[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27102-27107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11343]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744; FRL-9927-45-Region 10]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This final rule is effective June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air Waste and Toxics, EPA 
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA requests that 
if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the 
docket. You

[[Page 27103]]

may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information please contact Jeff 
Hunt at (206) 553-0256, [email protected], or by using the above EPA, 
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials ``Act'' or ``CAA'' mean or refer to the 
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words ``EPA'', ``we'', ``us'' or ``our'' mean or refer to 
the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials ``SIP'' mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (iv) The words ``Washington'' and ``State'' mean the State of 
Washington.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

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

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

    States must make SIP submissions meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a 
new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states 
to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, 
monitoring, and modeling to implement, maintain, and enforce the 
standards, so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. To help states 
meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued guidance to states. On 
October 2, 2007, the EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP 
elements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ 
Subsequently, on September 25, 2009, the EPA issued guidance to address 
SIP infrastructure elements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.\3\ Finally, on September 13, 2013, the EPA issued guidance to 
address infrastructure SIP elements generally for all NAAQS, including 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ As noted in the guidance documents, 
to the extent an existing SIP already meets the applicable CAA section 
110(a)(2) requirements, states may make a SIP submission to EPA 
certifying how the existing SIP meets applicable requirements. On 
September 22, 2014, Washington made a submittal to the EPA certifying 
that the current Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) 
infrastructure requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, except for 
certain requirements related to PSD permitting, regional haze, and 
interstate transport described in the proposal for this action (79 FR 
62368, October 17, 2014).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, 
October 2, 2007.
    \3\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP 
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS).'' Memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, 
Regions I-X, September 25, 2009.
    \4\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 
September 13, 2013.
    \5\ Following the EPA's October 17, 2014 proposed action the CAA 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA subsequently proposed to partially 
approve Washington's PSD permitting program while retaining a FIP 
for certain facilities, emission categories, and geographic areas 
(80 FR 838, January 7, 2015). The EPA's action on Washington's PSD 
SIP submission does not affect the findings of this final 
infrastructure action because a FIP or partial FIP for PSD continues 
to remain in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received two sets of comments on our proposal.
    Commenter #1: The commenter raised several issues related to wood 
smoke. First, the commenter thanked the EPA for our involvement in 
addressing wood smoke health risks in Washington State. Second, the 
commenter expressed disappointment with the Washington State 
Legislature for not taking seriously the toxicity and multiple health 
hazards of wood smoke. Third, the commenter requested that the EPA 
establish filtration controls on wood smoke emissions from restaurants 
and food trucks, such as pizza and barbeque establishments. Fourth, the 
commenter noted several apartment buildings in the Seattle area that 
have uncertified wood burning devices and requested a date for removal 
or upgrade of the existing devices.
    Response #1: The EPA appreciates the commenter's general concerns 
with respect to wood smoke. However, the commenter raises issues that 
are outside the scope of an action related to infrastructure SIP 
requirements. In this context, the EPA is merely evaluating the State's 
September 22, 2014, submission intended to establish that the 
Washington SIP meets the basic infrastructure requirements of the CAA 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In this final action, the EPA is 
determining that the State has met those requirements, except for 
certain elements related to the PSD and regional haze FIPs, and 
specific requirements related to interstate transport which the state 
will address in a separate submission. The points raised, and requests 
made, by the commenter are thus not germane to this specific rulemaking 
action.
    The EPA notes that there have been improvements related to wood 
smoke in Washington through other substantive actions. The EPA's 
involvement in addressing wood smoke health risks in SIP provisions is 
driven by our CAA statutory authorities and responsibilities. Under CAA 
section 109, the EPA sets NAAQS for six criteria pollutants, including 
particulate matter. These NAAQS are set using the best available 
scientific and health studies, with a focus on protecting sensitive 
populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly (78 FR 3086, 
January 15, 2013). Under part D of the CAA, Plan Requirements for 
Nonattainment Areas, the states have an obligation to develop and 
submit SIP provisions that provide for attainment and maintenance of 
the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas. The EPA has the authority 
and responsibility to review this type of SIP submission to assure that 
they meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Through 
this process, the EPA recently worked with the Washington Department of 
Ecology (Ecology) and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) to address 
PM2.5 nonattainment in the Tacoma area (74 FR 58688, 
November 13, 2009). This resulted in more stringent statutory and 
regulatory provisions related to residential wood stoves at both the 
local level (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013) and the state level (79 FR 
26628, May 9, 2014). Currently

[[Page 27104]]

all areas in Washington State are meeting the NAAQS, including the 
Tacoma area (77 FR 53772, September 4, 2012).
    The commenter also requested EPA intervention in regulating wood 
smoke emissions from restaurants and food trucks, such as pizza and 
barbeque retail establishments. Currently the EPA has not promulgated 
Federal emission limitations or control technologies specific to food 
preparation at restaurants and other retail food establishments; nor is 
the EPA seeking comment on this issue at this time. If necessary for 
purposes of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, it may be 
necessary for states to control emissions from such sources in SIP 
provisions. However, the EPA would typically expect such actions to 
occur in the context of the nonattainment plan requirements of CAA 
sections 172 and 189 rather than the general infrastructure provisions 
of CAA section 110. Given that all areas in Washington State are 
currently attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, however, there appears 
to be no need for such regulations for these sources at this time. To 
the extent that particulate matter emissions from retail food 
establishments could trigger air permitting obligations, these would be 
addressed under the EPA's requirements for state minor source 
permitting programs under 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164 (larger 
commercial or industrial food preparation facilities could be subject 
to other air permitting requirements). The EPA's minor source 
permitting requirements generally give states and local authorities 
discretion to regulate sources in ways that most effectively address 
pollution problems in that area. In the case of PSCAA, with 
jurisdiction in the Seattle area, the EPA approved minor source 
permitting rules that exclude ``restaurants and other retail food-
preparing establishments'' under PSCAA Regulation I--section 
6.03(b)(13).\6\ To the extent that restaurants and food trucks may 
violate other regulatory provisions of the SIP, such as the EPA-
approved opacity limits of PSCAA Regulation I--section 9.03, the EPA 
provides a citizen hotline for possible Federal oversight and 
enforcement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/15f53e4f3ac23a8088256b6e00039415/df888e71a7de53a388257bef0077c3b8!OpenDocument.
    \7\ http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the commenter alleged that nearby Seattle apartment 
buildings are using uncertified wood burning devices and requested that 
a date be set for removal or upgrade of the devices. This comment is 
also one that falls outside of the scope of the current action, where 
the EPA is finalizing its determination that Washington's SIP satisfies 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) (A), (B), 
(C)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II) 
(prong 4)--except for those elements covered by the regional haze FIP, 
(D)(ii)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (E), (F), 
(G), (H), (J)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K), 
(L), and (M). Additionally, Federal action is being taken separately to 
address emissions from wood burning stoves. On March 16, 2015, the EPA 
finalized updated Federal standards for residential wood burning 
devices.\8\ The EPA's final rulemaking explicitly stated that it would 
not ban the use of uncertified devices that are already in existing 
homes. In this respect, Washington's statutes and regulations are 
already more stringent than the Federal requirements. Under Washington 
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-433-155 Criteria for Prohibiting Solid 
Fuel Burning Devices that are not Certified, Ecology or a local clean 
air agency may prohibit uncertified solid fuel burning devices in a 
nonattainment area or an area with an approved PM2.5 
maintenance plan, if certain criteria are met. Beginning in 2015, this 
provision will apply to the Tacoma PM2.5 area as a 
maintenance plan requirement.\9\ However the commenter's request to 
expand the ban on uncertified solid fuel devices in other geographic 
areas of the State is outside the scope of this current rulemaking 
action which is limited to the consideration of the adequacy of 
Washington's SIP submission with respect to the infrastructure 
requirements of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, 
New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New 
Residential Masonry Heaters (80 FR 13672, March 16, 2015).
    \9\ Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 
Plans; Washington; Redesignation to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce 
County Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated Maintenance 
Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard (80 FR 
7347, February 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter #2: The commenter states that the EPA cannot approve 
Washington's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(G) because the emergency episode plan (contingency plan) 
contained in WAC 173-435 does not specify a significant harm level or 
action levels for PM2.5. The commenter also states that the 
sampling procedures, equipment, and methods contained in the 
contingency plan (WAC 173-435-070) were written with coarse particulate 
(PM10) in mind and need to be updated to reflect 
PM2.5. Lastly, the commenter notes that Washington's 
contingency plan provisions contain no significant harm level or 
updated sampling, monitoring, and equipment provisions for lead (Pb).
    Response #2: The EPA's September 2013 infrastructure guidance (2013 
guidance) makes recommendations to states for how to meet the two 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G): (the requirement to have state 
emergency episode authority comparable to CAA section 303, and the 
requirement to have an adequate contingency plan for the NAAQS at 
issue). With respect to the first requirement, the EPA recommended that 
``[t]o meet Element G requirements, the best practice for an air agency 
submitting an infrastructure SIP would be to submit . . . the statutory 
or regulatory provision that provides the air agency or official with 
authority comparable to that of the EPA Administrator under section 303 
. . . along with a narrative explanation of how they meet the 
requirements of this element.'' With respect to the second requirement, 
the EPA recommended that ``[t]he air agency is also required to submit, 
for approval into the SIP, an adequate contingency plan to implement 
the air agency's emergency episode authority. This can be met by 
submitting a contingency plan that meets the applicable requirements of 
40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (``Prevention 
of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes'') for the relevant NAAQS if the 
NAAQS is covered by those regulations.''
    The regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H do not address 
PM2.5 specifically and do not identify a significant harm 
level or priority classification levels for PM2.5. However, 
the EPA has recommended to states, through the September 25, 2009 
guidance, which remains in effect and is referenced in the 2013 
guidance, that states only need to develop contingency plans for any 
area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels 
greater than 140.4 ug/m\3\ since 2006. The EPA has evaluated 
PM2.5 regulatory monitoring data in the State of Washington 
since 2006 and we have confirmed that no values greater than 140.4 ug/
m\3\ have been recorded. Please see Monitoring Report in the docket for 
this action.\10\ In the absence of a significant harm level and 
classification levels for PM2.5 the 2013 guidance states, 
``the EPA believes that the central

[[Page 27105]]

components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the 
source(s) at issue (if necessary by curtailing operations of . . . 
PM2.5 sources) and public communication as needed.'' We 
believe that, based on our guidance, Washington's general regulatory 
authority under WAC 173-435 and statutory authority under Revised Code 
of Washington (RCW) 70.94.710 through 70.94.730, which restrain any 
source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial 
endangerment, are comparable to CAA section 303. The adequacy of these 
authorities (including the sampling, equipment, and methods provision 
identified by the commenter) were evaluated as part of the proposed 
action, and we find that they are sufficient to meet the requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 205_supporting materials_AMP 350MX 88101 WA 2006-13 14Nov14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that this action does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) 
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, the comment regarding Pb is outside 
the scope of this action. The EPA previously took final action to 
approve the Washington SIP for Pb infrastructure requirements on July 
23, 2014 (79 FR 42683). In that action, we relied on the EPA's guidance 
that, with respect to lead, ``[i]f a state believes, based on its 
inventory of lead sources and historic ambient monitoring data, that it 
does not need a more specific contingency plan beyond having authority 
to restrain any source from causing or contributing to an imminent and 
substantial endangerment, then the state could provide such a detailed 
rationale in place of a specific contingency plan.'' \11\ For 
Washington, there were no facilities that emitted lead at the emissions 
inventory thresholds, therefore the EPA accepted Washington's 
demonstration that there was not a need for more specific contingency 
planning beyond having general authority to restrain sources comparable 
to CAA section 303. The EPA made this final determination on July 23, 
2014, and therefore the comment on this issue is not timely for 
consideration regarding the Washington Pb SIP, nor relevant to this 
action which is limited in scope to the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 
not reopening this issue by responding to this commenter concerning the 
Pb NAAQS, and is merely providing this response for informational 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS)'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10, October 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing our approval of the Washington SIP for purposes 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the 
September 22, 2014, infrastructure SIP submittal from Washington 
demonstrating that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated 
in 1997, 2006, and 2012. Specifically, we have determined that the 
current EPA-approved Washington SIP meets the following CAA section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C)--except for those elements 
covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II) (prong 4)--except for those elements 
covered by the regional haze FIP, (D)(ii)--except for those elements 
covered by the PSD FIP, (E), (F), (G), (H), (J)--except for those 
elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K), (L), and (M). We are also 
finalizing our inclusion of WAC 173-400-111(3)(i) in the SIP with 
respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) permit fee requirements, as 
described in the proposal for this action. Also, as discussed in the 
proposal for this action, the EPA anticipates that there would be no 
additional consequences to Washington or to sources in the State 
resulting from the partial disapproval of portions of the 
infrastructure SIP submission because there are already PSD and 
regional haze FIPs in place to address those infrastructure SIP 
requirements. The EPA likewise anticipates no additional FIP 
responsibilities for PSD and regional haze as a result of this partial 
disapproval. Interstate transport requirements with respect to CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 
will be addressed in a separate action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    As discussed in the proposal for this action, the State requested 
that the EPA revise our incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-
111(3)(i) in the SIP to include the text that ``[a]ll fees required 
under chapter 173-455 WAC (or the applicable new source review fee 
table of the local air pollution control authority) have been paid.'' 
This minor change to the incorporation by reference of the SIP was made 
to ensure that all infrastructure requirements under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(L) are met. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, 
the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Washington 
Department of Ecology regulations contained in WAC 173-400-111. The EPA 
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

[[Page 27106]]

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in 
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved 
to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the 
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as 
the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement 
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and 
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust 
lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA 
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter 
dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for 
consultation.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 28, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. Section 52.2470 is amended by:
0
a. In Table 2--Additional Regulations Approved for Washington 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction, revising paragraph 
(c) entry 173-400-111;
0
b. In Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans for ``110(a)(2) 
Infrastructure Requirements--1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate 
Matter (PM2.5) Standards'', adding to paragraph (e) an entry 
at the end of the section with the undesignated center heading 
``110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport.''
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

   Table 2--Additional Regulations Approved for Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction
 [Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat,
   Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities
 subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-
 trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other area where the EPA
  or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for
 facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173-400-700, WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC
                                                  173-415-012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
         State citation                 Title/subject        effective    EPA approval date      Explanations
                                                                date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400--General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-400-111.....................  Processing Notice of         12/29/12  5/12/15 [Insert      Except: 173-400-
                                   Construction                           Federal Register     111(3)(h); The
                                   Applications for                       citation].           part of 173-400-
                                   Sources, Stationary                                         111(8)(a)(v) that
                                   Sources and Portable                                        says, 
                                   Sources.                                                    ``and 173-460-
                                                                                               040,''; 173-400-
                                                                                               111(9).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 27107]]



                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
      Name of SIP provision       Applicable geographic or   submittal    EPA approval date        Comments
                                     nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(2) Infrastructure          Statewide...............      9/22/14  5/12/15 [Insert      This action
 Requirements--1997, 2006, and                                            Federal Register     addresses the
 2012 Fine Particulate Matter                                             citation].           following CAA
 (PM2.5) Standards.                                                                            elements:
                                                                                               110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                                               (B), (C),
                                                                                               (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                               (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                               (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                               (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                               and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-11343 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P