[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52015-52016]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2484-000]

LVI Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of LVI Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is September 10, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 21, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21083 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Poisson Based Rec. Benefits 3/ 4/ 2003 Based on Closures from Final ( No GMs) MEAN VALUES POISSON Ohio State Recreational Benefits Activity Ohio State Population in 2000 Aged 16 and Older Percentage Participating in the Activity Single Day Trip to Ohio ( from the NRDS) Affected Population Per Trip Welfare in $ 2001 Lower Bound Mid Upper Bound Total Lower Bound Benefits in $ 2001 Total Mid Benefits in $ 2001 Total Upper Bound Benefits in $ 2001 Fishing 8790969 0.1015 = B5* C5 = D23* C28 = B23* C28 =( F5+ H5)/ 2 = C23* C28 = F5* D5 = G5* D5 = H5* D5 Boating 8790969 0.0769 = B6* C6 = D24* C28 = B24* C28 =( F6+ H6)/ 2 = C24* C28 = F6* D6 = G6* D6 = H6* D6 Vewing 8790969 0.0908 = B7* C7 = D25* C28 = B25* C28 =( F7+ H7)/ 2 = C25* C28 = F7* D7 = G7* D7 = H7* D7 Swimming 8790969 0.0908 = B8* C8 = D26* C28 = B26* C28 =( F8+ H8)/ 2 = C26* C28 = F8* D8 = G8* D8 = H8* D8 Total Recreational Benefit = SUM( I5: I9) = SUM( J5: J9) = SUM( K5: K9)

Low ( 50%) Mid ( 50%) High ( 50%) Non Use Values = I10* 0.5 = J10* 0.5 = K10* 0.5 TOTAL BENEFITS = I10+ B13 = J10+ C13 = K10+ D13 Poisson approach. Uses only participants; the estimated poisson model determines the basline and post compliance number of trips. The estimated number of trips is then multiplied by the per trip value estimated. $ 1993 Seasonal Welfare Values Per Trip Value in $ 1993 Activity Lower Upper Fishing 0.14 0.14 0.014 MEAN VALUES USED Boating 0 0 0 Viewing 0.09 0.09 0.01 Swimming 0.01 0.01 0.01 CPI based adjustment factor for 1993 to 2001 1.225606 Seasonal Welfare Range ( in $ 2001) Recreational Benefits Range rum_ ben ( Final No GMs 11_ 29_ 02). xls


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18448-18450]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0001]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation, Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New
River Raft Race, New River; Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida during the
Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, on Saturday, April
5, 2014. The special local regulation will encompass the waters between
Esplanade Park to just east of the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge.
Approximately 100 participants will attend the race. The special local
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of the participants,
participant vessels, and the general public during the event. Persons
and vessels, except those participating in the event, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on April 5,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0001. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer John K. Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    Previously, temporary special local regulations regarding this
marine event have been published in the Code of Federal Regulations at
33 CFR 100. No final rule has been published in regards to this marine
event.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because there is not sufficient time
remaining to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to
the event. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be
contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to
minimize potential danger to the race participants, participant
vessels, spectators, and the general public.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date for
this special local regulation is contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the
race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general
public.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
    The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on the
navigable waters of the United States during the

Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule.

    On April 5, 2014, Fort Lauderdale Rotary Club is hosting the Rotary
Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race. The race will be held on
the waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Approximately
100 participants will attend the race. Minimal spectator vessels are
expected.
    The special local regulation will encompass certain navigable
waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from Esplanade Park
to east of the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge. The special local
regulation will be enforced from 11 a.m. until 3 p.m. on April 5, 2014.
    Non-participant persons and vessels will be prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative. Non-participant persons and vessels desiring
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone may
contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami
or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) This
special local regulation will be enforced for four hours; (2) non-
participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the regulated area during the respective enforcement
period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative; (3) non-participant persons and vessels not able to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during
the enforcement period; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of
the regulated area during the respective enforcement period. For the
reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the creation of a special local
regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-0001 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0001  Special Local Regulation; Rotary Club of Fort
Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a special local
regulation, between Esplanade Park east to just east of the Southeast
3rd Avenue Bridge. All waters of the New River contained within the
following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 26[deg]07'10'' N,
80[deg]08'52'' W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position
26[deg]07'05'' N, 80[deg]08'34'' W; thence southwest to Point 3 in
position 26[deg]07'04'' N, 80[deg]08'35'' W thence northwest to Point 4
in position 26[deg]07'08'' N, 80[deg]08'52''W; thence north back to
origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative. Non-participant persons and
vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative
via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain
of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. until 3
p.m. on April 5, 2014.

    Dated: March 19, 2014.
A.J. Gould,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2014-07264 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62368-62378]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24723]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744, FRL-9918-05-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Infrastructure Requirements for the Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submittal from Washington demonstrating that the SIP meets
the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, October 17,
2006, and December 14, 2012 (collectively the PM2.5 NAAQS).
The CAA requires that each state, after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, review their SIP to ensure that it meets the
infrastructure requirements necessary to implement the new or revised
NAAQS. On September 22, 2014, Washington certified that the Washington
SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, except for those requirements related to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program
currently operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), certain
elements of the regional haze program currently operated under a FIP,
and specific requirements related to interstate transport which will be
addressed in a separate submittal. The EPA is proposing to find that
Washington's SIP is adequate for purposes of the infrastructure SIP
requirements of the CAA with the exceptions noted above. The EPA is
proposing to find that the SIP deficiencies related to PSD permitting
and regional haze, however, have been adequately addressed by the
existing EPA FIPs and, therefore, no further action is required by
Washington or the EPA for those elements. The EPA will address the
remaining interstate transport requirements in a separate action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0744, by any of the following methods:
     Email<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-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0744. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at:<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 July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new
annual NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 2006,
the EPA revised the standards for PM2.5, tightening the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]/m \3\) to 35 [micro]/m \3\, and retaining the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]/m \3\ (71 FR 61144).
Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the level of the
health based (primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 [micro]/m
\3\ (78 FR 3086, published January 15, 2013).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the EPA's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS revision, we left
unchanged the existing welfare (secondary) standards for
PM2.5 to address PM-related effects such as visibility
impairment, ecological effects, damage to materials and climate
impacts. This includes an annual secondary standard of 15.0 [mu]g/m
\3\ and a 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to
address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to implement, maintain, and enforce the
standards, so-called ``infrastructure''

requirements. To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA
issued guidance to states. On October 2, 2007, the EPA issued guidance
to address infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ Subsequently, on September 25, 2009, the EPA
issued guidance to address SIP infrastructure elements for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ Finally, on September 13, 2013, the EPA
issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements generally for
all NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ As noted in
the guidance documents, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the
CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, states may certify that fact via a
letter to the EPA. On September 22, 2014, Washington made a submittal
to the EPA certifying that the current Washington SIP meets the CAA
section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, except for certain requirements related to PSD
permitting, regional haze, and interstate transport described in the
``Analysis of the State's Submittal'' section below. Washington's
submittal also included a demonstration for infrastructure requirements
related to the 2008 ozone and 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS addressed in
a separate EPA proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X,
October 2, 2007.
    \3\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).'' Memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, September 25, 2009.
    \4\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states
must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. The requirements, with their
corresponding CAA subsection, are listed below:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Washington's submittal does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed and remanded a D.C. Circuit Court ruling related to
interstate transport. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.,
No. 12-1182, 572 U.S. ___--slip op. (2014). The EPA intends to
address Washington's obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in a
separate action. In contrast, portions of the Washington SIP
submittal relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) were
submitted. In this notice, we are proposing to act on Washington's
submittal for purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA
section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission
deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary
local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time
the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA
section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D.
These requirements are: (i) submissions required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program
as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this
action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or
CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by
a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of
the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

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

    The EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Washington that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to
make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions
``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air
quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions
are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement''
of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is
not conditioned upon the EPA's taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list
of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the
term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under
the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP''
submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part
D of title I of the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by
the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA
section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\6\ The

EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section
110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are
ambiguous. In particular, the EPA believes that the list of required
elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section
110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given
new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section
110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\7\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires the EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans
for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\8\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, the EPA must determine which provisions of
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \8\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2)
is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set
specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether the EPA must act upon such SIP submission
in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit
``a plan'' to meet these requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to
allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\9\ Similarly, the EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
the EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP
submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action approving the
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State
separately to meet the requirements of the EPA's 2008
PM2.5 NSR rule), and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action on
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \10\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77
FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), the
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the
EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not
have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the
NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant
pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in
section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.

    Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\12\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\13\ The EPA developed this document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, the EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. The EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\14\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA interprets sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need
to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, the
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires
the EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for
infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states
and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
regardless of whether or not the EPA provides guidance or
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
    \13\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \14\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains the EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in the EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD
program requirements contained in part C and the EPA's PSD regulations.
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants,
including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions the EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of
a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether
the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, the
EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and
every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007).
Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such
potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if
it is aware of such existing provisions.\15\ It is important to note
that the EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include
a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for

the purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a
new or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the
infrastructure SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach
is for states and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP
revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other
factors.
    For example, the EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations
with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the EPA determines that a state's SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate
transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\16\ Section 110(k)(6)
authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submissions.\17\ Significantly, the EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude the EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \18\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal cites an overview of the
air quality laws including portions of Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) Washington Clean Air Act and Chapter 43.21A RCW
Department of Ecology. These underlying statutory authorities remain
substantially unchanged since the EPA's last comprehensive review for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure certification (77 FR 30902, May 24,
2012). The only statutory changes that occurred since the EPA's last
review were in 2012, when the Washington State Legislature revised
Chapter 70.94 RCW to address the Tacoma-Pierce County PM2.5
nonattainment area and other areas at risk for PM2.5
nonattainment statewide. These statutory changes allowed state and
local agencies to take a more precautionary approach in protecting and
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to residential wood
burning devices and impaired air quality burn bans.
    Washington also included an overview of state and local regulations
approved into the SIP, codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW. These
regulations include minor stationary source permitting, visible
emissions requirements, and other basic program elements that apply to
all NAAQS reviewed as part of the 1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure
certification. Other cited regulations were developed as part of
previous nonattainment area strategies such as open burning
restrictions originally promulgated to address coarse particulate
matter (PM10) nonattainment, but provide important co-
benefits for PM2.5. Most notable for the control of
PM2.5 is the EPA's recent approval of Chapter 173-433
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Solid Fuel Burning Devices,
codifying the 2012 statutory changes to Washington's residential wood
combustion control program (79 FR 26628, May 9, 2014). Also notable is
the EPA's recent approval of Chapter 173-476 WAC Ambient Air Quality
Standards, mirroring the Federal PM2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 12077,
March 4, 2014). These state-wide ambient air quality standards ensure
that the general minor stationary source permitting programs codified
in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, cover the applicable PM2.5
NAAQS.
    EPA analysis: Washington's PM2.5 problems are heavily
dominated by residential wood combustion during winter inversion
episodes that can last up to several days. As a result, Washington
experiences spikes in the 24-hour PM2.5 standard during
these short-term meteorological conditions, but otherwise has generally
low levels of PM2.5 for the rest of the year. For example,
in the Tacoma-Pierce County PM2.5 nonattainment area,
emissions are 74% wood smoke, 9% on road motor vehicles, 5% non-road
vehicles and engines, and 2% large industry on days when
PM2.5 NAAQS violations are most likely (78 FR 32131, May 29,
2013). Other communities historically at risk of elevated
PM2.5 levels such as Darrington, Marysville, and Yakima,
also experience heavy influence from residential wood combustion. For
this reason, the state-wide revisions to Chapter 173-433 WAC are a
major step forward in controlling PM2.5 in Washington State.
Monitors historically violating or close to violating the
PM2.5 NAAQS in all four communities are now attaining the
standards based on 2011-2013 data.\19\ Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the Washington

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Darrington 24-hour design value (DV) = 27 [micro]/m\3\,
annual DV = 6.8 [micro]/m\3\; Marysville 24-hour DV = 26 [micro]/
m\3\, annual DV = 7.7 [micro]/m\3\; Tacoma 24-hour DV = 32 [micro]/
m\3\, annual DV = 7.8 [micro]/m\3\; and Yakima 24-hour DV = 33
[micro]/m\3\, annual DV = 9.1 [micro]/m.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
    State submittal: Washington derives its general statutory authority
to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors from RCW
70.94.331(5) Powers and Duties of Department which states, ``[t]he
department is directed to conduct or cause to be conducted a continuous
surveillance program to monitor the quality of the ambient atmosphere
as to concentrations and movements of air contaminants and conduct or
cause to be conducted a program to determine the quantity of emissions
to the atmosphere.'' Regulatory authority is contained in the EPA-
approved SIP provisions of WAC 173-400-105 Records, Monitoring and
Reporting.
    EPA analysis: Washington submitted a comprehensive air quality
monitoring plan to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, which the
EPA approved on April 15, 1981. This air quality monitoring plan has
been updated annually, with the most recent submittal dated May 2013.
The EPA approved the plan on March 10, 2014. The letter approving the
plan is included in the docket for this action. Most notable is the
establishment of a near roadway monitoring site in the Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue Metropolitan Statistical Area, in accordance with the EPA's
most recent ambient monitoring requirements for PM2.5 (78 FR
3086, January 15, 2013). Washington provides air quality monitoring
data summaries and a map of the state air monitoring network at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program
to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal refers to EPA-approved
regulatory provisions contained in the SIP under WAC 173-400-230
Regulatory Actions and WAC 173-400-240 Criminal Penalties, as well as
the enforcement-related statutory provisions of Chapter 70.94 RCW,
Washington Clean Air Act. All of these enforcement provisions remain
unchanged since the EPA's last review and approval of the 1997 ozone
infrastructure submittal. Washington also cites the EPA-approved minor
source permitting program contained in the SIP under WAC 173-400-110
New Source Review and WAC 173-400-113 Requirements for New Sources in
Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas. Specifically, WAC 173-400-113(3)
ensures that, ``[a]llowable emissions from the proposed new source or
modification will not delay the attainment date for an area not in
attainment nor cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air
quality standard.'' \20\ Washington also notes that any major PSD
sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas would be addressed under
the existing EPA FIP codified in 40 CFR 52.2497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ On October 3, 2014, following the State's infrastructure
submission, the EPA approved updates to portions of WAC 173-400,
including regulations related to minor new source review (79 FR
59653). The EPA's final approval of the updates to WAC 173-400 is
not effective until November 3, 2014. In the interim, the EPA notes
that both the version of WAC 173-400 currently approved in the SIP
(effective June 2, 1995) and the recent updates (effective November
3, 2014) provide broad, general authority to maintain and protect
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analysis: With regard to the requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find
that the Washington provisions provide the state with authority to
enforce the air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated
pursuant to the SIP. Washington may issue emergency orders to reduce or
discontinue emission of air contaminants where air emissions cause or
contribute to imminent and substantial endangerment under the EPA-
approved provisions of WAC 173-435 Emergency Episode Plan. Enforcement
cases may be referred to the State Attorney General's Office for civil
or criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to enforcement for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary
sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the PM2.5
NAAQS. As explained above, in the ``CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Elements'' discussion, we are not evaluating
nonattainment related provisions in this action, such as the
nonattainment NSR program required by part D, title I of the CAA. With
regard to the minor NSR requirement of this element, we have determined
that the Washington minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, and codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW is
adequate to regulate emissions of PM2.5. Lastly, as
previously discussed, the PSD permitting program in Washington is
operated under an EPA FIP. As noted in the EPA's infrastructure
guidance, when an area is already subject to a FIP for PSD permitting
(whether or not a state, local, or tribal air agency has been delegated
Federal authority to implement the PSD FIP), the air agency may choose
to continue to rely on the PSD FIP to have permits issued pursuant to
the FIP. If so, the EPA could not fully approve the infrastructure SIP
submission; however, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse
consequences to the air agency or to sources from this partial
disapproval of the infrastructure SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing
to partially disapprove Washington's SIP for those requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ On January 27, 2014, Washington submitted PSD regulations
for approval into the SIP. The EPA has not finalized our review of
that submittal. The EPA's proposed disapproval of the PSD elements
in this action to rely on the existing PSD FIP is not a reflection
on Ecology's January 27, 2014, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or from interfering
with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address
regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
    State submittal: Washington indicated in the submittal that the
State intends to fulfill any remaining requirements related to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate submittal. With respect to the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements, Washington's
certification

notes that a FIP is in place to address the PSD components. With
respect to visibility, Washington submitted a regional haze plan in
2010, which the EPA partially approved, partially disapproved, and
supplemented with a FIP (79 FR 33438, June 11, 2014).
    EPA analysis: As noted above, this action does not address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On January 13, 2009,
the EPA determined that Washington met the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (74
FR 1501). Washington did not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the September 22, 2014
submittal. We intend to address the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in a
separate action.
    The EPA believes that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-
element is satisfied when new major sources and major modifications in
Washington are subject to a SIP-approved PSD program that
satisfactorily implements the PM2.5 NAAQS. As previously
noted, a FIP is in place for the PSD program in Washington. Therefore,
the EPA is proposing to disapprove the Washington SIP with respect to
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-element.
    The EPA believes that one way the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility sub-element (prong 4) can be satisfied for any relevant
NAAQS is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP
submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. As noted in the EPA's 2013
infrastructure guidance, ``[i]f the EPA determines the SIP to be
incomplete or partially disapproves an infrastructure SIP submission
for prong 4, a FIP obligation will be created. If a FIP or FIPs are
already in effect that correct all regional haze SIP deficiencies,
there will be no additional practical consequences from the partial
disapproval for the affected air agency, the sources within its
jurisdiction, or the EPA. The EPA will not be required to take further
action with respect to prong 4 because the FIP already in place would
satisfy the requirements with respect to prong 4. In addition, unless
the infrastructure SIP submission is required in response to a SIP call
under CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179
would not apply because the deficiencies are not with respect to a
submission that is required under CAA title I part D. Nevertheless, the
EPA continues to encourage all air agencies that may be subject to full
or partial FIPs for regional haze requirements to consider adopting
additional SIP provisions that would allow the EPA to fully approve the
regional haze SIP and thus to withdraw the FIP and approve the
infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 4.'' Because a partial FIP is
currently in place to address regional haze impacts from direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, the EPA is proposing
to disapprove the Washington SIP with respect to the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element for the PM2.5
NAAQS.
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport provisions:
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions
ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified
major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from
the source.
    State submittal: Washington's submittal notes that the state has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. CAA section
126(a) obligations are met through the current PSD FIP.
    EPA analysis: The EPA agrees that Washington has no pending
interstate or international pollution obligations under CAA sections
115 and 126(b). Because Washington does not have SIP-approved
provisions addressing the requirements and instead relies on the PSD
FIP to satisfy its CAA section 126(a) obligations, the EPA is proposing
to partially disapprove the SIP for this element. However, as
previously noted, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse
consequences to Washington or to sources resulting from this proposed
partial disapproval of the infrastructure SIP.

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

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

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (77 FR 30902). Finally, regarding state
responsibility and oversight of local and regional entities, RCW
70.94.370 provides Ecology with adequate authority to carry out
oversight of SIP obligations. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
approve the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E) for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA,
which shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    State submittal: The EPA-approved version of WAC 173-400-105
Records, Monitoring, and Reporting currently in the Washington SIP
provides the authority to monitor stationary source emissions for
compliance purposes and make the information available to the public.
The language of WAC 173-400-105(1) provides general authority to
require emission reporting. Meanwhile, WAC 173-400-105(2) allows
Ecology to require stack testing and/or ambient air monitoring, even if
not required in a permit or other enforceable requirement as part of a
continuous surveillance program to protect air quality.
    EPA analysis: The EPA-approved regulatory provisions cited by
Washington establish compliance requirements to monitor emissions, keep
and report records, and collect ambient air monitoring data in
accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). Additionally, Washington is
required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central
repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions
inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger
sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System.
States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their
associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds.
The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary,
and releases it to the general public through the Web site 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 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    State submittal: Ecology cites the EPA-approved Washington SIP
provisions of WAC 173-435 Emergency Episode Plan, which are consistent
with the EPA's regulations contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H
(51.150-51.153). In the case of an imminent danger to public health and
safety, for example wildfires, Washington State can use the above
mentioned regulatory authorities, and the statutory authorities of RCW
70.94.710 through 70.94.730, to declare an air pollution emergency for
PM2.5, working closely with other agencies to alert the
public and take necessary steps to mitigate risk.
    EPA analysis: Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA
Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contributing to
emissions which present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' We find that the EPA-
approved Washington SIP at WAC 173-435-050 Action Procedures provides
Washington with comparable authority. Specifically, WAC 173-435-050(6)
states, ``[r]egardless of whether any episode stages have previously
been declared, whenever the governor finds that emissions are causing
imminent danger to public health or safety, the governor may declare an
air pollution emergency and order the persons responsible for the
operation of sources causing the danger, to reduce or discontinue
emissions consistent with good operating practice, safe operating
procedures, and SERPs [source emission reduction plans], if any.''
Further, WAC 173-435-050(5) requires, ``[t]he broadest publicity
practicable shall be given to the declaration of any episode stage.
Such declaration shall, as soon as possible, be directly communicated
to all persons responsible for the carrying out of SERPs within the
affected area.'' Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G)
for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements, or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    State submittal: Washington's submittal refers to RCW 70.94, which
gives Ecology the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
maintain and protect Washington's air quality and to comply with
Federal requirements, including revisions of NAAQS, SIPs, and
responding to EPA findings.
    EPA analysis: RCW 70.94.510 specifically requires Ecology to
cooperate with the Federal government in order to ensure the
coordination of the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act and the
Washington Clean Air Act. In practice, Ecology regularly submits
revisions to the EPA to revise the SIP. The EPA recently approved
revisions to the Washington SIP on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61188,
Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance
Plan), September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57073, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Regulatory Updates), and May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131, Tacoma-Pierce
County Nonattainment Area), as well as the PM2.5 related
rule revisions cited in the discussion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (79
FR 12077, March 4, 2014). Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H)
for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not
governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls
are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, but are rather

due at the time of the nonattainment area plan requirements pursuant to
section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D.
These elements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program
as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this
action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA section
110(a)(2)(I).

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal land managers carrying
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C,
title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration
and visibility protection.
    State submittal: Ecology's submittal cites the following regulatory
provisions contained in the Washington SIP to meet CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) obligations: WAC 173-435-050 Action Procedures, WAC 173-
400-151 Retrofit Requirements for Visibility, and WAC 173-400-171
Public Involvement. Washington also cites the following statutory
authorities: RCW 34.05 Administrative Procedures Act, RCW 42.30 Open
Public Meetings, RCW 70.94.141 Consultation, and RCW 70.94.240 Air
Pollution Control Advisory Council. In addition to these SIP measures,
Ecology uses the Washington Air Quality Advisory (WAQA) tool for
informing the public about the levels and health effects of air
pollution. The public can access up-to-date WAQA information on-line at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm.
    EPA analysis: Under the EPA-approved provisions of WAC 173-400-171
Public Involvement, Ecology routinely coordinates with local
governments, states, Federal land managers and other stakeholders on
air quality issues and provides notice to appropriate agencies related
to permitting actions. Washington regularly participates in regional
planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership,
which is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, Federal land
managers, local air agencies and the EPA, whose purpose is to
understand current and evolving regional air quality issues in the
West. Therefore the EPA is proposing to approve the Washington SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation
with government officials.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Washington actively
participates and submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW program which
provides information to the public on the air quality in their locale.
In addition, Washington provides the state's annual network monitoring
plan, annual air quality monitoring data summaries, specific warnings
and advice to those persons who may be most susceptible, and a map of
the state air monitoring network to the public on their Web site
(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 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we
have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD permitting. As discussed previously,
PSD in Washington is operated under a FIP. We are proposing to
disapprove the Washington SIP for the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(J)
with regard to PSD. Instead the state and the EPA will continue to rely
on the existing PSD FIP.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility
triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective.
    Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the PM2.5 NAAQS, except for those elements related to
PSD which we are proposing to partially disapprove.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal states that air quality
modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as
appropriate to demonstrate attainment with required air quality
standards. Modeling is also addressed in the permitting process (see
discussion at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)). Estimates of ambient
concentrations are based on air quality models, data bases and other
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air
Quality Models) and are routinely used by Washington. Exceptions to
using Appendix W are handled under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.166
(Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which requires
written approval from the EPA and an opportunity for public comment.
    EPA analysis: As noted in Ecology's submittal, Washington models
estimates of ambient concentrations based on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W
(Guidelines on Air Quality Models) for both permitting and SIP
development. Any change or substitution from models specified in 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix W is subject to notice and opportunity for public
comment. Modeling was used for development of maintenance plans and
redesignation to attainment requests for the former ozone nonattainment
areas of Puget Sound and Vancouver, approved by the EPA on September
26, 1996 (61 FR 50438) and May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27204), respectively.
More recently, modeling was used to develop control measures for the
Tacoma-Pierce County fine particulate matter nonattainment area,
although the area came into attainment before a formal SIP submission
was required (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013). Based on the foregoing, we
are proposing to approve Washington's SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees sufficient to cover

the reasonable cost of reviewing, acting upon, implementing and
enforcing a permit.
    State submittal: Washington derives its authority to collect fees
for New Source Review and title V sources from RCW 70.94.151, RCW
70.94.152, and RCW 70.94.162. The EPA reviewed Washington's fee
provisions and fully approved the title V program on August 13, 2001
(66 FR 42439), with a revision approved on January 2, 2003 (67 FR
71479). In January 2014, Ecology submitted SIP revisions to Chapter
173-400 WAC that specify that sources applying for permits are required
to pay the fees. For example, WAC 173-400-111(1)(e) that describes
requirements for the Notice of Construction permits, states that ``[a]n
application is not complete until any permit application fee required
by the permitting authority has been paid.'' WAC 173-400-560(4)(c),
describing general order of approval requirements, states that ``[a]n
application shall be incomplete until a permitting authority has
received any required fees.'' In addition to the SIP updates that were
submitted by Ecology in January, Ecology is proposing to include the
following new language in the SIP found under WAC 173-400-111(3)(i):
``[a]ll fees required under chapter 173-455 WAC (or the applicable new
source review fee table of the local air pollution control authority)
have been paid.'' This language asserts permitting authorities' fee
requirements. By including this new language in the SIP, Ecology does
not propose to incorporate the referenced chapter 173-455 WAC in the
SIP.
    EPA analysis: The EPA approved the Washington title V permitting
program on August 13, 2001, with an effective date of September 12,
2001 (66 FR 42439). With respect to New Source Review, the EPA
finalized approval of Ecology's update to WAC 173-400-111 in the SIP on
October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59653). In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve WAC 173-400-111(3)(i) submitted by Ecology on September 22,
2014. With the proposed inclusion of WAC 173-400-111(3)(i) in the SIP,
the EPA is proposing to conclude that Washington will satisfy its
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the PM2.5
NAAQS.

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

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    State submittal: Washington cites the following regulations and
statutes as pertinent to this infrastructure SIP requirement: WAC 173-
400-171 Public Involvement, RCW 34.05 Administrative Procedure Act, RCW
42.30 Open Public Meetings Act, and RCW 70.94.240 Air Pollution Control
Advisory Council.
    EPA analysis: As discussed in the preamble relating to CAA section
110(a)(2)(J), Ecology routinely coordinates with local governments and
other stakeholders on air quality issues. The public involvement
regulations cited in Washington's submittal were previously approved
into Washington's Federally-approved SIP on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726).
Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that Washington's SIP meets the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the September 22, 2014, submittal from Washington to demonstrate that
the SIP meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
for the PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 2006, and 2012.
Specifically, we are proposing to find that the current EPA-approved
Washington SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B),
(C)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II)
(prong 4)--except for those elements covered by the regional haze FIP,
(D)(ii)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K),
(L), and (M). We are also proposing inclusion of WAC 173-400-111(3)(i)
in the SIP with respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requirements.
As previously noted, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse
consequences to Washington or to sources in the State resulting from
this proposed partial disapproval of the infrastructure SIP with
respect to the PSD and regional haze FIPs. The EPA, likewise,
anticipates no additional FIP responsibilities for PSD and regional
haze as a result of this proposed partial disapproval. Interstate
transport requirements with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS will be addressed in a
separate action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved
to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as
the 1873

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of
1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local
agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands
within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
nonetheless provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe
in a letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request
for consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-24723 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P