized and responded to the adverse comment
below. The full text of the submitted comment may be found in the
docket for this action.
Comment--Adequate Resources
Summary--An anonymous commenter stated that, in its proposed
approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), the EPA failed to evaluate
adequate funding and resources necessary to carry out the functions
delegated to the state and required by the state to carry out the
functions of the SIP. The commenter asserted that the EPA must audit
Washington's finances and accounting to make an affirmative
determination as to whether the state has the necessary funding and
resources. The anonymous commenter also stated that the EPA should
affirmatively determine whether Washington actually has the necessary
personnel to carry out and operate programs required under the SIP in
light of recent COVID-19 concerns.
Response--CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to
provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law necessary to carry
out the SIP during the five years following the SIP submission.\1\ CAA
section 110 does not mandate a specific methodology for the EPA to
evaluate the adequacy of resources to implement the SIP. See 76 FR
42549 (July 19, 2011), at 42554. The EPA disagrees with the commenter's
assertion that an audit of the state's finances and accounting
practices is required in order to satisfy the requirements of
110(a)(2)(E)(i). The EPA's role in evaluating a SIP submission is to
assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural
requirements in order to meet the requirements of a new or revised
NAAQS. The EPA's role in approving an infrastructure SIP submission is
to determine whether the submission addresses the necessary
requirements of the Act, not to evaluate the way in which a SIP is
being implemented. See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d
971, 978 (9th Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA guidance identifies a five-year period following the SIP
submission as the relevant timeframe for this evaluation. See
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1
through 10, September 13, 2013, at page 40 (2013 guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed action, we identified Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 70.94 \2\ as providing the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) Director authority to hire personnel to carry out duties of
the department, in coordination with local clean air agencies and the
Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (funded and authorized
separately under RCW 80.50). According to the Washington Department of
Ecology Budget and Program Overview 2019-2021, Ecology has an operating
budget of $43.7 million to perform its air program functions ($10.1
million from federal funds, with the remainder from state funds and
other permit and fee programs). Specifically, Washington receives CAA
sections 103 and 105 grant funds from the EPA and provides state
matching funds necessary to carry out SIP requirements. As part of our
September 3, 2020 reopening of the public comment period, we
supplemented the docket with the general CAA section 105 program grant
supporting materials for informational purposes, including our most
recent review of performance metrics under the grant at the time.\3\
The EPA expects that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacts on state
revenues and could theoretically impact a state's ability to adequately
implement its SIP. However, the impacts of the pandemic on Washington's
personnel and resources available to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E) in the future is speculative at best. Based on
assurances in the state's submission and the analysis conducted as part
of the EPA's grant programs, we have a reasonable basis to conclude
that Washington has satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Recently re-codified to RCW 70A.15, with no substantive
changes to the statute.
\3\ The EPA subsequently updated our review of performance
metrics under the CAA section 105 grant program for Federal Fiscal
Year 2020, which is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds that Washington has provided the necessary assurances
of adequate sources of personnel, funding, and authority under state
law to implement its SIP for purposes of the 2010 SO2 and
2015 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's 2013 guidance. Therefore,
it is appropriate to finalize the proposed finding that Washington's
SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving Washington's September 30, 2019 and April 3,
2020, infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting specific infrastructure
requirements of the CAA. We find that the Washington SIP meets the
following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010
SO2 and 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) (except for those
provisions covered by the PSD FIP), (D)(i)(II) (except for those
provisions covered by the PSD and regional haze FIPs), (D)(ii) (except
for those provisions covered by the PSD FIP), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(except for those provisions covered by the PSD FIP), (K), (L), and
(M).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
[[Page 10024]]
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or 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 and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter
dated July 15, 2019.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 19, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 9, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart WW--Washington
0
2. In Sec. 52.2470, Table 2 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements--Sulfur Dioxide
Standards and 2015 Ozone Standards'' immediately below the entry
``Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or submittal EPA approval date Explanations
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide........... 9/30/19 and 2/18/2021, [Insert This action
Requirements--Sulfur Dioxide 4/03/20 Federal Register addresses the
Standards and 2015 Ozone citation]. following CAA
Standards. section 110(a)(2)
elements: (A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10025]]
[FR Doc. 2021-03034 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
