Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Wallula, WA, Area, 38073-38080 [05-13058]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38073-38080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13058]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[R10-OAR-2005-WA-0005; FRL-7931-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Plans and 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Wallula, WA, 
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Agency, or we) 
proposes to approve a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
maintenance plan revision for the Wallula, Washington nonattainment 
area and to redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment. 
PM10 air pollution is suspended particulate matter with a 
nominal diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers. We 
are proposing to approve the revision and redesignation request because 
we believe the State adequately demonstrates that the control measures 
being implemented in the Wallula area result in maintenance of the 
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and that all 
other requirements of the Clean Air Act for redesignation to attainment 
are met.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. R10-OAR-
2005-WA-0005, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
    3. E-mail: r10.aircom@epa.gov.
    4. Mail: Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Attn: Donna Deneen, Mailcode: AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.
    5. Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Attn: 
Donna Deneen (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor 
mail room. Such deliveries are only accepted during EPA's normal hours 
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. R10-OAR-2005-
WA-

[[Page 38074]]

0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change, 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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web site are 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information may not be publicly available, such as 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 
EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Please contact the individual 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
review of these records.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics, Region 10, AWT-107, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth 
Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553-6706; fax number: (206) 553-
0110; e-mail address: deneen.donna@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Overview
    A. What Action Are We Taking?
    B. What Is the Background for This Action?
    1. Description of the Area
    2. Description of the Air Quality Problem
    3. Nonattainment History of the Wallula Area
    C. What Impact Does This Action Have on the Community in the 
Wallula Area?
II. Review of Maintenance Plan
    A. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review the Maintenance Plan?
    1. Attainment Emissions Inventory (and Future Year Inventory)
    2. Maintenance Demonstration
    a. 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
    b. PM10 Annual NAAQS
    3. Monitoring Network
    4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    5. Contingency Plan
    B. What Do We Conclude About the Maintenance Plan?
III. Review of Redesignation Request
    A. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review the Request for 
Redesignation?
    1. Attainment of the NAAQS
    2. SIP Nonattainment Area Plan Approval under Section 110(k)
    3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvements in Air Quality
    4. Section 110 and Part D Requirements
    a. Section 110 Requirements
    b. Part D Requirements
    i. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions
    ii. Subpart 4 Requirements
    5. Conformity
    6. Maintenance Plans
    B. What Do We Conclude About the Request for Redesignation?
IV. Conclusion
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Overview

A. What Action Are We Taking?

    We are proposing to approve the SIP revision and redesignation 
request submitted by the State of Washington Department of Ecology 
(Ecology or State) on March 29, 2005, for the Wallula, Washington 
PM10 nonattainment area (Wallula nonattainment area). We are 
proposing to approve the revision and request for redesignation because 
we believe the State adequately demonstrates that the control measures 
being implemented in the Wallula area result in maintenance of the 
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and that 
all other requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act) for redesignation 
to attainment are met. See the Technical Support Document (TSD) 
accompanying this notice for further supporting documentation

B. What Is the Background for This Action?

1. Description of the Area
    The Wallula nonattainment area lies in eastern Washington just 
north of the Oregon border in the southern portion of the Columbia 
Plateau. The nonattainment area is a 12 square mile area and includes 
parts of Walla Walla and Benton Counties and a small portion of 
Sacajawea State Park in Franklin County. The Wallula area is located in 
the lowest and driest section of eastern Washington and receives as 
little as seven to nine inches of precipitation each year. Summer 
precipitation is usually associated with thunderstorms and it is not 
unusual for four to six weeks to pass without measurable rainfall in 
the summer. The Columbia Plateau is also known for prolonged periods of 
strong winds which carry dust particles for hundreds of miles downwind. 
Wind erosion is a particular problem in the area because of the natural 
dustiness of the region due to its dry environments, scant vegetation, 
unpredictable high winds, and soils which contain substantial 
quantities of PM10.
    The Wallula nonattainment area is generally rural and agricultural. 
Prominent land uses include dryland and irrigated cropland, industrial 
sites and natural vegetation. There is only one major stationary source 
in the nonattainment area, a large pulp and paper mill and its 
associated compost facility and landfill. There is also a large beef 
cattle feedlot, a beef processing plant, a natural gas compressor 
station, grain storage silos and a few other minor sources. The 
population of the area is approximately 4800. Two-thirds of the 
population live in the northwest portion of the nonattainment area in 
the unincorporated town of Burbank.
2. Description of the Air Quality Problem
    Air quality analysis shows dust is the main contributor to the 
area's PM10 exceedances. (See supporting documentation for 
our approval of the serious area plan at 70 FR 22597 (May 2, 2005).) 
Analyses of high and low wind days and of high and low PM10 
days reveal dust to be the primary material collected on other days as 
well. An emissions inventory identifies fugitive dust from agricultural 
fields to be the predominant source of PM10 in the area.
    There have been nine reported PM10 exceedances in the 
Wallula nonattainment area since January 1, 1995. All but one are 
attributed to dust raised by unusually high winds. To the

[[Page 38075]]

extent the dust is attributable to anthropogenic (man-made) sources, 
such sources are controlled with best available control measures. As 
discussed in the approval of the serious area plan (70 FR 22597 (May 2, 
2005)), EPA's Natural Event Policy allows these exceedances to be 
excluded from determinations of whether the area is attaining the 
PM10 standards. See Memorandum from EPA's Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation to EPA Regional Air Directors 
entitled ``Areas Affected by Natural Events,'' dated May 30, 1996 
(EPA's Natural Events Policy).
    One exceedance since January 1, 1995 was not due to high winds. 
This exceedance, which occurred on July 3, 1997, was attributed to an 
unusual and nonrecurring activity involving the transport of multiple 
loads of composting material near the monitor.
    The Wallula serious area plan demonstrated attainment with the 
PM10 NAAQS by showing that agricultural field activities in 
the area are employing best management practices to reduce 
PM10 emissions, and that the feedlot, compost facility and 
other sources of fugitive PM10 emissions employ best 
available control measures. The measures include steps to prevent the 
type of exceedance that occurred on July 3, 1997 from happening again.
3. Nonattainment History of the Wallula Area
    The Wallula area was designated nonattainment for PM10 
and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of 
the CAA upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.\1\ See 
40 CFR 81.348 (PM10 Initial Nonattainment Areas); see also 
56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Under subsections 188(a) and (c)(1) of 
the CAA, all initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas had 
the same applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1990 Amendments to the CAA made significant changes. See 
Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to the CAA 
as amended in 1990. The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in 
the United States Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 
areas were required to develop and submit to EPA by November 15, 1991, 
a SIP revision providing for, among other things, implementation of 
reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably 
available control technology (RACT), and a demonstration of attainment 
of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See section 189(a) 
of the CAA.\2\ In response to this submission requirement, Ecology 
submitted a SIP revision for Wallula on November 15, 1991. 
Subsequently, Ecology submitted additional information indicating that 
nonanthropogenic sources may be significant in the Wallula 
nonattainment area during windblown dust events. Based on our review of 
the State's submissions, we deferred action on several elements in the 
Wallula SIP, approved the control measures in the SIP as meeting RACM/
RACT, and, under section 188(f) of the CAA, granted a temporary waiver 
to extend the attainment date for Wallula to December 31, 1997. See 60 
FR 63109 (December 6, 1995) (proposed action); 62 FR 3800 (January 27, 
1997) (final action). The temporary waiver was intended to provide 
Ecology time to evaluate further the Wallula nonattainment area and to 
determine the significance of the anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic 
sources impacting the area. Once these activities were complete or the 
temporary waiver expired, EPA was to make a decision on whether the 
area was eligible for a permanent waiver under section 188(f) of the 
CAA or whether the area had attained the standard by the extended 
attainment date. See 62 FR at 3802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section 
189(a) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 9, 2001, EPA published a Federal Register notice making 
a final determination that the Wallula area had not attained the 
PM10 standard by the attainment date of December 31, 1997. 
See 66 FR 9663 (February 9, 2001) (final action); (65 FR 69275) 
(November 16, 2000) (proposed action). EPA made this determination 
based on air quality data for calendar years 1995, 1996, and 1997. As a 
result of that finding, the Wallula nonattainment area was reclassified 
by operation of law as a serious PM10 nonattainment area 
effective March 12, 2001 with an attainment date of December 31, 
2001.\3\ See 188(b)(2)(A) and 188(c)(2). On October 22, 2002, EPA found 
that the Wallula nonattainment area attained the NAAQS for 
PM10 as of December 31, 2001. EPA's finding was based on 
EPA's review of monitored air quality data in its Air Quality System 
(AQS) database for the years 1999 through 2001. EPA's finding included 
a determination that exceedances that occurred in the area on June 21, 
1997, July 10, 1998, June 23, 1999, and August 10, 2000 were due to 
high winds and, consistent with EPA policy, not considered in 
determining the area's air quality status. EPA has stated that it will 
treat ambient PM10 exceedances caused by dust raised by 
unusually high winds as due to uncontrollable natural events (and thus 
excludable from attainment determinations) if either (1) the dust 
originated from nonanthropogenic sources or (2) the dust originated 
from anthropogenic sources controlled with best available control 
measures (BACM). See EPA's Natural Events Policy, pp. 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under section 188(c)(2) of the CAA, attainment areas 
designated nonattainment for PM10 under section 107(d)(4) 
of the CAA were required to attain the PM10 standard no 
later than December 31, 2001. As discussed above, Wallula was 
designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After EPA made its finding of attainment, Ecology continued to 
investigate the one remaining exceedance on July 3, 1997 that led to 
the area's reclassification to serious. Ecology concluded that the 
exceedance was likely attributable to a one time non-recurring activity 
involving the transportation of 130 truckloads of finished compost near 
the monitor on July 1-3, 1997. Although this activity was determined to 
be unusual and nonrecurring and EPA subsequently determined that the 
area attained the standards as of December 31, 2001, the Wallula area 
remained classified as a serious nonattainment area. As a result, a 
serious area nonattainment SIP revision--in addition to the moderate 
area SIP revision required under section 189(a)--was required under 
section 189(b). Ecology submitted a SIP revision meeting both the 
moderate and serious area planning requirements on November 30, 2004. 
We approved this SIP revision on May 2, 2005. 70 FR 22597.
    In order for the Wallula nonattainment area to be redesignated to 
attainment for PM10, a 10-year maintenance plan and 
redesignation request is required for the area. A SIP revision 
containing these elements was submitted to EPA on March 29, 2005. The 
accompanying TSD explains why we recommend approval of both the plan 
and request contained in this revision.

C. What Impact Does This Action Have on the Community in the Wallula 
Area?

    EPA's approval of the State's SIP submittal (that is, approval of 
the maintenance plan and redesignation request) would result in 
redesignation of Wallula to a PM10 attainment area. A 
redesignation to attainment would relieve the Wallula area of certain 
obligations currently in place because of its nonattainment status. In 
the event of new sources in the area, minor New Source Review (NSR) and 
Prevention of

[[Page 38076]]

Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements would apply.
    Although the SIP revision contains emissions reduction control 
measures that impact both fugitive dust sources and industrial 
facilities, these control measures are already in place and are 
enforceable by the State. Therefore, our approval of these measures now 
has little or no additional regulatory impact on the Wallula community.

II. Review of Maintenance Plan

A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Maintenance Plan?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act stipulates that for an area to be 
redesignated to attainment, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan 
which meets the requirements of Section 175A. Section 175A defines the 
general framework of a maintenance plan, which must provide for 
maintenance, i.e., continued attainment, of the relevant NAAQS in the 
area for at least ten years after redesignation. The following is a 
list of core provisions required in an approvable maintenance plan.
    1. The State must develop an attainment emissions inventory to 
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS.
    2. The State must demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS.
    3. The State must verify continued attainment through operation of 
an appropriate air quality monitoring network.
    4. The maintenance plan must include contingency provisions to 
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 
redesignation of the area.
    See also the September 4, 1992 Calcagni guidance memorandum 
(Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment).
    As explained below, the PM10 maintenance plan for the 
Wallula nonattainment area complies with each of these requirements. 
See the accompanying TSD for further documentation supporting approval 
of this plan.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory (and Future Year Inventory)
    The State should develop an attainment year emissions inventory to 
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS. Where the State has made an adequate demonstration 
that air quality has improved as a result of the control measures in 
the SIP, the attainment inventory will generally be an inventory of 
actual emissions at the time the area attained the standards. This 
inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on 
emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and 
should include the emissions during the time period associated with the 
monitoring data showing attainment.
    The State submitted a PM10 attainment emissions 
inventory for 2002, a year associated with monitoring data showing 
attainment. We made an official finding that the area met its 
attainment date as of December 31, 2001, based on 1999, 2000 and 2001 
data. See 67 FR 64815 (October 22, 2002). Air quality data since then, 
including for 2002, has continued to show attainment.
    The 2002 inventory reflects the predominantly rural, agricultural 
nature of the nonattainment area. Agricultural tilling accounts for 
just over half (51%) of the area's emissions. The rest are attributed 
to the pulp and paper mill (the only major source in the nonattainment 
area), small industrial sources, and mobile sources, which account for 
20%, 19% and 9%, respectively.
    The state also submitted a 2015 emissions inventory to correspond 
with the end of the 10 year period covered by the maintenance plan. The 
total emissions projected for 2015 are more than twice those of the 
2002 attainment inventory on both an annual and typical PM10 
season day basis. The increase is primarily due to the use of allowable 
emissions from the existing point sources, and not primarily due to a 
projected increase in actual emissions. In addition, the 2015 inventory 
includes permitted emissions from a natural gas-fired power plant for 
which the state has issued a permit to construct, but which has not yet 
been constructed.
    The methods used to develop the emissions inventories are 
consistent with EPA guidelines. The assumptions and calculations were 
checked and found to be thorough and comprehensive. In sum, the State 
has adequately developed an attainment emissions inventory for 2002 
that identifies the levels of emissions of PM10 in the area 
as sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Further, the State has adequately 
developed a future year inventory for use in demonstrating maintenance 
with the NAAQS at least ten years after redesignation.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by 
either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors 
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling 
to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not 
cause a violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, PM10 areas 
are required to submit modeled attainment demonstrations to show that 
proposed reductions in emissions will be sufficient to attain the 
applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the maintenance demonstration should 
be based upon the same level of modeling. The demonstration should be 
for a period of 10 years following the redesignation.
a. 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m3. This 
daily standard is attained when the expected number of days per 
calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 [mu]g/
m3 is equal to or less than one. To demonstrate maintenance 
of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for the Wallula nonattainment 
area, the State used a combination of linear speciated rollback and 
dispersion modeling.
    To select dates for speciated rollback modeling, Ecology evaluated 
filters collected from the 2000-2002 period, the most recent three 
years for which data from a single monitoring location was available. 
(The monitoring location was moved in 2003.) During this period, there 
were nine days that reached elevated levels (defined as 24-hour levels 
90 ug/m3 or above). Of those, three dates are associated with a natural 
event and excluded from further analysis because the sources on those 
days are addressed by the Natural Events Policy.\4\ Two other dates are 
excluded because either there is no meteorological information for that 
day or the mixed wind regime on that day makes it too difficult to 
relate the exceedance to meteorology. Finally, one date is excluded 
because it is the lowest of the nine elevated levels (90 ug/m3) and 
would be unlikely to impact the

[[Page 38077]]

state's ability to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS.\5\ The 
remaining dates used by the state for its analysis are June 29, 2000, 
July 12, 2001, and June 17, 2000. These dates correspond to dates on 
which one of two wind regimes (southwest and north) existed, 
representing the wind directions for a majority of the elevated 
readings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Two of these dates, August 10, 2000 and September 29, 2002, 
are documented by EPA as natural events. 70 FR 22597, May 2, 2005. A 
third date, May 2, 2002, was claimed as a high wind natural event in 
Ecology's submittal but was not an exceedance. We cannot concur with 
the high wind event on May 2, 2002 because the documentation was not 
submitted within 6 months of occurrence, the timeline in our Natural 
Events Policy. Nevertheless, we believe it is acceptable to exclude 
May 2, 2002 from the maintenance demonstration analysis because it 
corresponds with a date that an accepted natural event exceedance 
occurred in nearby Walla Walla. Given the proximity of the Wallula 
and Walla Walla monitors (within about 30 miles of each other) and 
recognizing both areas are covered by the same 2003 Columbia Plateau 
Natural Event Action Plan, it is reasonable to believe that the 
contributing sources for both Wallula and Walla Walla were 
adequately addressed under the Natural Events Policy on that day.
    \5\ The State excluded this elevated level because of high winds 
on that day, but high winds alone (absent appropriately submitted 
Natural Event Policy documentation) does not warrant exclusion from 
the data. Nevertheless, we believe it is acceptable to exclude this 
date because it is the lowest of the nine levels and would be 
unlikely to impact the state's ability to demonstrate maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The measured 24-hour concentrations on June 29, 2000, July 12, 2001 
and June 17, 2000 were 126 ug/m3, 109 ug/m3, and 100 ug/m3, 
respectively. The primary constituents found on the filter for the 
first two days were compost and agricultural soil/unpaved road dust 
(agricultural soil and unpaved road dust were too similar to be 
differentiated). The primary constituents on the filter for the third 
day were also compost and agricultural soil/unpaved road dust, with 
minor contribution from a beef processing plant.
    Using linear speciated rollback modeling, the contribution of each 
constituent on each filter was multiplied by the appropriate growth 
factor used to project the 2015 emissions inventory. These results were 
summed for each filter to arrive at total maximum projected levels for 
2015. The predicted levels were 128ug/m3, 111 ug/m3, and 103 ug/m3. All 
three projected levels are below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
demonstrating maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

Dispersion Modeling

    Two other evaluations were performed to ensure maintenance of the 
24-hour NAAQS in Wallula. First, the State evaluated the impact of 
emissions from Boise Paper Solutions, a pulp and paper mill and the 
only existing major stationary source in the nonattainment area. Using 
AERMOD-Prime, the State modeled the mill's maximum allowable emissions 
out to 2015. The model showed a maximum impact of 87.93 ug/m3. When 
added to the projected PM10 background concentration of 52.0 
ug/m3 (reflecting the background concentration outside the 
nonattainment area and the contribution of other sources within the 
nonattainment area), the total maximum projected PM10 level 
for 2015 was 139.93 ug/m3. This level is below the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS and demonstrates the mill will not adversely 
impact continued attainment of the NAAQS.
    A second evaluation was performed for a future natural gas-fired 
power generating station, the Wallula Power Project, which is planned 
but not yet constructed in the nonattainment area. As part of the 
permitting process, the source's projected allowable emissions were 
modeled to determine their potential impact on air quality and were 
found to be insignificant. The results of this evaluation demonstrate 
that the gas-fired generating station will not interfere with the 
area's continued attainment of the NAAQS.
b. PM10 Annual NAAQS
    The annual PM10 NAAQS is 50 [mu]g/m3. This 
yearly standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic mean 
concentration is less than or equal to 50 [mu]g/m3.
    To demonstrate attainment of the annual PM10 NAAQS, 
Ecology relies on the area's historic monitoring data in lieu of a 
modeling demonstration. We believe this approach is appropriate for two 
reasons. First, the Wallula nonattainment area has never violated the 
annual PM10 NAAQS since monitoring began in 1986. Second, 
annual arithmetic mean concentrations in recent years have been more 
than 30 percent below the standard. Based on evidence of low annual 
levels for the area, in combination with our expectation that control 
measures implemented to reduce 24-hour levels will also aid in reducing 
annual levels, we believe it is very unlikely that the Wallula area 
will exceed the annual standard in the future. Consequently, we believe 
that maintenance of the annual standard is demonstrated for the area.
    In sum, linear speciated rollback modeling and dispersion modeling 
show that the area will meet the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at least 
until 2015. Air quality data and control measures to reduce 24-hour 
levels adequately demonstrate maintenance of the annual standard. We 
therefore conclude that the State has met the requirements under 
section 175A of the Act to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS for 
PM10.
3. Monitoring Network
    For most of the period since 1986, Ecology's monitoring network for 
the Wallula nonattainment area has consisted of a single monitoring 
site. This site is referred to in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) 
database as the Nedrow Farm/Wallula Junction monitoring site. This 
monitoring site was discontinued pursuant to an agreement with the 
landowner to stop using the monitoring location by October 31, 2003.
    In anticipation of the closure of the Nedrow Farm/Wallula Junction 
monitoring site, Ecology provided EPA with an analysis of the two 
potential replacement sites and recommended Burbank for the replacement 
site on the grounds that the monitor at the Burbank site measured the 
same air mass as the Wallula monitoring site. Based on our review of 
the data measured at the two sites, we agreed that Burbank was an 
appropriate replacement site to the original Wallula monitoring site. 
Burbank is now the sole PM10 monitoring location in the 
nonattainment area. There are two PM10 monitors at this 
location. One is a Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor that has a 
sampling frequency of once every three days. The other is a tapered 
element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) mass monitor that runs 
continuously.
    Ecology has operated an ambient air quality monitoring network for 
PM10 in Washington since the mid 1980s. The State network, 
which includes the Burbank monitoring site, utilizes EPA reference or 
equivalent method monitors and routine precision and accuracy checks of 
the monitoring equipment are made and necessary maintenance performed 
when warranted. EPA routinely reviews the State monitoring program and 
it meets Federal requirements.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Once an area has been redesignated, the State must continue to 
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The 
maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of 
air quality monitors that will provide such verification. In section 
4.4 of the maintenance plan, the State commits to maintaining a 
monitoring network that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
5. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A of the Act also requires that a maintenance plan 
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to correct promptly any 
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. These 
contingency measures are distinguished from those generally required 
for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9). At a minimum, the 
contingency measures must include a commitment that the State will 
implement all measures contained in

[[Page 38078]]

the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.
    The State carries over all of the control measures and contingency 
measures from the serious area plan into the maintenance plan. These 
contingency measures focus on the mitigation of windblown dust because 
windblown dust is associated with all recent exceedances of the 
standard (since 1997) and is the most likely cause of future 
exceedances. Because of the likelihood of future wind blown 
exceedances, the plan does not include a PM10 trigger level 
for implementing the contingency measures. Rather, the measures are to 
be implemented on a regular basis regardless of the PM10 
levels measured.
    The plan's contingency measures include improvements to Ecology's 
process for identifying source contributors when high wind events are 
occurring, certain PM10 reduction projects included in 
Ecology's 2003 NEAP, and Ecology's BACM demonstration and our 
accompanying review every time a windblown dust exceedance occurs. The 
maintenance plan provides an update on the implementation of these 
measures, including the status of the use of mulched straw in highly 
erodible areas to protect occurrences of windblown dust, efforts to 
facilitate the building of conservation buffers to reduce wind erosion, 
and expanded enrollment of conservation reserve program acreage in the 
Horse Heaven Hills. See section 4.6 of the maintenance plan.
    In carrying over all the control and contingency measures from the 
serious area plan, the State has not removed or reduced the stringency 
of the control measures relied on to demonstrate attainment. Therefore, 
the State meets the requirement to implement all measures contained in 
the serious area plan prior to redesignation. Therefore we conclude 
that the State meets the requirements for contingency measures in the 
maintenance plan.

B. What Do We Conclude About the Maintenance Plan?

    Based on our review of the Wallula PM10 maintenance plan 
and for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the requirements 
for an approvable maintenance plan under the Act have been met. 
Therefore, we are proposing approval of the maintenance plan for 
PM10 submitted for the Wallula nonattainment area.

III. Review of Redesignation Request

A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Request for Redesignation?

    The criteria used to review the maintenance plan and redesignation 
request are derived from the Act, the General Preamble, and a policy 
and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, 
Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. 
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that the EPA can be redesignate 
an area to attainment if the following conditions are met:
    1. The Administrator has determined the area has attained the 
NAAQS.
    2. The Administrator has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan under section 110(k).
    3. The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
    4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under 
section 110 and part D.
    5. The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan, 
including a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.
1. Attainment of the NAAQS
    Currently the area is in compliance with both the 24-hour and 
annual PM10 NAAQS. A thorough discussion of the area's 
compliance with the 24-hour PM10 standard as of December 31, 
2001 and for the most recent three full years for which data is 
available, 2001, 2002, and 2003, is contained in EPA's attainment 
determination (67 FR 64816, September 3, 2002) and serious area plan 
approval (70 FR 22597, (May 2, 2005)). Based on data reported in AQS, 
there have been no exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS since those 
determinations were made. Therefore, the area continues to meet both 
the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS.
    To determine attainment of the annual PM10 NAAQS, which 
is 50 ug/m3, the standard is compared to the expected annual 
mean, which is the average of the weighted annual mean for three 
consecutive years. The weighted annual mean for each of two consecutive 
3-year periods, 1999-2001 and 2000-2002, are 31 ug/m3 and 30 
ug/m3, respectively. Because these values are below the 50 
ug/m3 standard, the nonattainment area is in attainment with 
the annual PM10 NAAQS.
2. SIP Nonattainment Area Plan Approval Under Section 110(k)
    States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 
areas were required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a nonattainment 
area plan that implemented reasonably available control measures (RACM) 
by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. This date was extended to 
December 31, 1997 for Wallula under a temporary waiver and then to 
December 31, 2001 after it was reclassified as a serious area. The SIP 
for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act, 
and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the area.
    On May 2, 2005 (70 FR 22597), EPA fully approved the serious area 
plan for the Wallula nonattainment area submitted by the State on 
November 30, 2004. EPA approved the State of Washington's nonattainment 
NSR program in on June 2, 1995. 60 FR 28726. The Wallula serious area 
plan demonstrated attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the area's 
December 31, 2001 deadline. Thus, the area has a fully approved 
nonattainment SIP.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality
    The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in 
air quality to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. In 
making this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality 
improvements are the result of actual enforceable emissions reductions. 
This showing should consider emission rates, production capacities, and 
other related information. The analysis should assume that sources are 
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence 
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.
    Improvements in air quality in the Wallula nonattainment area are 
reasonably attributed to permanent and enforceable emissions 
reductions. Process controls and emission limits established at the 
pulp and paper mill and at the beef processing facility, along with 
paving at the mill, are permanent and enforceable measures and result 
in emissions reductions that are not dependent upon meteorology or 
economic conditions. In addition, because the truck transport activity 
in 1997 that led to a violation of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
and reclassification to a serious nonattainment area was an unusual and 
nonrecurring activity, its cessation also results in permanent 
reductions.
    BACM is being applied to agricultural fields in the Wallula 
nonattainment area

[[Page 38079]]

and surrounding areas to reduce the generation of windblown dust. 
Agricultural data showing an increase in the application of best 
management practices in the Wallula area over the past decade and new 
and continued incentives provided by the Federal Food Security Act of 
1985 (FSA), as amended in 1996 and 2002, (see 16 U.S.C. 3801-3862), 
provide further evidence that emissions reductions are the result of 
permanent control measures and not dependent on meteorology or economic 
conditions. Both the beef cattle feedlot and the composting facility 
have dust control plans that call for management practices to minimize 
fugitive dust and which have been incorporated into permits for these 
facilities. These were approved as permanent control measures in the 
Wallula serious area plan.
4. Section 110 and Part D Requirements
    Before EPA may approve a redesignation request, the applicable 
programs under section 110 and Part D that were due prior to the 
submission of a redesignation request must be adopted by the State and 
approved by EPA into the SIP.
a. Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for 
nonattainment area plans. These requirements include, but are not 
limited to, submission of a SIP that has been adopted by the State 
after reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for 
establishment and operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems 
and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation 
of a permit program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit 
programs; criteria for stationary source emission control measures, 
monitoring, and reporting, provisions for modeling; and provisions for 
public and local agency participation.
    For purposes of redesignation, the Washington SIP was reviewed to 
ensure that the State has satisfied all requirements under the Act. 
Further, in 40 CFR 52.2473, EPA has approved Washington's SIP for the 
attainment and maintenance of the national standards under Section 110. 
The provisions related to NSR were most recently approved in the 
Washington SIP on June 2, 1995. 60 FR 28726. The Federal PSD 
regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in effect for 
Washington. See 40 CFR 52.2497.
b. Part D Requirements
    Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all areas 
which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of the NAAQS. 
The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific 
to each pollutant. All PM10 nonattainment areas must meet 
the applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific 
PM10 provisions in subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for 
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following paragraphs 
discuss these requirements as they apply to the Wallula nonattainment 
area.
i. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions
    This section contains general requirements for nonattainment area 
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the 
general preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)). The 
requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of certain 
emissions increases, emissions inventory, and other measures needed for 
attainment are satisfied by the serious area plan submitted for the 
Wallula nonattainment area and approved on May 2, 2005. 70 FR 22597. As 
mentioned above, the provisions related to NSR were most recently 
approved in the Washington SIP on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726) and the 
Federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in 
effect for Washington. See 40 CFR 52.2497.
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements
    As a moderate PM10 nonattainment area, the Wallula, 
Washington area must meet Part D, subpart 4, sections 189(a), (c), and 
(e) requirements before the area can be redesignated to attainment. 
These requirements must be fully approved into the SIP.
    EPA approved the serious area plan for the Wallula nonattainment 
area, which met the initial requirements of the 1990 amendments for 
moderate and serious PM10 nonattainment areas, on May 2, 
2005. 70 FR 22597. This plan met requirements for RACM/BACM, 
demonstrating attainment, quantitative milestones, PM10 
precursors, contingency measures, and quantitative milestones for 
demonstrating RFP. The provisions related to NSR were most recently 
approved in the Washington SIP on June 2, 1995. 60 FR 28726. The 
Federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in 
effect for Washington. See 40 CFR 52.2497.
5. Conformity
    CAA section 176(c) requires that federally-funded or approved 
transportation plans, programs, and projects in nonattainment areas 
``conform'' to the area's air quality implementation plans. Conformity 
ensures that federal transportation actions do not worsen an area's air 
quality or interfere with its meeting the air quality standards. We 
have issued a conformity rule that establishes the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not transportation plans, 
programs, and projects conform to a SIP. See 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
    Ecology's analysis shows that mobile sources are an insignificant 
source of PM10 emissions in the Wallula nonattainment area. 
As a result, a motor vehicle emissions budget is not required as part 
of the Wallula maintenance plan and transportation conformity does not 
apply in this area. See 40 CFR 93.109(k).
6. Maintenance Plans
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act stipulates that for an area to be 
redesignated, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan which meets the 
requirements of section 175A. A State may submit both the redesignation 
request and the maintenance plan at the same time and rulemaking on 
both may proceed on a parallel track.
    On March 29, 2005, Ecology submitted a PM10 maintenance 
plan and redesignation request for the Wallula nonattainment area. In 
Section II above, we evaluated the plan and concluded that the 
requirements for an approvable maintenance plan under the Act have been 
met.

B. What Do We Conclude About the Request for Redesignation?

    Based on our review of the maintenance plan and the request for 
redesignation submitted for the Wallula nonattainment area, we conclude 
that all the requirements for redesignation in Section 107(d)(3)(E) 
have been met. Therefore, we are proposing to redesignate the Wallula 
PM10 nonattainment area to attainment.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on our evaluation of Ecology's March 29, 2005 SIP submittal, 
we propose full approval of the PM10 maintenance plan and 
redesignation request for the Wallula nonattainment area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is

[[Page 38080]]

also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes 
to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, 
the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it 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).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have federalism implications because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 21, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-13058 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P