[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27533-27543]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11073]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0333, FRL-9910-95-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially
disapprove the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State
of Washington (Washington or the State) demonstrating that the SIP
meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead
on October 15, 2008. The CAA requires that each state, after a new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIP to ensure that it meets
the infrastructure requirements necessary to implement the new or
revised NAAQS. On April 1, 2014, Washington certified that the
Washington SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for
purposes of the 2008 lead NAAQS, except for those requirements related
to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program
currently operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). The EPA
is proposing to find that Washington's 2008 lead SIP is adequate for
purposes of the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110,
with the exception of the requirements related to PSD permitting and
portions of the interstate transport requirements. The EPA finds that
the SIP deficiencies related to PSD permitting, however, have been
adequately addressed by the existing EPA FIP and, therefore, no further
action is required by Washington or the EPA. The EPA will address the
remaining interstate transport requirements in a separate action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0333, by any of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0333. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any

form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
III. The EPA's Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and
secondary lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states 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 to provide for
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the standards, so-called
``infrastructure'' requirements. States were required to submit such
SIPs for the 2008 lead NAAQS to the EPA no later than October 15, 2011.
    To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued
guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2).\1\ As noted in the guidance, to the extent an
existing SIP already meets the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements,
states may certify that fact via a letter to the EPA. The certification
should address all requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements as applicable for the 2008 lead NAAQS. Such
certification should include documentation demonstrating a correlation
between each infrastructure element specified at 110(a)(2) and an
equivalent state authority in the existing or submitted SIP. As for all
SIP submittals, a state should provide reasonable public notice of, and
an opportunity for a public hearing on, the certification before it is
submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. 1.) ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14,
2011, and 2.) ``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 I-X,
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
the case of the 2008 lead NAAQS, states typically have met the basic
program elements required in CAA section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions. On April 1, 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 2008 lead NAAQS,
except for certain requirements related to PSD permitting, described in
the ``Analysis of the State's Submittal'' section of this publication.
The submittal included an analysis of Washington's SIP as it relates to
each section of the infrastructure requirements with regard to the 2008
lead NAAQS. Washington provided notice and an opportunity for public
comment on the submittal from February 14, 2014, through March 24,
2014. A notice offering the public an opportunity to comment and
request a hearing was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce on
February 14, 2014. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) also
issued a news release, fact sheet, and hearing notice on Ecology's
public involvement Web site and interested parties email list. Ecology
received no requests for a public hearing. The EPA has evaluated
Washington's submittal and determined that Washington has met the
requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA.

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states
must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP
infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions
inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection,
are listed below:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Washington's submittal does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). At the time of the State's submission, in
accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit opinion, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submittals were not required
until the EPA quantified the State's obligations under that section.
See EME Homer City generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012). On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and
remanded the D.C. Circuit's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., No. 12-182, 572 U.S. ---- slip op. (2014). The EPA
intends to address Washington's obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the lead NAAQS in a separate
action. In contrast, portions of the Washington SIP submittal
relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), were
submitted. In this notice, we are proposing to act on Washington's
submittal for purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    The EPA's October 14, 2011, guidance restated our interpretation
that two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed
by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because
SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not
due

within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather, are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements
are due pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various pollutant specific
subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection
refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA,
and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain
to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the
CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new
source review (NSR) or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA
interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not
being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in
part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

III. The EPA's Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

    The EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Washington that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a
SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions
``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air
quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions
are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement''
of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is
not conditioned upon the EPA's taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list
of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the
term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under
the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP''
submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part
D of title I of the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by
the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA
section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\3\ The EPA therefore
believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for
infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains
ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given
new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section
110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\4\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires the EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans
for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\5\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, the EPA must determine which provisions of
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \5\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2)
is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set
specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether the EPA must act upon such SIP submission
in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit
``a plan'' to meet these requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to
allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\6\ Similarly, the EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
the EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various
elements and sub-

elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action approving the
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State
separately to meet the requirements of the EPA's 2008
PM2.5 NSR rule), and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action on
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \7\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77
FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), the
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the
EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not
have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the
NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant
pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in
section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\9\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\10\ The EPA developed this document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, the EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. The EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\11\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA interprets sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need
to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, the
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the
EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for
infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states
and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
regardless of whether or not the EPA provides guidance or
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
    \10\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \11\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance
shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C.
Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which
had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In
light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, the EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither
binding nor required by statute, whether the EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains the EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in the EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD
program requirements contained in part C and the EPA's PSD regulations.
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants,
including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are

merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to
provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional
provisions are types of provisions the EPA considers irrelevant in the
context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of
a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether
the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, the
EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and
every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007).
Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such
potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if
it is aware of such existing provisions.\12\ It is important to note
that the EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include
a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states
and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, the EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations
with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the EPA determines that a state's SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate
transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\13\ Section 110(k)(6)
authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submissions.\14\ Significantly, the EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude the EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \14\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \15\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees,

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.
    State submittal: Washington's previous infrastructure certification
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS outlined the State's overarching regulatory
and statutory authorities to set emission limits and require control
measures generally for all criteria pollutants. These statutory
authorities include portions of Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) Washington Clean Air Act and Chapter 43.21A RCW
Department of Ecology. As noted in Washington's submittal for the lead
NAAQS, the underlying statutory authorities remain unchanged since the
EPA's last review and approval of the 1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure
certification (May 24, 2012; 77 FR 30902).\16\ Like ozone, the State
has a long history of regulating lead, therefore the broad regulatory
authorities to address criteria pollutants generally, codified in the
SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, continue to protect and maintain the
lead NAAQS. The most significant change to the SIP since the EPA's last
review is Washington's submittal of Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) section 173-476-120 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead (Pb)
which set state standards for lead that match the EPA lead NAAQS. The
EPA approved WAC 173-476-120 on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12077).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Washington State did make changes to the Washington Clean
Air Act modifying particulate matter control measures for
residential wood combustion, effective June 2012. However, these
changes are unrelated to the regulation of the lead NAAQS. The EPA
also notes that on January 27, 2014, Ecology submitted an updated
version of Chapter 173-400 of the Washington Administrative Code,
General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, however the EPA has
not yet made a proposed determination on that submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington's submittal includes an analysis of potential lead
sources in the State. In 2010, the EPA improved the existing lead
monitoring network by requiring monitors be placed in areas with
sources such as industrial facilities with lead emissions of 0.5 tons
or more. Washington currently has no known industrial facilities with
lead emissions at these updated monitoring thresholds; nor are there
any nonattainment areas for lead in the State. Because leaded aviation
gasoline was considered a possible threat to attainment, the EPA
required a year-long monitoring study of airports with estimated lead
emissions between 0.50 and 1.0 tons per year, including two airports in
Washington: Auburn Municipal Airport and Harvey Field in Snohomish.
Monitoring results at these Washington airports showed little risk of
future nonattainment, with concentrations well below one-half the 2008
lead NAAQS, as discussed in the evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B),
below. Given the lack of air emissions in the State at current
reporting and monitoring thresholds for lead, Washington determined
that no new control measures or emission standards would be necessary
at this time. If any new facilities are found to emit lead, Washington
determined that the existing EPA-approved minor source permitting
program and the PSD FIP would adequately address these situations in
the future.
    EPA analysis: The EPA agrees with Washington's determination that
no new control measures or emission limits for lead seem necessary at
this time, due to the lack of air emission sources in the State. The
EPA is proposing to find that the existing Washington SIP, codified in
40 CFR 52, subpart WW, is adequate to protect and maintain the 2008
lead NAAQS.
    The EPA is also proposing to find that Washington's SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 lead NAAQS, subject
to the following qualifications. We are not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations
at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and
the EPA plans to address such state regulations.\17\ In the meantime,
the EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take
steps to correct it as soon as possible. In addition, we are not
proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard
to director's discretion or variance provisions. The EPA believes that
a number of states may have such provisions that are contrary to the
CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, November 24, 1987) and the
EPA plans to take action in the future to address such state
regulations. In the meantime, we encourage any state having a
director's discretion or variance provision that is contrary to the CAA
and the EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Scope of Action on Infrastructure Submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
    State submittal: Washington derives its general statutory authority
to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors from RCW
70.94.331(5) Powers and Duties of Department which states, ``[t]he
department is directed to conduct or cause to be conducted a continuous
surveillance program to monitor the quality of the ambient atmosphere
as to concentrations and movements of air contaminants and conduct or
cause to be conducted a program to determine the quantity of emissions
to the atmosphere.'' Regulatory authority is contained in the EPA-
approved SIP provisions of WAC 173-400-105 Records, Monitoring and
Reporting. These authorities were reviewed by the EPA as part of the
previous 1997 ozone infrastructure approval and have not changed since
the EPA's last review.
    With respect to lead, Washington's submittal focuses primarily on
the airport lead monitoring study conducted from December 2011 through
December 2012. This effort was part of a year-long EPA monitoring study
of 15 airports with estimated lead emissions between 0.50 and 1.0 ton
per year, which included two airports in Washington: Auburn Municipal
Airport and Harvey Field in Snohomish. The study found that the maximum
three-month rolling average at the Auburn Airport was 0.055 [mu]g/m\3\
(37% of NAAQS) and at Harvey Field was 0.032 [mu]g/m\3\ (21% of NAAQS).
Because neither airport measured a three-month rolling average that
exceeded 50% of the NAAQS, the lead monitoring at both airports was
concluded December 2012, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Details on
the EPA's lead monitoring study can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f13032.pdf.
    EPA analysis: Washington submitted a comprehensive air quality
monitoring plan to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, which the
EPA approved on April 15, 1981. This air quality monitoring plan has
been updated annually, with the most recent submittal dated May 2013.
The EPA approved the plan on March 10, 2014, included in the docket for
this action. This approved plan meets the EPA's revised ambient
monitoring requirements for lead promulgated on December 14, 2010 (75
FR 81126) as specified in 40 CFR part 58. Washington provides air
quality monitoring data summaries and a map of the air monitoring
network at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm.

Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program
to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal refers to EPA-approved
regulatory provisions contained in the SIP under WAC 173-400-230
Regulatory Actions and WAC 173-400-240 Criminal Penalties, as well as
the enforcement-related statutory provisions of Chapter 70.94 RCW,
Washington Clean Air Act. All of these enforcement provisions remain
unchanged since the EPA's last review and approval of the 1997 ozone
infrastructure submittal (May 24, 2012; 77 FR 30902). Washington also
cites the EPA-approved minor source permitting program contained in the
SIP under WAC 173-400-110 New Source Review and WAC 173-400-113
Requirements for New Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas.
Specifically, WAC 173-400-113(3) ensures that, ``[a]llowable emissions
from the proposed new source or modification will not delay the
attainment date for an area not in attainment nor cause or contribute
to a violation of any ambient air quality standard.'' Washington also
notes that there are no lead nonattainment areas in the State and any
major PSD sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas would be
addressed under the existing EPA FIP codified in 40 CFR 52.2497.
    EPA analysis: With regard to the requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find
that the Washington provisions provide the State with authority to
enforce the air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated
pursuant to the SIP. Washington may issue emergency orders to reduce or
discontinue emission of air contaminants where air emissions cause or
contribute to imminent and substantial endangerment under the EPA-
approved provisions of WAC 173-435 Emergency Episode Plan. Enforcement
cases may be referred to the State Attorney General's Office for civil
or criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to enforcement for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary
sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2008 lead NAAQS. As
explained above, in the ``CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Elements'' discussion, we are not evaluating nonattainment related
provisions in this action, such as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D, title I of the CAA. In addition, Washington has no
designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 lead NAAQS. With regard to
the minor NSR requirement of this element, we have determined that the
Washington minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C)
of the CAA is adequate to regulate emissions of lead because WAC 173-
400-113 prevents the cause or contribution to a violation of any
ambient air quality standard. Lastly, as previously discussed, the PSD
permitting program in Washington is operated under an EPA FIP. As noted
in the EPA's October 14, 2011, infrastructure guidance, when an area is
already subject to a FIP for PSD permitting (whether or not a state,
local, or tribal air agency has been delegated federal authority to
implement the PSD FIP), the air agency may choose to continue to rely
on the PSD FIP to have permits issued pursuant to the FIP. If so, the
EPA could not fully approve the infrastructure SIP submission; however,
the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse consequences to the
air agency or to sources from this partial disapproval of the
infrastructure SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to partially
disapprove Washington's SIP for those requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On January 27, 2014, Washington submitted PSD regulations
for approval into the SIP. The EPA has not finalized our review of
that submittal. The EPA's proposed disapproval of the PSD elements
in this action to rely on the existing PSD FIP is not a reflection
on Ecology's January 27, 2014, submittal. Instead, the EPA has
determined that the existing PSD FIP currently provides protection
and maintenance of the lead NAAQS so there is no compelling reason
to delay a proposed determination on the adequacy of Ecology's
infrastructure certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate Transport

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or from interfering
with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address
regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
    State submittal: In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer City generation, L.P. v. EPA, in
effect at the time of the State's submission, Washington's
certification notes that states were not required to submit SIPs
addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until the EPA had quantified
their obligations under that section. With respect to the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements, Washington's certification notes that
a FIP is in place to address the PSD components. With respect to
visibility, Washington submitted a regional haze plan in 2010, which
the EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove and
supplement with a FIP (December 30, 2013; 78 FR 79344). Notwithstanding
the final outcome of the EPA's proposed partial approval and partial
FIP, the infrastructure submittal notes that Washington does not
currently have any known sources of lead at 0.5 tons per year and
concludes, based on the EPA's October 14, 2011, infrastructure
guidance, that lead is not a pollutant that contributes towards
visibility problems and there are no impacts to Class I areas in
neighboring states from sources of lead in Washington State.
    EPA analysis: As noted in the EPA's October 14, 2011,
infrastructure guidance, the physical properties of lead prevent
emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as
fine particulate matter or ozone. Given the lack of significant
stationary sources of lead in the State, it is extremely unlikely that
Washington sources would contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. On April 29,
2014, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the
decision of the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, which had
been relied upon by the State in making its infrastructure submission.
The EPA intends to address the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate action.
    The EPA believes that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-
element is satisfied when new major sources and major modifications in
Washington are subject to a SIP-

approved PSD program that satisfactorily implements the 2008 lead
NAAQS. As previously noted, a FIP is in place for the PSD program in
Washington. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the
Washington SIP with respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD
sub-element.
    The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011, infrastructure
guidance that, with regard to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility sub-element, significant impacts from lead emissions from
stationary sources are expected to be limited to short distances from
the source and most, if not all lead stationary sources, are located at
distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts would be
negligible. The EPA's guidance notes that, ``EPA's experience with
initial lead designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5
tpy [tons per year] or that are located more than 2 miles from a state
border generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in another state.'' While this statement specifically
addressed interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 (nonattainment and
maintenance) the physical properties of lead remain the same with
respect to prong 4 (visibility). In Washington there are currently no
known sources emitting lead at 0.5 tons per year.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the Washington SIP for
purposes of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements related to
visibility for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport provisions:
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified
major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from
the source.
    State submittal: Washington's submittal notes that the State has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. CAA section
126(a) obligations are met through the current PSD FIP.
    EPA analysis: The EPA agrees that Washington has no pending
interstate or international pollution obligations under CAA sections
115 and 126(b). Because Washington does not have SIP-approved
provisions addressing the requirements and instead relies on the PSD
FIP to satisfy its CAA section 126(a) obligations, the EPA is proposing
to partially disapprove the SIP for this element. However, as
previously noted, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse
consequences to Washington or to sources resulting from this proposed
partial disapproval of the infrastructure SIP.

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128 and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    State submittal: Chapter 43.21A RCW Department of Ecology provides
authority for the director to employ personnel necessary for
administration of this chapter. Chapters 43.21A and 70.94 RCW provide
the rule-making authority for Ecology. Ecology's Air Quality Program is
funded through the following funding sources: the state general fund,
section 105 of the CAA grant program, Air Operating Permit Account
(permit fees from large industrial sources), and Air Pollution Control
Account (permit fees for burning and annual fees for small industrial
air pollution sources).
    The EPA-approved provisions of the Washington SIP under WACs 173-
400-220 Requirements for Board Members and 173-400-260 Conflict of
Interest provide that no state board or body which approves operating
permits or enforcement orders, either in the first instance or upon
appeal, shall be constituted of less than a majority of members who
represent the public interest and who do not derive a significant
portion of their income from persons subject to operating permits.
State law also provides that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of any executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed. See RCW 34.05.425
Administrative Procedure Act; RCW 42.17 Public Disclosure Act; RCW
70.94.100 Composition of Local Air Authorities' Board; Conflict of
Interest Requirements.
    Ecology works with other organizations and agencies and may enter
into agreements allowing for implementation of the air pollution
controls by another agency. However, RCW 70.94.370 states that no
provision of this chapter or any recommendation of the state board or
of any local or regional air pollution program is a limitation on the
power of a state agency in the enforcement, or administration of any
provision of law which it is specifically permitted or required to
enforce or administer.
    EPA analysis: Regarding adequate personnel, funding and authority,
the EPA believes the Washington SIP meets the requirements of this
element. Washington receives CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds from
the EPA and provides state matching funds necessary to carry out SIP
requirements. Regarding the state board requirements under CAA section
128, the EPA approved WAC 173-400-220 Requirements for Board Members
and WAC 173-400-260 Conflict of Interest as meeting the section 128
requirements on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726). As part of the approval for
the 1997 ozone infrastructure action, the EPA reviewed these provisions
again and found that they still adequately met the section 128
requirements (May 24, 2012; 77 FR 30902). Finally, regarding state
responsibility and oversight of local and regional entities, RCW
70.94.370 provides Ecology with adequate authority to carry out SIP
obligations with respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA,
which shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    State submittal: The EPA-approved version of WAC 173-400-105
Records, Monitoring, and Reporting currently in the Washington SIP
provides the authority to monitor stationary source emissions for
compliance purposes and make the information available to the public.
The language of WAC 173-400-105(1) provides general authority to
require emission reporting, including lead emissions. Meanwhile, WAC
173-400-105(2) allows Ecology to require

stack testing and/or ambient air monitoring, even if not required in a
permit or other enforceable requirement as part of a continuous
surveillance program to protect air quality. Washington currently has
no known lead stationary sources at the EPA's updated stationary source
monitoring threshold of 0.5 tons per year. If additional stationary
sources are found to emit lead above this threshold, Washington has
adequate authority under WAC 173-400-105 to compel additional
monitoring.
    EPA analysis: The EPA-approved regulatory provisions cited by
Washington establish compliance requirements to monitor emissions, keep
and report records, and collect ambient air monitoring data in
accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). Additionally, Washington is
required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central
repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions
inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger
sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System.
States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their
associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds.
The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary,
and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)
for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    State submittal: The State cites the EPA-approved Washington SIP
provisions of WAC 173-435 Emergency Episode Plan, which are consistent
with the EPA's regulations contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H
(51.150-51.153). Similar to the EPA regulations in subpart H, the
Washington SIP does not contain specific requirements for lead; however
the general emergency episode regulations provide the State with
adequate authority to address other emissions that are causing imminent
danger to public health or safety.
    EPA analysis: As noted in the October 14, 2011, guidance, based on
the EPA's experience to date with the lead NAAQS and designating lead
nonattainment areas, the EPA expects that an emergency episode
associated with lead emissions would be unlikely and, if it were to
occur, would be the result of a malfunction or other emergency
situation at a relatively large source of lead. Accordingly, the EPA
believes that the central components of a contingency plan would be to
reduce emissions from the source at issue and public communication, as
needed.
    Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator
to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions which
present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare, or the environment.'' We find that the EPA-approved Washington
SIP at WAC 173-435-050 Action Procedures provides Washington with
comparable authority. Specifically, WAC 173-435-050(6) states,
``regardless of whether any episode stages have previously been
declared, whenever the governor finds that emissions are causing
imminent danger to public health or safety, the governor may declare an
air pollution emergency and order the persons responsible for the
operation of sources causing the danger, to reduce or discontinue
emissions consistent with good operating practice, safe operating
procedures, and SERPs [source emission reduction plans], if any.''
Further, WAC 173-435-050(5) requires, ``the broadest publicity
practicable shall be given to the declaration of any episode stage.
Such declaration shall, as soon as possible, be directly communicated
to all persons responsible for the carrying out of SERPs within the
affected area.'' Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G)
for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    State submittal: Washington's submittal refers to RCW 70.94 which
gives Ecology the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
maintain and protect Washington's air quality and to comply with the
federal requirements, including revisions of NAAQS, SIPs, and
responding to EPA's findings.
    EPA analysis: RCW 70.94.510 specifically requires Ecology to
cooperate with the federal government in order to ensure the
coordination of the provisions of the federal and state Clean Air Acts.
In practice, the State regularly submits revisions to the EPA to revise
the SIP. EPA most recently approved revisions to the Washington SIP on
October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61188, Thurston County Second 10-Year
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan), September 17, 2013 (78 FR
57073, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulatory Updates), and May 29,
2013 (78 FR 32131, Tacoma-Pierce County Nonattainment Area).
Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not
governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls
are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan
requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific
subparts 2-5 of part D. These elements are: (i) submissions required by
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a
permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a
result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I).

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for

consultation with local governments and federal land managers carrying
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C,
title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration
and visibility protection.
    State submittal: The State submittal cites the following regulatory
provisions contained in the Washington SIP to meet CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) obligations: WAC 173-435-050 Action Procedures, WAC 173-
400-151 Retrofit Requirements for Visibility, and WAC 173-400-171
Public Involvement. Washington also cites the following statutory
authorities: RCW 34.05 Administrative Procedures Act, RCW 42.30 Open
Public Meetings, RCW 70.94.141 Consultation, and RCW 70.94.240 Air
Pollution Control Advisory Council. In addition to these SIP measures,
Ecology uses the Washington Air Quality Advisory (WAQA) tool for
informing the public about the levels and health effects of air
pollution. The public can access up-to-date WAQA information on-line at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm.
    EPA analysis: Under the EPA-approved provisions of WAC 173-400-171
Public Involvement, Ecology routinely coordinates with local
governments, states, federal land managers and other stakeholders on
air quality issues and provides notice to appropriate agencies related
to permitting actions. Washington regularly participates in regional
planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership which
is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, federal land managers,
local air agencies and the EPA whose purpose is to understand current
and evolving regional air quality issues in the West. Therefore the EPA
is proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Washington actively
participates and submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW program which
provides information to the public on the air quality in their locale.
In addition, Washington provides the State's annual network monitoring
plan, annual air quality monitoring data summaries, specific warnings
and advice to those persons who may be most susceptible, and a map of
the air monitoring network to the public on their Web site (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/airhome.html). Therefore, we are proposing
to find that the Washington SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we
have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD permitting. As discussed previously,
PSD in Washington is operated under a FIP. We are proposing to
disapprove the Washington SIP for the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(J)
with regard to PSD. Instead the State and the EPA will continue to rely
on the existing PSD FIP.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility
triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective.
    Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the 2008 lead NAAQS, except for those elements related to PSD which
we are proposing to partially disapprove.

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal states that air quality
modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as
appropriate for the State to demonstrate attainment with required air
quality standards. Modeling is also addressed in the permitting process
(see discussion at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)). Estimates of ambient
concentrations are based on air quality models, data bases and other
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air
Quality Models) and are routinely used by Washington. Exceptions to
using Appendix W are handled under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.166
which requires written approval from the EPA and an opportunity for
public comment.
    EPA analysis: As noted in the state submittal, Washington models
estimates of ambient concentrations based on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W
(Guidelines on Air Quality Models) for both permitting and SIP
development. Any change or substitution from models specified in 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix W is subject to notice and opportunity for public
comment. While Washington has no nonattainment areas for lead, modeling
was used to support maintenance plans and redesignation to attainment
requests for the former ozone nonattainment areas of Puget Sound and
Vancouver, approved by the EPA on September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50438) and
May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27204), respectively. More recently, modeling was
used to develop control measures for the Tacoma-Pierce County fine
particulate matter nonattainment area, although the area came into
attainment before a formal SIP submission was required (78 FR 32131,
May 29, 2013). Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve
Washington's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees sufficient to cover the cost
of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until
such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the
EPA's approval of a fee program under title V.
    State submittal: The State's submittal notes that there are no
major stationary sources or nonattainment areas for lead in Washington,
and facilities that would be subject to PSD permitting are covered
under the EPA FIP. Notwithstanding that, Washington derives its
authority to collect fees for new source review and title V sources
from RCW 70.94.151, RCW 70.94.152, and RCW 70.94.162. The EPA reviewed
Washington's fee provisions and fully approved the title V program on
August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42439), with a revision approved on January 2,
2003 (67 FR 71479).

    EPA analysis: As noted in the State's submittal, the EPA approved
the Washington title V permitting program on August 13, 2001, with an
effective date of September 12, 2001 (66 FR 42439). Meanwhile,
Washington does not have a SIP-approved PSD permitting program and,
therefore, is not required to have PSD permitting fees in its SIP. As
discussed earlier in this notice, PSD permitting in Washington takes
place by means of a FIP. Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that
Washington has satisfied its current obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 lead NAAQS by virtue of the EPA's prior
approval of Washington's title V permitting program.

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    State submittal: Washington cites the following regulations and
statutes as pertinent to this infrastructure SIP requirement: WAC 173-
400-171 Public Involvement, RCW 34.05 Administrative Procedure Act, RCW
42.30 Open Public Meetings Act, and RCW 70.94.240 Air Pollution Control
Advisory Council.
    EPA analysis: As discussed in the preamble relating to CAA section
110(a)(2)(J), Ecology routinely coordinates with local governments and
other stakeholders on air quality issues. The public involvement
regulations cited in Washington's submittal were previously approved
into Washington's federally-approved SIP on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726).
Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that Washington's SIP meets the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve the April 1, 2014,
submittal from Washington to demonstrate that the SIP meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the lead
NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 2008, except for the requirements
related to PSD permitting and portions of the interstate transport
requirements as discussed in detail above. Specifically, we are
proposing to find that the current EPA-approved Washington SIP meets
the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the
2008 lead NAAQS: (A), (B), (C)--except for those elements covered by
the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II)--except for those elements covered by the PSD
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). As previously noted, the EPA anticipates that there
would be no adverse consequences to Washington or to sources in the
State resulting from this proposed partial disapproval of the
infrastructure SIP related to PSD. The EPA, likewise, has no additional
FIP responsibilities as a result of this proposed partial disapproval
for requirements related to PSD. Remaining interstate transport
requirements arising under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
lead NAAQS will be addressed in a separate action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, except for 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 and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter
dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for
consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 5, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-11073 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39976-39977]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17866]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827; FRL-9966-91-OAR]

Public Hearing for Reconsideration of the Final Determination of
the Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model
Years 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
public hearing to be held in Washington, DC on September 6, 2017 for
the notice ``Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final
Determination of the Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Model Years 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles; Request for
Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards''
announced August 10, 2017 and projected to be published on August 21,
2017. In the document signed on August 10, 2017, EPA announced that it
is reconsidering whether the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
standards previously established for model years 2022-2025 are
appropriate under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act and invited
stakeholders to submit any comments, data, and information they believe
are relevant to the Administrator's reconsideration of the January 2017
Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination and in particular, highlight
any new information. EPA also requested comment on the separate
question of whether the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards
established for model year 2021 remain appropriate, regardless of the
agency's decision on the Mid-term Evaluation.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on September 6, 2017, at the
location noted below under ADDRESSES. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m.
and end when all parties present who wish to speak have had an
opportunity to do so. Parties wishing to testify at the hearing should
notify EPA by August 30, 2017, by sending an email to Hearing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by contacting the contact person listed
below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Additional information
regarding the hearing appears below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:.
Any updates made to any aspect of the hearing, including any change to
the location of the hearing, will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-ghg-emissions. The EPA does not intend to
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing any such updates.
Please go to https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-ghg-emissions for more
information on the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the following location:
Renaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel, 999 Ninth Street NW.,
Washington, DC, USA, 20001 (phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>). A complete set
of documents related to the Mid-term Evaluation are available for
public inspection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827.
Documents can also be viewed at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Lieske, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Assessment and Standards
Division (ASD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: Hearing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the public hearing is to
provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments related to
the notice ``Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final
Determination of the Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Model Years 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles; Request for
Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards''
projected to be published on August 21, 2017. Once EPA learns how many
people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate
an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for
necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for
anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony. For planning
purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for no more than five
minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if there is a large
turnout. We request that you bring two copies of your statement or
other material for the EPA panel.
    EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of
evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of
the hearing and keep the official record for the notice open until the
close of the comment period to allow speakers to submit supplementary
information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts
directly with the court reporter. Panel members may ask clarifying
questions during the oral statements but will not respond to the
statements at that time. Written statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same
weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the
public hearing. Written comments must be received by the last day of
the comment period.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    You may learn more about the Mid-term Evaluation by visiting EPA's
Web site https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-
engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-

greenhouse-gas-ghg or by searching the Mid-term Evaluation Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827 at www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 18, 2017.
Ben Hengst,
Acting Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017-17866 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11893-11894]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03944]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 1, 11, 16, and 129

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3325]
RIN 0910-AH31

Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period for the proposed
rule and for its information collection provisions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the proposed rule, and for the information
collection related to the proposed rule, entitled ``Laboratory
Accreditation for Analyses of Foods'' that appeared in the Federal
Register of November 4, 2019. We are taking this action in response to
a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time
to consider the proposal. We also are taking this action to keep the
comment period for the information collection provisions associated
with the rule consistent with the comment period for the proposed rule.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule
published November 4, 2019 (84 FR 59452). Submit either electronic or
written comments on the proposed rule by April 6, 2020. Submit comments
on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) by April 6, 2020 (see the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995'' section).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 6, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 6, 2020. Comments

received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-3325 for ``Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy McGrath, Staff Director, Food
and Feed Laboratory Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and
Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rm. 3142, Rockville, MD 20857,
301-796-6591, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    With regard to the information collection: Domini Bean, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of November 4, 2019
(84 FR 59452), we published a proposed rule entitled ``Laboratory
Accreditation for Analyses of Foods'' with a 120-day comment period on
the provisions of the proposed rule and on the information collection
provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
    FDA has received a request for a 30-day extension of the comment
period on the proposed rule to allow interested persons additional time
to consider the proposal. FDA has considered the request and is
granting the extension of the comment period to allow interested
persons additional opportunity to consider the proposal. We also are
extending the comment period for the information collection provisions
to make the comment period for the information collection provisions
the same as the comment period for the provisions of the proposed rule.
To clarify, FDA is requesting comment on all issues raised by the
proposed rule. The Agency believes that this extension allows adequate
time for any interested persons to fully consider the proposal and
submit comments.

    Dated: February 21, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-03944 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P