Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of three State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittals from the District of Columbia (hereafter “the District”) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The District has made three separate submittals addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. One of the infrastructure submittals also includes the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia” for Start Printed Page 2866satisfying EPA's requirements for air quality emergency episodes. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA: The three infrastructure SIP submissions with the exception of the portions of the submittals addressing transport of pollution and the portions of the submittals addressing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements; and the District's Air Quality Emergency Plan which also meets EPA's requirements for air pollution prevention contingency plans.
Written comments must be received on or before February 20, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. 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 whose disclosure 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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 electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20002.
Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at email@example.com.
End Further Info
Start Supplemental Information
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for the 1-hour primary SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
II. Summary of State Submittals
The District through the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) submitted three separate revisions to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the different NAAQS. On June 6, 2014, DDOE submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. On June 13, 2014, DDOE submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 17, 2014, DDOE submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Each of the infrastructure SIP revisions addressed the following infrastructure elements for the applicable NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. The three infrastructure SIP submittals do not address section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) and will be addressed in a separate process, if necessary.
In addition, the June 13, 2014 SIP submittal includes the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia,” which the District is requesting EPA to approve into the SIP to address EPA's requirements for preventing air pollution emergency episodes which are located in 40 CFR Start Printed Page 2867part 51, subpart H and section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(G), among other things, requires state SIPs to provide adequate contingency plans to implement a state's authority similar to section 303 of the CAA regarding imminent and substantial endangerment authority. The entire District is part of the National Capital Interstate air quality control region, which is classified as a Priority I region for particulate matter, sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone and as a Priority III region for NO2. See 40 CFR 52.471. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, the District submitted its Air Quality Emergency Plan with contingency measures for all pollutants, including particulate matter, SOX, CO, and ozone.
III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs
EPA is acting upon the District's SIP submissions that addresses the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of 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 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.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, 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 EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, 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.
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, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for 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 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.
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 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.
This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (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 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, 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, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Similarly, 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, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.
Start Printed Page 2868
Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, 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, 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.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, 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 attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2); thus, 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), 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, 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, 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, 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.
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).
EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 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. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.
The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, 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 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 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, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including Green House Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under 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 2013 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses Start Printed Page 2869on 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, 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, 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, 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 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 EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Thus, 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.
It is important to note that 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.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. 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 section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and 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 EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and 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, 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, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency 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.
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.
Significantly, 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 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, 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.
IV. Summary of EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval
In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, EPA found that each of the infrastructure SIP submittals is technically incomplete for the portions of the infrastructure elements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) relating to the permitting program for PSD, because the District has not adequately addressed the requirements of part C of Title I of the CAA for having a SIP-approved PSD program. EPA found the remainder of the SIP submittals to be administratively and technically complete. EPA sent letters to DDOE in July 21, 2014 and November 4, 2014 notifying the District of these determinations for each of the applicable NAAQS.
As a result of Start Printed Page 2870these incompleteness findings, EPA is not taking rulemaking action on the PSD-related portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the District's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, until the District through DDOE submits a SIP to address the PSD permit program requirements of part C of Title I of the CAA.
EPA recognizes, however, that the District of Columbia is already subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing the Federal PSD program 
to correct the SIP deficiency and that DDOE would not have to take further action for the FIP-based permitting process to continue operating. Thus, EPA anticipates that there will be no adverse consequences to DDOE from these incompleteness findings for the PSD-related portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. Mandatory sanctions would not apply to the District under CAA section 179 because the failure to submit a PSD SIP is neither (1) with respect to a submission that is required under CAA Title I part D, or (2) in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). In addition, EPA is not subject to any further FIP duties from our finding of incompleteness for these SIP submittals because there is already the FIP implementing the Federal PSD program for DDOE which addresses the SIP deficiency.
In addition, EPA is also not taking rulemaking action at this time on the portion of the infrastructure SIP submittals which address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. EPA will take later rulemaking action on these submittals regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing approval of the remainder of the submittals to address infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for proposing to approve these portions of the District's infrastructure SIP submittals may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701.
As mentioned previously, on June 13, 2014, the District also submitted a SIP revision addressing EPA's contingency plan requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) and in CAA section 110(2)(G). Section 110(a)(2)(G), among other things, requires state SIPs to provide adequate contingency plans to implement the state's authority similar to section 303 of the CAA, regarding imminent and substantial endangerment authority. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, the District is required to have a contingency plan for particulate matter, SOX, CO, and ozone. EPA notes that there are no applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for NO2, and consequently no applicable contingency plan requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for NO2 for the District, as Priority III regions are not required to have emergency episode plans.
EPA finds that the District's Emergency Plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H with respect to contingency plans for all applicable pollutants. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia,” pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, and is also proposing that the three infrastructure SIP submittals for the applicable NAAQS meet the applicable contingency plan requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia” into the District's SIP because it meets requirements in CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H is provided in our TSD accompanying this proposed rulemaking action. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the District's infrastructure submittals dated June 6, 2014, June 13, 2014, and July 17, 2014 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, respectively, as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including specifically section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the three NAAQS with the exception of the requirements related to the PSD permitting program of part C, Title I of the CAA in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J), and with the exception of the transport requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is not taking action on the portions of the three infrastructure submittals intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for transport or on the portions of the three infrastructure SIP submittals addressing the PSD related requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J). EPA will take later separate action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for transport for the three NAAQS.
EPA is also proposing to approve as a SIP revision the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia,” submitted on June 13, 2014, as it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for all applicable pollutants and section 110 of the CAA, including specifically section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
VI. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 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 Start Printed Page 2871Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
- is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
- is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
- is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
- does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to the District of Columbia's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone, the 2010 NO2, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and to the District of Columbia's contingency plan for the prevention of air pollution episodes, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Start List of Subjects
End List of Subjects
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Sulfur oxides
- Volatile organic compounds
End Supplemental Information
Dated: December 18, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-00640 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P