80 FR 27102 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Infrastructure Requirements for the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 91 (May 12, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 91 (May 12, 2015)
| Page Range | 27102-27107 | |
| FR Document | 2015-11343 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 27102-27107] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-11343] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744; FRL-9927-45-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Infrastructure Requirements for the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Washington demonstrating that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) on July 18, 1997, October 17, 2006, and December 14, 2012 (collectively, the PM2.5 NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state, after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review its SIP to ensure that it meets the infrastructure requirements necessary to implement the new or revised NAAQS. On September 22, 2014, Washington made a SIP submission to establish that the Washington SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS, except for certain elements related to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program currently addressed under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), certain elements of the regional haze program currently addressed under a FIP, and specific requirements related to interstate transport which the State will address in a separate submittal. The EPA has determined that Washington's SIP is adequate for purposes of the infrastructure SIP requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS, with the exceptions noted above. The SIP deficiencies related to PSD permitting and regional haze, however, have already been adequately addressed by the existing EPA FIPs and, therefore, no further action is required by Washington or the EPA for those elements. The EPA will address the remaining interstate transport requirements in a separate action. DATES: This final rule is effective June 11, 2015. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You [[Page 27103]] may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: (i) The words or initials ``Act'' or ``CAA'' mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise. (ii) The words ``EPA'', ``we'', ``us'' or ``our'' mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (iii) The initials ``SIP'' mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words ``Washington'' and ``State'' mean the State of Washington. Table of Contents I. Background Information II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background Information On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the standards for PM2.5 , tightening the 24- hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([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 make SIP submissions meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to implement, maintain, and enforce the standards, so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued guidance to states. On October 2, 2007, the EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ Subsequently, on September 25, 2009, the EPA issued guidance to address SIP infrastructure elements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ Finally, on September 13, 2013, the EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements generally for all NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ As noted in the guidance documents, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the applicable CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, states may make a SIP submission to EPA certifying how the existing SIP meets applicable requirements. On September 22, 2014, Washington made a submittal to the EPA certifying that the current Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, except for certain requirements related to PSD permitting, regional haze, and interstate transport described in the proposal for this action (79 FR 62368, October 17, 2014).\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. \5\ Following the EPA's October 17, 2014 proposed action the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA subsequently proposed to partially approve Washington's PSD permitting program while retaining a FIP for certain facilities, emission categories, and geographic areas (80 FR 838, January 7, 2015). The EPA's action on Washington's PSD SIP submission does not affect the findings of this final infrastructure action because a FIP or partial FIP for PSD continues to remain in place. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Response to Comments The EPA received two sets of comments on our proposal. Commenter #1: The commenter raised several issues related to wood smoke. First, the commenter thanked the EPA for our involvement in addressing wood smoke health risks in Washington State. Second, the commenter expressed disappointment with the Washington State Legislature for not taking seriously the toxicity and multiple health hazards of wood smoke. Third, the commenter requested that the EPA establish filtration controls on wood smoke emissions from restaurants and food trucks, such as pizza and barbeque establishments. Fourth, the commenter noted several apartment buildings in the Seattle area that have uncertified wood burning devices and requested a date for removal or upgrade of the existing devices. Response #1: The EPA appreciates the commenter's general concerns with respect to wood smoke. However, the commenter raises issues that are outside the scope of an action related to infrastructure SIP requirements. In this context, the EPA is merely evaluating the State's September 22, 2014, submission intended to establish that the Washington SIP meets the basic infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In this final action, the EPA is determining that the State has met those requirements, except for certain elements related to the PSD and regional haze FIPs, and specific requirements related to interstate transport which the state will address in a separate submission. The points raised, and requests made, by the commenter are thus not germane to this specific rulemaking action. The EPA notes that there have been improvements related to wood smoke in Washington through other substantive actions. The EPA's involvement in addressing wood smoke health risks in SIP provisions is driven by our CAA statutory authorities and responsibilities. Under CAA section 109, the EPA sets NAAQS for six criteria pollutants, including particulate matter. These NAAQS are set using the best available scientific and health studies, with a focus on protecting sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). Under part D of the CAA, Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas, the states have an obligation to develop and submit SIP provisions that provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas. The EPA has the authority and responsibility to review this type of SIP submission to assure that they meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Through this process, the EPA recently worked with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) to address PM2.5 nonattainment in the Tacoma area (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). This resulted in more stringent statutory and regulatory provisions related to residential wood stoves at both the local level (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013) and the state level (79 FR 26628, May 9, 2014). Currently [[Page 27104]] all areas in Washington State are meeting the NAAQS, including the Tacoma area (77 FR 53772, September 4, 2012). The commenter also requested EPA intervention in regulating wood smoke emissions from restaurants and food trucks, such as pizza and barbeque retail establishments. Currently the EPA has not promulgated Federal emission limitations or control technologies specific to food preparation at restaurants and other retail food establishments; nor is the EPA seeking comment on this issue at this time. If necessary for purposes of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, it may be necessary for states to control emissions from such sources in SIP provisions. However, the EPA would typically expect such actions to occur in the context of the nonattainment plan requirements of CAA sections 172 and 189 rather than the general infrastructure provisions of CAA section 110. Given that all areas in Washington State are currently attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, however, there appears to be no need for such regulations for these sources at this time. To the extent that particulate matter emissions from retail food establishments could trigger air permitting obligations, these would be addressed under the EPA's requirements for state minor source permitting programs under 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164 (larger commercial or industrial food preparation facilities could be subject to other air permitting requirements). The EPA's minor source permitting requirements generally give states and local authorities discretion to regulate sources in ways that most effectively address pollution problems in that area. In the case of PSCAA, with jurisdiction in the Seattle area, the EPA approved minor source permitting rules that exclude ``restaurants and other retail food- preparing establishments'' under PSCAA Regulation I--section 6.03(b)(13).\6\ To the extent that restaurants and food trucks may violate other regulatory provisions of the SIP, such as the EPA- approved opacity limits of PSCAA Regulation I--section 9.03, the EPA provides a citizen hotline for possible Federal oversight and enforcement.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/15f53e4f3ac23a8088256b6e00039415/df888e71a7de53a388257bef0077c3b8!OpenDocument. \7\ http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-violations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lastly, the commenter alleged that nearby Seattle apartment buildings are using uncertified wood burning devices and requested that a date be set for removal or upgrade of the devices. This comment is also one that falls outside of the scope of the current action, where the EPA is finalizing its determination that Washington's SIP satisfies the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) (A), (B), (C)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II) (prong 4)--except for those elements covered by the regional haze FIP, (D)(ii)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (E), (F), (G), (H), (J)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K), (L), and (M). Additionally, Federal action is being taken separately to address emissions from wood burning stoves. On March 16, 2015, the EPA finalized updated Federal standards for residential wood burning devices.\8\ The EPA's final rulemaking explicitly stated that it would not ban the use of uncertified devices that are already in existing homes. In this respect, Washington's statutes and regulations are already more stringent than the Federal requirements. Under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-433-155 Criteria for Prohibiting Solid Fuel Burning Devices that are not Certified, Ecology or a local clean air agency may prohibit uncertified solid fuel burning devices in a nonattainment area or an area with an approved PM2.5 maintenance plan, if certain criteria are met. Beginning in 2015, this provision will apply to the Tacoma PM2.5 area as a maintenance plan requirement.\9\ However the commenter's request to expand the ban on uncertified solid fuel devices in other geographic areas of the State is outside the scope of this current rulemaking action which is limited to the consideration of the adequacy of Washington's SIP submission with respect to the infrastructure requirements of the CAA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters (80 FR 13672, March 16, 2015). \9\ Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Washington; Redesignation to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard (80 FR 7347, February 10, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commenter #2: The commenter states that the EPA cannot approve Washington's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) because the emergency episode plan (contingency plan) contained in WAC 173-435 does not specify a significant harm level or action levels for PM2.5 . The commenter also states that the sampling procedures, equipment, and methods contained in the contingency plan (WAC 173-435-070) were written with coarse particulate (PM10 ) in mind and need to be updated to reflect PM2.5 . Lastly, the commenter notes that Washington's contingency plan provisions contain no significant harm level or updated sampling, monitoring, and equipment provisions for lead (Pb). Response #2: The EPA's September 2013 infrastructure guidance (2013 guidance) makes recommendations to states for how to meet the two requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G): (the requirement to have state emergency episode authority comparable to CAA section 303, and the requirement to have an adequate contingency plan for the NAAQS at issue). With respect to the first requirement, the EPA recommended that ``[t]o meet Element G requirements, the best practice for an air agency submitting an infrastructure SIP would be to submit . . . the statutory or regulatory provision that provides the air agency or official with authority comparable to that of the EPA Administrator under section 303 . . . along with a narrative explanation of how they meet the requirements of this element.'' With respect to the second requirement, the EPA recommended that ``[t]he air agency is also required to submit, for approval into the SIP, an adequate contingency plan to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority. This can be met by submitting a contingency plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (``Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes'') for the relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations.'' The regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H do not address PM2.5 specifically and do not identify a significant harm level or priority classification levels for PM2.5 . However, the EPA has recommended to states, through the September 25, 2009 guidance, which remains in effect and is referenced in the 2013 guidance, that states only need to develop contingency plans for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140.4 ug/m\3\ since 2006. The EPA has evaluated PM2.5 regulatory monitoring data in the State of Washington since 2006 and we have confirmed that no values greater than 140.4 ug/ m\3\ have been recorded. Please see Monitoring Report in the docket for this action.\10\ In the absence of a significant harm level and classification levels for PM2.5 the 2013 guidance states, ``the EPA believes that the central [[Page 27105]] components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the source(s) at issue (if necessary by curtailing operations of . . . PM2.5 sources) and public communication as needed.'' We believe that, based on our guidance, Washington's general regulatory authority under WAC 173-435 and statutory authority under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.94.710 through 70.94.730, which restrain any source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial endangerment, are comparable to CAA section 303. The adequacy of these authorities (including the sampling, equipment, and methods provision identified by the commenter) were evaluated as part of the proposed action, and we find that they are sufficient to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the PM2.5 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 205_supporting materials_AMP 350MX 88101 WA 2006-13 14Nov14 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We note that this action does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, the comment regarding Pb is outside the scope of this action. The EPA previously took final action to approve the Washington SIP for Pb infrastructure requirements on July 23, 2014 (79 FR 42683). In that action, we relied on the EPA's guidance that, with respect to lead, ``[i]f a state believes, based on its inventory of lead sources and historic ambient monitoring data, that it does not need a more specific contingency plan beyond having authority to restrain any source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial endangerment, then the state could provide such a detailed rationale in place of a specific contingency plan.'' \11\ For Washington, there were no facilities that emitted lead at the emissions inventory thresholds, therefore the EPA accepted Washington's demonstration that there was not a need for more specific contingency planning beyond having general authority to restrain sources comparable to CAA section 303. The EPA made this final determination on July 23, 2014, and therefore the comment on this issue is not timely for consideration regarding the Washington Pb SIP, nor relevant to this action which is limited in scope to the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not reopening this issue by responding to this commenter concerning the Pb NAAQS, and is merely providing this response for informational purposes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, October 14, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are finalizing our approval of the Washington SIP for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. III. Final Action The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the September 22, 2014, infrastructure SIP submittal from Washington demonstrating that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 2006, and 2012. Specifically, we have determined that the current 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 finalizing our inclusion of WAC 173-400-111(3)(i) in the SIP with respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) permit fee requirements, as described in the proposal for this action. Also, as discussed in the proposal for this action, the EPA anticipates that there would be no additional consequences to Washington or to sources in the State resulting from the partial disapproval of portions of the infrastructure SIP submission because there are already PSD and regional haze FIPs in place to address those infrastructure SIP requirements. The EPA likewise anticipates no additional FIP responsibilities for PSD and regional haze as a result of this partial disapproval. Interstate transport requirements with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS will be addressed in a separate action. IV. Incorporation by Reference As discussed in the proposal for this action, the State requested that the EPA revise our incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400- 111(3)(i) in the SIP to include the text that ``[a]ll fees required under chapter 173-455 WAC (or the applicable new source review fee table of the local air pollution control authority) have been paid.'' This minor change to the incorporation by reference of the SIP was made to ensure that all infrastructure requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) are met. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Washington Department of Ecology regulations contained in WAC 173-400-111. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). [[Page 27106]] The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 28, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 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. Section 52.2470 is amended by: 0 a. In Table 2--Additional Regulations Approved for Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction, revising paragraph (c) entry 173-400-111; 0 b. In Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans for ``110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements--1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Standards'', adding to paragraph (e) an entry at the end of the section with the undesignated center heading ``110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport.'' The revision and addition read as follows: Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * Table 2--Additional Regulations Approved for Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction [Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non- trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173-400-700, WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC 173-415-012] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date Explanations date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400--General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 173-400-111..................... Processing Notice of 12/29/12 5/12/15 [Insert Except: 173-400- Construction Federal Register 111(3)(h); The Applications for citation]. part of 173-400- Sources, Stationary 111(8)(a)(v) that Sources and Portable says,Sources. ``and 173-460- 040,''; 173-400- 111(9). * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * (e) * * * [[Page 27107]] Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or submittal EPA approval date Comments nonattainment area date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide............... 9/22/14 5/12/15 [Insert This action Requirements--1997, 2006, and Federal Register addresses the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter citation]. following CAA (PM2.5) Standards. elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015-11343 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![27102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
responsibilities between the Federal § 165.T08–0284 Safety Zone, Monongahela from Washington demonstrating that the
Government and Indian tribes. River, Pittsburgh, PA. SIP meets the infrastructure
(a) Location. The following area is a requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
12. Energy Effects
safety zone: All waters of the for the National Ambient Air Quality
This action is not a ‘‘significant Monongahela River, mile 68.0 to 68.8, Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for
energy action’’ under Executive Order extending the entire width of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations waterway. 18, 1997, October 17, 2006, and
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (b) Effective date. This rule is December 14, 2012 (collectively, the
Distribution, or Use. effective, and will be enforced, from PM2.5 NAAQS). The CAA requires that
9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June 12, each state, after a new or revised
13. Technical Standards
2015 and June 13, 2015. NAAQS is promulgated, review its SIP
This rule does not use technical (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with to ensure that it meets the infrastructure
standards. Therefore, we did not the general regulations in § 165.23 of requirements necessary to implement
consider the use of voluntary consensus this part, entry into this zone is the new or revised NAAQS. On
standards. prohibited unless authorized by the September 22, 2014, Washington made
Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a a SIP submission to establish that the
14. Environment
designated representative. Washington SIP meets the infrastructure
We have analyzed this rule under (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5
Department of Homeland Security into or passage through the zone must NAAQS, except for certain elements
Management Directive 023–01 and request permission from the Captain of related to the Prevention of Significant
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, the Port Pittsburgh or a designated Deterioration (PSD) permitting program
which guide the Coast Guard in representative. The Captain of the currently addressed under a Federal
complying with the National Pittsburgh representative may be Implementation Plan (FIP), certain
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 contacted at 412–221–0807. elements of the regional haze program
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and (3) All persons and vessels shall currently addressed under a FIP, and
have determined that this action is one comply with the instructions of the specific requirements related to
of a category of actions that do not Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or their interstate transport which the State will
individually or cumulatively have a designated representative. Designated address in a separate submittal. The
significant effect on the human Captain of the Port representatives EPA has determined that Washington’s
environment. This rule establishes a include United States Coast Guard SIP is adequate for purposes of the
safety zone for waters of the commissioned, warrant, and petty infrastructure SIP requirements of the
Monongahela River, from mile 68.0 to officers. CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS, with the
68.8. This rule is categorically excluded (d) Information broadcasts. The exceptions noted above. The SIP
from further review under paragraph Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a deficiencies related to PSD permitting
34(g) of figure 2–1 of the Commandant designated representative will inform and regional haze, however, have
Instruction an environmental analysis the public through broadcast notices to already been adequately addressed by
checklist supporting this determination mariners of the enforcement period for the existing EPA FIPs and, therefore, no
and a Categorical Exclusion the safety zone as well as any changes further action is required by Washington
Determination are available in the in the planned schedule. or the EPA for those elements. The EPA
docket where indicated under will address the remaining interstate
Dated: April 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or transport requirements in a separate
information that may lead to the L.N. Weaver, action.
discovery of a significant environmental Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port Pittsburgh. DATES: This final rule is effective June
impact from this rule. 11, 2015.
[FR Doc. 2015–11442 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am]
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
docket for this action under Docket ID
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0744. All
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
documents in the docket are listed on
requirements, Security measures, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Waterways. AGENCY
Although listed in the index, some
For the reasons discussed in the information is not publicly available,
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 40 CFR Part 52
e.g., Confidential Business Information
CFR part 165 as follows: [EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0744; FRL–9927–45– (CBI) or other information the disclosure
Region 10] of which is restricted by statute. Certain
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION other material, such as copyrighted
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Approval and Promulgation of
material, is not placed on the Internet
Implementation Plans; Washington:
■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 and will be publicly available only in
Infrastructure Requirements for the
continues to read as follows: hard copy form. Publicly available
Fine Particulate Matter National
docket materials are available either
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; Ambient Air Quality Standards
electronically through
33 CFR 1.05–1; 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
AGENCY: Environmental Protection www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1. Agency (EPA). the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air
ACTION: Final rule. Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection EPA requests that if at all possible, you
Agency (EPA) is partially approving and contact the individual listed in the FOR
■ 2. Temporary § 165.T08–0284 is partially disapproving the State FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
added to read as follows: Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal view the hard copy of the docket. You
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 May 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR1.SGM 12MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27193/page/1.svg)
![27104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
all areas in Washington State are comment is also one that falls outside of particulate (PM10) in mind and need to
meeting the NAAQS, including the the scope of the current action, where be updated to reflect PM2.5. Lastly, the
Tacoma area (77 FR 53772, September 4, the EPA is finalizing its determination commenter notes that Washington’s
2012). that Washington’s SIP satisfies the contingency plan provisions contain no
The commenter also requested EPA infrastructure requirements of CAA significant harm level or updated
intervention in regulating wood smoke section 110(a)(2) (A), (B), (C)—except for sampling, monitoring, and equipment
emissions from restaurants and food those elements covered by the PSD FIP, provisions for lead (Pb).
trucks, such as pizza and barbeque retail (D)(i)(II) (prong 4)—except for those Response #2: The EPA’s September
establishments. Currently the EPA has elements covered by the regional haze 2013 infrastructure guidance (2013
not promulgated Federal emission FIP, (D)(ii)—except for those elements guidance) makes recommendations to
limitations or control technologies covered by the PSD FIP, (E), (F), (G), (H), states for how to meet the two
specific to food preparation at (J)—except for those elements covered requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G):
restaurants and other retail food by the PSD FIP, (K), (L), and (M). (the requirement to have state
establishments; nor is the EPA seeking Additionally, Federal action is being emergency episode authority
comment on this issue at this time. If taken separately to address emissions comparable to CAA section 303, and the
necessary for purposes of attainment from wood burning stoves. On March requirement to have an adequate
and maintenance of the NAAQS, it may 16, 2015, the EPA finalized updated contingency plan for the NAAQS at
be necessary for states to control Federal standards for residential wood issue). With respect to the first
emissions from such sources in SIP burning devices.8 The EPA’s final requirement, the EPA recommended
provisions. However, the EPA would rulemaking explicitly stated that it that ‘‘[t]o meet Element G requirements,
typically expect such actions to occur in would not ban the use of uncertified the best practice for an air agency
the context of the nonattainment plan devices that are already in existing submitting an infrastructure SIP would
requirements of CAA sections 172 and homes. In this respect, Washington’s be to submit . . . the statutory or
189 rather than the general statutes and regulations are already regulatory provision that provides the
infrastructure provisions of CAA section more stringent than the Federal air agency or official with authority
110. Given that all areas in Washington requirements. Under Washington comparable to that of the EPA
State are currently attaining the PM2.5 Administrative Code (WAC) 173–433– Administrator under section 303 . . .
NAAQS, however, there appears to be 155 Criteria for Prohibiting Solid Fuel along with a narrative explanation of
no need for such regulations for these Burning Devices that are not Certified, how they meet the requirements of this
sources at this time. To the extent that Ecology or a local clean air agency may element.’’ With respect to the second
particulate matter emissions from retail prohibit uncertified solid fuel burning requirement, the EPA recommended
food establishments could trigger air devices in a nonattainment area or an that ‘‘[t]he air agency is also required to
permitting obligations, these would be area with an approved PM2.5 submit, for approval into the SIP, an
addressed under the EPA’s requirements maintenance plan, if certain criteria are adequate contingency plan to
for state minor source permitting met. Beginning in 2015, this provision implement the air agency’s emergency
programs under 40 CFR 51.160 through will apply to the Tacoma PM2.5 area as episode authority. This can be met by
51.164 (larger commercial or industrial a maintenance plan requirement.9 submitting a contingency plan that
food preparation facilities could be However the commenter’s request to meets the applicable requirements of 40
subject to other air permitting expand the ban on uncertified solid fuel CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150
devices in other geographic areas of the through 51.153) (‘‘Prevention of Air
requirements). The EPA’s minor source
State is outside the scope of this current Pollution Emergency Episodes’’) for the
permitting requirements generally give
rulemaking action which is limited to relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is
states and local authorities discretion to
the consideration of the adequacy of covered by those regulations.’’
regulate sources in ways that most
Washington’s SIP submission with The regulations at 40 CFR part 51,
effectively address pollution problems
respect to the infrastructure subpart H do not address PM2.5
in that area. In the case of PSCAA, with
requirements of the CAA. specifically and do not identify a
jurisdiction in the Seattle area, the EPA
Commenter #2: The commenter states significant harm level or priority
approved minor source permitting rules
that the EPA cannot approve classification levels for PM2.5. However,
that exclude ‘‘restaurants and other
Washington’s infrastructure SIP the EPA has recommended to states,
retail food-preparing establishments’’ submission with respect to CAA section through the September 25, 2009
under PSCAA Regulation I—section 110(a)(2)(G) because the emergency guidance, which remains in effect and is
6.03(b)(13).6 To the extent that episode plan (contingency plan) referenced in the 2013 guidance, that
restaurants and food trucks may violate contained in WAC 173–435 does not states only need to develop contingency
other regulatory provisions of the SIP, specify a significant harm level or action plans for any area that has monitored
such as the EPA-approved opacity limits levels for PM2.5. The commenter also and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels
of PSCAA Regulation I—section 9.03, states that the sampling procedures, greater than 140.4 ug/m3 since 2006.
the EPA provides a citizen hotline for equipment, and methods contained in The EPA has evaluated PM2.5 regulatory
possible Federal oversight and the contingency plan (WAC 173–435– monitoring data in the State of
enforcement.7 070) were written with coarse Washington since 2006 and we have
Lastly, the commenter alleged that confirmed that no values greater than
nearby Seattle apartment buildings are 8 Standards of Performance for New Residential
140.4 ug/m3 have been recorded. Please
using uncertified wood burning devices Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters
see Monitoring Report in the docket for
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
and requested that a date be set for and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential
Masonry Heaters (80 FR 13672, March 16, 2015). this action.10 In the absence of a
removal or upgrade of the devices. This 9 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality significant harm level and classification
Implementation Plans; Washington; Redesignation levels for PM2.5 the 2013 guidance
6 http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/15f53
to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County
e4f3ac23a8088256b6e00039415/df888e71a7de53 Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated
states, ‘‘the EPA believes that the central
a388257bef0077c3b8!OpenDocument. Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
7 http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/report- Particulate Matter Standard (80 FR 7347, February 10 205_supporting materials_AMP 350MX 88101
environmental-violations. 10, 2015). WA 2006–13 14Nov14
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 May 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR1.SGM 12MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27193/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27105
components of a contingency plan merely providing this response for Washington Department of Ecology
would be to reduce emissions from the informational purposes. regulations contained in WAC 173–400–
source(s) at issue (if necessary by We are finalizing our approval of the 111. The EPA has made, and will
curtailing operations of . . . PM2.5 Washington SIP for purposes of CAA continue to make, these documents
sources) and public communication as section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006 generally available electronically
needed.’’ We believe that, based on our and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. through www.regulations.gov and/or in
guidance, Washington’s general III. Final Action hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
regulatory authority under WAC 173– (see the ADDRESSES section of this
435 and statutory authority under The EPA is partially approving and preamble for more information).
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) partially disapproving the September
22, 2014, infrastructure SIP submittal V. Statutory and Executive Orders
70.94.710 through 70.94.730, which Review
from Washington demonstrating that the
restrain any source from causing or
SIP meets the applicable requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is
contributing to an imminent and
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the required to approve a SIP submission
substantial endangerment, are
PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, that complies with the provisions of the
comparable to CAA section 303. The
2006, and 2012. Specifically, we have Act and applicable Federal regulations.
adequacy of these authorities (including
determined that the current EPA- 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
the sampling, equipment, and methods approved Washington SIP meets the
provision identified by the commenter) Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
following CAA section 110(a)(2) EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
were evaluated as part of the proposed infrastructure elements for the 1997,
action, and we find that they are provided that they meet the criteria of
2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
sufficient to meet the requirements of (C)—except for those elements covered
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the PM2.5 action merely approves State law as
by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II) (prong 4)— meeting Federal requirements and does
NAAQS. except for those elements covered by the not impose additional requirements
We note that this action does not regional haze FIP, (D)(ii)—except for beyond those imposed by State law. For
address CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the those elements covered by the PSD FIP, that reason, this action:
2008 Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, the (E), (F), (G), (H), (J)—except for those • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
comment regarding Pb is outside the elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K), action’’ subject to review by the Office
scope of this action. The EPA previously (L), and (M). We are also finalizing our of Management and Budget under
took final action to approve the inclusion of WAC 173–400–111(3)(i) in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
Washington SIP for Pb infrastructure the SIP with respect to the CAA section October 4, 1993);
requirements on July 23, 2014 (79 FR 110(a)(2)(L) permit fee requirements, as • does not impose an information
42683). In that action, we relied on the described in the proposal for this action. collection burden under the provisions
EPA’s guidance that, with respect to Also, as discussed in the proposal for of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
lead, ‘‘[i]f a state believes, based on its this action, the EPA anticipates that U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
inventory of lead sources and historic there would be no additional • is certified as not having a
ambient monitoring data, that it does consequences to Washington or to significant economic impact on a
not need a more specific contingency sources in the State resulting from the substantial number of small entities
plan beyond having authority to restrain partial disapproval of portions of the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
any source from causing or contributing infrastructure SIP submission because U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
to an imminent and substantial there are already PSD and regional haze • does not contain any unfunded
endangerment, then the state could FIPs in place to address those mandate or significantly or uniquely
provide such a detailed rationale in infrastructure SIP requirements. The affect small governments, as described
place of a specific contingency plan.’’ 11 EPA likewise anticipates no additional in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For Washington, there were no facilities FIP responsibilities for PSD and regional of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
that emitted lead at the emissions haze as a result of this partial • does not have Federalism
inventory thresholds, therefore the EPA disapproval. Interstate transport implications as specified in Executive
accepted Washington’s demonstration requirements with respect to CAA Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
that there was not a need for more section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 1999);
specific contingency planning beyond and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS will be • is not an economically significant
having general authority to restrain addressed in a separate action. regulatory action based on health or
sources comparable to CAA section 303. safety risks subject to Executive Order
IV. Incorporation by Reference
The EPA made this final determination 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
on July 23, 2014, and therefore the As discussed in the proposal for this • is not a significant regulatory action
comment on this issue is not timely for action, the State requested that the EPA subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
consideration regarding the Washington revise our incorporation by reference of 28355, May 22, 2001);
Pb SIP, nor relevant to this action which WAC 173–400–111(3)(i) in the SIP to • is not subject to requirements of
is limited in scope to the PM2.5 NAAQS. include the text that ‘‘[a]ll fees required Section 12(d) of the National
EPA is not reopening this issue by under chapter 173–455 WAC (or the Technology Transfer and Advancement
responding to this commenter applicable new source review fee table Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
concerning the Pb NAAQS, and is of the local air pollution control this action does not involve technical
authority) have been paid.’’ This minor standards; and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
11 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality change to the incorporation by reference • does not provide the EPA with the
Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on of the SIP was made to ensure that all discretionary authority to address, as
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) infrastructure requirements under CAA appropriate, disproportionate human
Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections section 110(a)(2)(L) are met. In health or environmental effects, using
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR practicable and legally permissible
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the methods, under Executive Order 12898
Regions 1–10, October 14, 2011. incorporation by reference of the (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 May 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR1.SGM 12MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27193/page/4.svg)
![27106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The SIP is not approved to apply on of the United States. The EPA will Dated: April 28, 2015.
any Indian reservation land in submit a report containing this action Dennis J. McLerran,
Washington except as specifically noted and other required information to the Regional Administrator, Region 10.
below and is also not approved to apply U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
in any other area where the EPA or an Representatives, and the Comptroller For the reasons set forth in the
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a General of the United States prior to preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of publication of the rule in the Federal follows:
Indian country, the rule does not have Register. A major rule cannot take effect PART 52—APPROVAL AND
tribal implications as specified by until 60 days after it is published in the PROMULGATION OF
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Federal Register. This action is not a IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
substantial direct costs on tribal 804(2). ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52
governments or preempt tribal law. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, continues to read as follows:
Washington’s SIP is approved to apply petitions for judicial review of this
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
on non-trust land within the exterior action must be filed in the United States
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Court of Appeals for the appropriate Subpart WW—Washington
Reservation, also known as the 1873 circuit by July 13, 2015. Filing a petition
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe for reconsideration by the Administrator ■ 2. Section 52.2470 is amended by:
of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 of this final rule does not affect the ■ a. In Table 2—Additional Regulations
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly finality of this action for the purposes of Approved for Washington Department
provided state and local agencies in judicial review nor does it extend the of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction,
Washington authority over activities on time within which a petition for judicial revising paragraph (c) entry 173–400–
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey review may be filed, and shall not 111;
Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the postpone the effectiveness of such rule ■ b. In Table 2—Attainment,
EPA provided a consultation or action. This action may not be Maintenance, and Other Plans for
opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a challenged later in proceedings to ‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure
letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA enforce its requirements. See section Requirements—1997, 2006, and 2012
did not receive a request for 307(b)(2). Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
consultation. Standards’’, adding to paragraph (e) an
The Congressional Review Act, 5 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
entry at the end of the section with the
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Environmental protection, Air undesignated center heading ‘‘110(a)(2)
Business Regulatory Enforcement pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Infrastructure and Interstate Transport.’’
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Incorporation by reference, The revision and addition read as
that before a rule may take effect, the Intergovernmental relations, Lead, follows:
agency promulgating the rule must Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
submit a rule report, which includes a matter, Reporting and recordkeeping § 52.2470 Identification of plan.
copy of the rule, to each House of the requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile * * * * *
Congress and to the Comptroller General organic compounds. (c) * * *
TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) DIRECT
JURISDICTION
[Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille,
San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) ju-
risdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities
subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–400–700, WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012]
State
State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date Explanations
date
* * * * * * *
Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources
173–400–111 ................. Processing Notice of Construction Applications 12/29/12 5/12/15 [Insert Federal Except: 173–400–
for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Register citation]. 111(3)(h); The part of
Sources. 173–400–111(8)(a)(v)
that says, • ‘‘and
173–460–040,’’; 173–
400–111(9).
* * * * * * *
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
* * * * * (e) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 May 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR1.SGM 12MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27193/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27107
TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS
State
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area submittal EPA approval date Comments
date
* * * * * * *
110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
* * * * * * *
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide .............................................................. 9/22/14 5/12/15 [Insert Federal This action addresses
Requirements—1997, Register citation]. the following CAA ele-
2006, and 2012 Fine ments: 110(a)(2)(A),
Particulate Matter (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(PM2.5) Standards. (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M).
* * * * * * *
* * * * * Daronco, Broadband Division, Wireless Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 630 (WTB 2015). On
[FR Doc. 2015–11343 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) May 4, 2015, the National
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 418–7235 or Peter.Daronco@fcc.gov. Telecommunications and Information
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Administration (NTIA) filed a letter
Report and Order, FCC 14–31, 79 FR enclosing copies of identical letters
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 32366 (Jun. 4, 2014) (correcting dated January 16, 2015, from the
COMMISSION amendments at 79 FR 59138 (Oct. 1, Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
2014) the Commission adopted an Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
47 CFR Part 2 amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 adding Chiefs of Staff to leaders of the Senate
[GN Docket No. 13–185; FCC 14–31] Fixed and Mobile allocations for the and House Committees on Armed
2025–2110 MHz band to the Federal Services; the Senate Committee on
Commercial Operations in the 1695– Table of Frequency Allocations. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155– FCC determined that this rule change and the House Committee on Energy
2180 MHz Bands would not take effect until the FCC and Commerce, jointly certifying that
announces the effective date in the the 2025–2110 MHz band and other
AGENCY: Federal Communications Federal Register, which was dependent
Commission. alternative frequencies specified in the
upon: (1) The auction for 1755–1780 letters provide comparable technical
ACTION: Final rules; announcement of MHz being able to close under the
effective date. characteristics to restore essential
requirements of 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(16)(B)
military capability that will be lost as a
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal (Commission shall not conclude any
result of the DoD surrendering use of the
Communications Commission auction of eligible frequencies if total
1755–1780 MHz band. See GN Docket
(Commission) announces the effective cash proceeds attributable to such
spectrum are less than 110 percent of No. 13–185, Letter to Marlene H. Dortch,
date to the amendment regarding Fixed Secretary, FCC, from Kathy D. Smith,
and Mobile allocations for the 2025– the total estimated Federal relocation or
sharing costs); and (2) satisfaction of a Chief Counsel, NTIA (dated May 4,
2110 MHz band to the Federal Table of 2015) (available online at http://
Frequency Allocations. This document joint certification requirement in section
1062(b)(1)(B) of the National Defense apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/
is consistent with the Commission’s view?id=60001030820). Now that the
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
Report and Order, Commercial two conditions have been satisfied, the
See Report and Order, 79 FR 32366,
Operations in the 1695–1710 MHz, Commission is publishing a document
32295–96, 32403 paragraphs 209, 213,
1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz in the Federal Register announcing the
257 (Jun. 4, 2014).
Bands, stating that it would publish a On January 30, 2015, the Commission effective date of the amendment to 47
document in the Federal Register announced the closing of the AWS–3 CFR 2.106 (adopted in FCC 14–31)
announcing the effective date of this auction (Auction 97), noting that the net adding Fixed and Mobile allocations for
amendment. total winning bids for licenses in the the 2025–2110 MHz band to the Federal
DATES: The amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 paired 1755/2155–80 MHz band Table of Frequency Allocations.
published at 79 FR 32366, 32407 (Jun. exceeded the reserve price for the band Federal Communications Commission.
4, 2014) is effective May 12, 2015. set to satisfy the statutory 110 percent
Marlene H. Dortch,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provision noted above. See Auction of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Ronald Repasi, Office of Engineering Advanced Wireless Service (AWS–3) Secretary.
and Technology, at (202) 418–0768 or Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders [FR Doc. 2015–11352 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am]
Ronald.Repasi@fcc.gov or Peter Announced for Auction 97, Public BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 May 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12MYR1.SGM 12MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27193/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:55:40
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:55:40
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective June 11, 2015. | |
| Contact | For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, [email protected], or by using the above EPA, | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 27102 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR