
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2865-2871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00640]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701; FRL-9921-70-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
District of Columbia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards; Approval of Air Pollution Emergency Episode Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: 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

[[Page 2866]]

satisfying 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.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 20, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: 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: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    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

[[Page 2867]]

part 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.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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.\2\ 
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.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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)).
    \3\ 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 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.\4\ 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of 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) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 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), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.

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

[[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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\7\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ 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.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires 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 EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``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.
    \9\ 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). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, 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

[[Page 2869]]

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, 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.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\11\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, 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).
    \12\ 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). EPA has 
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA 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).
    \13\ See, e.g., 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 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\14\ As a result of

[[Page 2870]]

these 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letters regarding EPA's completeness determinations are 
included in the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes, however, that the District of Columbia is already 
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing the Federal 
PSD program \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676, at 52741), EPA disapproved 
a number of states SIPs for PSD purposes, including the District and 
incorporated by reference portions of the Federal PSD provisions in 
40 CFR 52.21 into the implementation plans for those states. This 
FIP was subsequently amended to reflect amendments to the Federal 
PSD rule on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11316, at 11322) and December 24, 
2003 (68 FR 74483, at 74488). At present, the PSD FIP, incorporated 
by reference in the District SIP in 40 CFR 52.499, specifically 
contains the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, with the exception of 
paragraph (a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2871]]

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 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    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


