Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Washington; Redesignation to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 73525-73538 [2014-28150]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
EPA is not proposing to approve this
infrastructure SIP certification and
repeal of the cement kilns rule to apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, this proposed approval does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 24, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014–29091 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket #: EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0808;
FRL–9919–88–Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Redesignation to
Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce
County Nonattainment Area and
Approval of Associated Maintenance
Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate to attainment the entire
Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment
area (hereafter ‘‘the Tacoma area’’ or
‘‘the area’’) for the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
The EPA is also proposing to approve as
a revision to the Washington State
Implementation Plan (SIP), the
associated maintenance plan that
provides for continued compliance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
approve the 2017 and 2026 motor
vehicle emissions budgets included in
Washington’s maintenance plan for
PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). In the
course of proposing to approve
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
redesignation of the Tacoma area, the
EPA addresses a number of additional
issues, including the effects of a January
4, 2013 decision by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court) to
remand to the EPA two final rules
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2014–0808, by any of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101.
C. Email: R10-Public_Comments@
epa.gov.
D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10
Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries
are only accepted during normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–
0808. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73525
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 the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Hunt at (206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@
epa.gov, or by using the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EPA’s Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
C. How have tribal governments been
involved in this process?
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit
Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4
A. Background
B. Proposal on This Issue
V. The EPA’s Analysis of Washington’s
Submittal
A. Redesignation Request
B. Maintenance Plan
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The first air quality standards for
PM2.5 were established on July 16, 1997
(62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). The EPA
promulgated an annual standard at a
level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
(mg/m3), based on a three-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the
same rulemaking action, the EPA
promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65
mg/m3, based on a three-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71
FR 61144), the EPA retained the annual
average standard at 15 mg/m3, but
revised the 24-hour standard to 35 mg/
m3, based again on the three-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73526
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard or daily standard). On
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the
EPA published designations for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which
became effective on December 14, 2009.
In that rulemaking action, the EPA
designated the Tacoma area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 58774 and 40
CFR 81.348).
On September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53772),
the EPA determined that the Tacoma
area had attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.1004(c), in effect at that time, the
requirements for the Tacoma area to
submit an attainment demonstration
and associated reasonably available
control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs
related to the attainment of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until
such time as: The area is redesignated
to attainment, at which time the
requirements no longer apply; or the
EPA determines that the area has again
violated the standard, at which time
such plans are required to be submitted.
On September 19, 2013 (78 FR 57503),
the EPA finalized a subsequent
determination of attainment considering
the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court’s
January 4, 2013 decision to remand the
implementation rule containing the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.1004(c) on the
area. Natural Resources Defense Council
v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (2013). A full
description of the EPA’s rationale for
the determination of attainment is
contained in the proposal for that action
(78 FR 42095, July 18, 2013).
A determination of attainment does
not relieve a state from submitting, and
the EPA from approving, certain
planning SIP revisions for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 2012,
Washington submitted a 2008 baseline
emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and
precursors to the formation of PM2.5
including nitrogen oxides (NOX),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) to meet the comprehensive
emissions inventory requirement of
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also
included in Washington’s submittal
were SIP strengthening rules to
implement the recommendations of the
Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air Task
Force, an advisory committee of
community leaders, citizen
representatives, public health advocates,
and other affected parties, formed to
develop PM2.5 reduction strategies.
These SIP strengthening rules were
focused on controlling PM2.5 emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
from residential wood combustion,
which at that time comprised 74% of
direct PM2.5 emissions on winter days
when 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
exceedances are most likely. The EPA
approved the 2008 baseline emissions
inventory and SIP strengthening rules
on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131). On
November 3, 2014, Ecology submitted a
request to redesignate the Tacoma area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
submittal included a maintenance plan
as a SIP revision to ensure continued
attainment of the standard over the next
10 years.
The EPA is also taking into account
the recent decision in NRDC v. EPA, in
which the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA
the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007) and the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428.
II. The EPA’s Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to
Attainment
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The
EPA determines that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
EPA has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k); (3) the EPA determines
that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the EPA
has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements
of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the
state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area
under section 110 and part D.
The EPA has provided guidance on
redesignation in the ‘‘State
Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992)(the ‘‘General Preamble’’), and has
provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following
documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
September 4, 1992 (hereafter the ‘‘1992
Calcagni Memorandum’’); (2) ‘‘State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
and (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review
(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after an area is redesignated to
attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a
revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as the EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future PM2.5 violations.
The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum
provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The
memorandum states that a maintenance
plan should address the following
provisions: (1) An attainment emissions
inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for
10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain
the existing monitoring network; (4)
verification of continued attainment;
and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations of the NAAQS.
C. How have tribal governments been
involved in this process?
Consistent with the EPA’s tribal
policy, the EPA offered government-togovernment consultation to the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians regarding the
action in this notice because part of the
Puyallup Indian Reservation is located
in the Tacoma area. The Puyallup
Indian Reservation is divided into tribal
trust land and non-trust land. Under the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress
explicitly provided state and local
agencies in Washington authority over
activities on non-trust lands within the
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup
Indian Reservation, also known as the
1873 Survey Area. As shown in figure
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3 of the EPA’s technical support
document designating the Tacoma area
(then known as the Wapato HillsPuyallup River Valley Nonattainment
Area) to nonattainment, the vast
proportion of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation within the Tacoma area is
under Washington’s jurisdiction. The
EPA, working in consultation and
coordination with the Puyallup Tribe,
has CAA authority over the small
parcels of tribal trust lands in the
Tacoma area. Air quality management
on tribal trust lands is addressed
pursuant to 40 CFR part 49, which
includes the Federal Implementation
Plans Under the Clean Air Act for
Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon
and Washington (70 FR 18074, April 8,
2005, the Federal Air Rules for
Reservations) and the Review of New
Sources and Modifications in Indian
Country (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011).
Under a cooperative agreement
between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
(PSCAA), all emissions inventories,
motor vehicle emission budgets, and
technical analyses demonstrating
current and future attainment included
in the State’s maintenance plan cover
the entire Tacoma area, including both
trust and non-trust land. As a member
of the PSCAA Advisory Council, the
Puyallup Indian Tribe is engaged in all
decisions affecting the Tacoma area. As
discussed later in this proposal, Ecology
and PSCAA chose a conservative
estimation methodology for calculating
future year emissions budgets, not
taking credit for any wood stove
curtailment activities on tribal trust
land. Therefore, any current or future
emission reductions attributable to
implementation of the Federal Air Rules
for Reservations are supplemental and
additional to emission reductions
calculated for the area. As shown in
Table 7 below, PM2.5 levels at the
Puyallup tribal monitor are consistently
low. For these reasons, and based on
discussions with the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians, the EPA is proposing to
redesignate to attainment all tribal trust
land within the Tacoma area.
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
The EPA is proposing to take several
rulemaking actions related to the
redesignation of the Tacoma area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find
that the Tacoma area meets the
requirements for redesignation of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The
EPA is thus proposing to change the
legal designation of the entire Tacoma
area from nonattainment to attainment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the
Tacoma area as a revision to the
Washington SIP, including motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
approval of the maintenance plans is
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
of the Tacoma area to attainment.
Washington’s maintenance plan is
designed to ensure continued
attainment for 10 years after
redesignation.
The EPA previously determined that
the Tacoma area attained the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 53772), and
the EPA is proposing to find that the
area continues to attain the standard.
Furthermore, the EPA previously
approved under section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA, the 2008 comprehensive
emissions inventory for the Tacoma area
as part of Washington’s SIP for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 32131,
May 29, 2013). The EPA’s analysis of
the proposed actions is provided in
section V of today’s proposed
rulemaking action.
73527
31566, Jun. 2, 2014) which identifies the
classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for
the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards.
The EPA’s final rulemaking also sets
deadlines for states to submit
attainment-related and new source
review (NSR) SIP elements required for
these areas pursuant to subpart 4, and
identifies the EPA guidance that is
currently available regarding subpart 4
requirements. The final rule specifies
December 31, 2014, as the deadline for
the states to submit any additional
attainment-related SIP elements that
may be needed to meet the applicable
requirements of subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for
the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and
to submit SIPs addressing the
nonattainment NSR requirements in
subpart 4. Therefore, for Washington,
any additional attainment-related SIPelements that may be needed for the
Tacoma area to meet the requirements of
subpart 4 were not due at the time that
Washington submitted the November 3,
2014 redesignation request.
B. Proposal on This Issue
IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C.
Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4
In this portion of the proposed
redesignation, the EPA addresses the
effect of the NRDC v. EPA ruling and the
A. Background
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment
Classification and Deadline Rule on the
As discussed above, on January 4,
2013, in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, the proposed redesignation. As explained
below, the EPA is proposing to
D.C. Circuit remanded to the EPA the
determine that the Court’s decision does
‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle
not prevent the EPA from redesignating
Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586,
the Tacoma area to attainment. Even in
April 25, 2007) and the
light of the Court’s decision,
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
redesignation for this area is appropriate
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
under the CAA and the EPA’s
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
longstanding interpretations of the
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
CAA’s provisions regarding
16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5
redesignation. The EPA first explains its
Implementation Rule’’). The Court
longstanding interpretation that
found that the EPA erred in
requirements that are imposed, or that
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to the general implementation become due, after a complete
provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title redesignation request is submitted for
I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the an area that is attaining the standard, are
particulate-matter-specific provisions of not applicable for purposes of
subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). evaluating a redesignation request.
Second, the EPA shows that, even
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision,
applying the subpart 4 requirements to
states had worked towards meeting the
the Tacoma area redesignation request
air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5
and disregarding the provisions of the
NAAQS in accordance with the EPA
remanded 1997 PM2.5 implementation
regulations and guidance derived from
subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. rule, the State’s request for
The EPA took this history into account
redesignation of this area still qualifies
by setting a new deadline for any
for approval. The EPA’s discussion also
remaining submissions that may be
takes into account the effect of the
required of moderate nonattainment
Court’s ruling and the PM2.5 Subpart 4
areas as a result of the Court’s decision
Nonattainment Classification and
regarding the applicability of subpart 4.
Deadline Rule on the area’s
On June 2, 2014, the EPA issued the
maintenance plan, which the EPA views
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment
as approvable when subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule (79 FR requirements are considered.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73528
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1. Applicable Requirements for
Purposes of Evaluating the
Redesignation Request
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, the Court’s ruling
rejected the EPA’s reasons for
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely
in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to
the EPA, so that it could address
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D of the
CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the
purposes of evaluating Washington’s
redesignation request for the area, to the
extent that implementation under
subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated
nonattainment, the EPA believes that
those requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’
for the purposes of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E), and thus the EPA is not
required to consider subpart 4
requirements with respect to the
Tacoma area redesignation. Under its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA,
the EPA has interpreted section
107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold
matter, that the part D provisions which
are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must be
approved in order for the EPA to
redesignate an area include only those
which came due prior to a state’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See 1992 Calcagni
memorandum. See also ‘‘State
Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro
memorandum); Final Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459,
12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68
FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541
(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding the EPA’s
redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation and expressly rejecting
that the meaning of ‘‘applicable’’ under
the statute is ‘‘whatever should have
been in the plan at the time of
attainment rather than whatever
actually was in the plan and already
implemented or due at the time of
attainment’’).1 In this case, at the time
1 Applicable requirements of the CAA that come
due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as
a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of
the CAA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
that Washington submitted its
redesignation request, requirements
under subpart 4 were not due.
The EPA’s view that, for purposes of
evaluating the Tacoma area
redesignation, the subpart 4
requirements were not due at the time
Washington submitted the redesignation
request is in keeping with the EPA’s
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements
for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated
subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision
in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
In South Coast, the Court found that the
EPA was not permitted to implement
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely
under subpart 1, and held that the EPA
was required under the statute to
implement the standard under the
ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2
as well. Subsequent to the South Coast
decision, in evaluating and acting upon
redesignation requests for the 1997 8hour ozone standard that were
submitted to the EPA for areas under
subpart 1, the EPA applied its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA
that ‘‘applicable requirements’’, for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation,
are those that had been due at the time
the redesignation request was
submitted. See, e.g., Proposed
Redesignation of Manitowoc County
and Door County Nonattainment Areas
(75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In
those actions, the EPA therefore did not
consider subpart 2 requirements to be
‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of
evaluating whether the area should be
redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
The EPA’s interpretation derives from
the provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3).
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an
area to be redesignated, a state must
meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to
the area under section 110 and part D’’.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the
EPA must have fully approved the
‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking
redesignation. These two sections read
together support the EPA’s
interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ as only
those requirements that came due prior
to submission of a complete
redesignation request. First, holding
states to an ongoing obligation to adopt
new CAA requirements that arose after
a state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated,
would make it problematic or
impossible for the EPA to act on
redesignation requests in accordance
with the 18-month deadline Congress
set for the EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no
reasonable limitation, states, after
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submitting a redesignation request,
would be forced continuously to make
additional SIP submissions that in turn
would require the EPA to undertake
further notice-and-comment rulemaking
actions to act on those submissions.
This would create a regime of unceasing
rulemaking that would delay action on
the redesignation request beyond the 18month timeframe provided by the Act
for this purpose.
Second, a fundamental premise for
redesignating a nonattainment area to
attainment is that the area has attained
the relevant NAAQS due to emission
reductions from existing controls. Thus,
an area for which a redesignation
request has been submitted would have
already attained the NAAQS as a result
of satisfying statutory requirements that
came due prior to the submission of the
request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented
requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view
the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request as including only those SIP
requirements that have already come
due. These are the requirements that led
to attainment of the NAAQS. To require,
for redesignation approval, that a state
also satisfy additional SIP requirements
coming due after the state submits its
complete redesignation request, and
while EPA is reviewing it, would
compel the state to do more than is
necessary to attain the NAAQS, without
a showing that the additional
requirements are necessary for
maintenance.
In the context of this redesignation,
the timing and nature of the Court’s
January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v.
EPA and the EPA’s June 2, 2014 PM2.5
Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification
and Deadline Rule compound the
consequences of imposing requirements
that come due after the redesignation
request is submitted. Washington
submitted its redesignation request on
November 3, 2014, which is prior to the
deadline by which the Tacoma area is
required to meet the attainment plan
and other requirements pursuant to
subpart 4.
To evaluate Washington’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation
request to comply now with
requirements of subpart 4 for which the
deadline to comply has not yet come,
would be to give retroactive effect to
such requirements and contravene the
EPA’s longstanding interpretation of
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The D.C. Circuit
recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),2
where it upheld the District Court’s
ruling refusing to make retroactive the
EPA’s determination that the St. Louis
area did not meet its attainment
deadline. In that case, petitioners urged
the Court to make the EPA’s
nonattainment determination effective
as of the date that the statute required,
rather than the later date on which the
EPA actually made the determination.
The Court rejected this view, stating that
applying it ‘‘would likely impose large
costs on States, which would face fines
and suits for not implementing air
pollution prevention plans . . . even
though they were not on notice at the
time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be
unreasonable to penalize the State of
Washington by rejecting its
redesignation request for an area that is
already attaining the 2006 PM2.5
standard and that met all applicable
requirements known to be in effect at
the time of the request. For the EPA now
to reject the redesignation request solely
because the State did not expressly
address subpart 4 requirements which
have not yet come due would inflict the
same unfairness condemned by the
Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Subpart 4 Requirements and
Washington’s Redesignation Request
Even if the EPA interpreted the NRDC
decision to mean that subpart 4
requirements were due and in effect
when Washington submitted its
redesignation request, the EPA proposes
to determine that the Tacoma area still
qualifies for redesignation to attainment.
As explained below, the EPA believes
that the redesignation request for the
Tacoma area, though not expressed in
terms of subpart 4 requirements,
substantively meets the requirements of
that subpart for purposes of
redesignating the area to attainment.
With respect to evaluating the
relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating
the Tacoma area, the EPA notes that the
section 172(c) general air quality
planning requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment are also
applicable. Subpart 4 contains specific
planning and scheduling requirements
for PM10 3 nonattainment areas, and
consistent with the decision in NRDC v.
2 Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and
distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that
addressed retroactivity in a quite different context,
where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give
its regulations retroactive effect. National
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d
145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d
958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
3 PM
10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
EPA, these same statutory requirements
also apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
As noted, the General Preamble sets
forth the EPA’s longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, and provides
recommendations to states for meeting
the statutory requirements for SIPs for
nonattainment areas (57 FR 13498, April
16, 1992). In the General Preamble, the
EPA discussed the relationship of
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP
requirements, and pointed out that
subpart 1 requirements were to an
extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally
related to, the more specific PM–10
requirements’’ (57 FR 13538). The
subpart 1 requirements include, among
other things, provisions for attainment
demonstrations, reasonably available
control measures (RACM), reasonable
further progress (RFP), emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
For the purposes of this redesignation,
in order to identify any additional
requirements which would apply under
subpart 4, consistent with the EPA’s
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment
Classification and Deadline Rule, we
classified the Tacoma area as a
‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area.
As the EPA explained in its June 2, 2014
final rule, section 188 of the CAA
provides that all designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are
initially classified by operation of law as
‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and
remain moderate nonattainment areas
unless and until the EPA reclassifies the
area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area
(79 FR 31567). Accordingly, the EPA
believes that it is appropriate to limit
the evaluation of the potential impact of
subpart 4 requirements to those that
would be applicable to moderate
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a)
and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate
nonattainment areas and include the
following requirements: (1) An
approved permit program for
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM
(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4)
quantitative milestones demonstrating
RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section
189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4,
as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A),
refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit
provisions requirements of sections 172
and 173 to PM10, without adding to
them. Consequently, the EPA believes
that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself
impose for redesignation purposes any
additional requirements for moderate
areas beyond those contained in subpart
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73529
1.4 In any event, in the context of
redesignation, the EPA has long relied
on the interpretation that a fully
approved nonattainment new source
review program is not considered an
applicable requirement for
redesignation, provided the area can
maintain the standard with a prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD)
program after redesignation. A detailed
rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
With respect to the specific
attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,5 when the EPA evaluates a
redesignation request under either
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is
attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed
as having satisfied the attainment
planning requirements for these
subparts. For redesignations, the EPA
has for many years interpreted
attainment-linked requirements as not
applicable for areas attaining the
standard. In the General Preamble, the
EPA stated that the requirements for
RFP will not apply in evaluating a
request for redesignation to attainment
since, at a minimum, the air quality data
for the area must show that the area has
already attained. Showing that the State
will make RFP towards attainment will,
therefore, have no meaning at that point
(57 FR 13564). The General Preamble
also explained in discussing
contingency measures that the section
172(c)(9) requirements are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained
the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section
175A for maintenance plans provides
specific requirements for contingency
measures that effectively supersede the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.
The EPA similarly stated in its 1992
Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The
requirements for reasonable further
4 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this
redesignation is discussed below.
5 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM,
milestone requirements, contingency measures.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
73530
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
progress and other measures needed for
attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the
standard.’’
It is evident that even if we were to
consider the decision in NRDC v. EPA
to mean that attainment-related
requirements specific to subpart 4
should be imposed retroactively 6 or
prior to December 31, 2014 and, thus,
were due prior to Washington’s
redesignation request, those
requirements do not apply to an area
that is attaining the 2006 PM2.5 standard
for the purpose of evaluating a pending
request to redesignate the area to
attainment. The EPA has consistently
enunciated this interpretation of
applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble
was published more than twenty years
ago. Courts have recognized the scope of
the EPA’s authority to interpret
‘‘applicable requirements’’ in the
redesignation context. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, even outside the context of
redesignations, the EPA has viewed the
obligations to submit the attainmentrelated SIP planning requirements of
subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that
the EPA determines are attaining the
standard. The EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data
Policy’’ rulemakings for the PM10
NAAQS, also governed by the
requirements of subpart 4, explain the
EPA’s reasoning. They describe the
effects of a determination of attainment
on the attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4. See
‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso
Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR
27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso
Junction proposed PM10 redesignation,
(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952,
40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In
short, the EPA has also long concluded
that to require states to meet
superfluous SIP planning requirements
is not necessary and not required by the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6 As EPA has explained above, we do not believe
that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be
interpreted so as to impose these requirements on
the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman,
supra.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
CAA, so long as those areas continue to
attain the relevant NAAQS.
In this notice the EPA proposes to
determine that the area has attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Under its
longstanding interpretation, the EPA is
also proposing to determine that the
area meets the attainment-related plan
requirements of subparts 1 and 4. Thus,
the EPA is proposing to conclude that
the requirements to submit an
attainment demonstration under
189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section
189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are
satisfied for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request.
3. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of
Precursors
With regard to the redesignation of
the Tacoma area, in evaluating the effect
of the Court’s remand of the EPA’s
implementation rule, which included
presumptions against consideration of
VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors,
the EPA in this proposal is also
considering the impact of the decision
on the maintenance plan required under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To
begin with, the EPA notes that the area
has attained the 2006 PM2.5 standard
and that the State has shown that
attainment of that standard is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.
The EPA proposes to determine that
Washington’s maintenance plan, in
addition to direct PM2.5 controls, shows
continued maintenance of the standard
by tracking the levels of the PM2.5
precursors. The EPA believes that the
only additional consideration related to
the maintenance plan requirements that
results from the NRDC decision is that
of assessing the potential role of VOC
and ammonia in demonstrating
continued maintenance in this area. As
explained below, based upon
documentation provided by the State
and supporting information, the EPA
believes that the maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area need not include any
additional control measures for VOC or
ammonia in order to provide for
continued maintenance of the standard.
First, VOC emission levels in this area
have historically been well-controlled
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
under SIP requirements related to the
former Seattle-Tacoma Puget Sound
ozone nonattainment area. These
requirements remain in place today and
the area remain in attainment with more
stringent ozone standards promulgated
by the EPA in 1997 and 2008. Second,
total ammonia emissions throughout the
Tacoma area are very low, estimated to
be 374 tons per year in 2011. See Table
6 below. This amount of ammonia
emissions appears especially small in
comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and direct PM2.5 emissions from
sources in the area. Third, as described
below, VOC and ammonia emissions are
expected to decline over the
maintenance period, due primarily to
fleet turnover with cleaner vehicles, and
will therefore not interfere with or
undermine the maintenance
demonstration.
Washington’s maintenance plan
shows that emissions of direct PM2.5,
and NOX are projected to decrease over
the maintenance period by 100 tons per
year (tpy) and 8,105 tpy, respectively,
while SO2 emissions are estimated to
increase slightly by 5 tpy. See Tables 1–
4 below. Note that Ecology chose to use
conservative 10-year maximum values
for estimating future (2017, 2026) point
source emissions but used actual
emissions for the 2011 base year, so the
estimated 5 tpy increase in SO2
emissions is likely a conservative
overestimate and is not expected to
impact maintenance of the standard. In
addition, emissions inventories show
that VOC and ammonia emissions are
projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy and
49 tpy, respectively between 2011 and
2026. See Tables 5 and 6 below. Given
that the Tacoma area is already attaining
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the
current level of emissions from sources
in the area, the downward trend of
emissions inventories would be
consistent with continued attainment.
Indeed, projected emissions reductions
indicate that the area should continue to
attain the NAAQS following the control
strategies that Washington has already
elected to pursue. For these reasons, the
EPA believes that local emissions of all
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will
not increase to the extent that they will
cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate
the 2006 PM2.5 standard during the
maintenance period.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
73531
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE
TACOMA AREA
Annual direct PM2.5
(tpy)
Sector
2011
2017
2026
Net change
Point .........................................................................................................................
Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................
240
1,182
528
359
276
364
1,174
556
229
193
347
1,193
649
150
143
107
11
121
¥209
¥133
Total ..................................................................................................................
2,585
2,518
2,485
¥100
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR FOR THE
TACOMA AREA IN POUNDS PER WINTER WEEKDAY
[Seasonal inventory most relevant to elevated particulate matter levels]
Winter weekday direct PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Sector
2011
2017
2026
Net change
Point .........................................................................................................................
Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................
1,313
25,520
3,048
2,497
1,384
1,995
25,355
3,149
1,642
956
1,903
25,787
3,842
1,149
697
590
267
794
¥1,348
¥687
Total ..................................................................................................................
33,761
33,099
33,379
¥382
TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE TACOMA
AREA
Annual SO2
(tpy)
Sector
2011
2017
2026
Net change
Point .........................................................................................................................
Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................
360
19
56
44
754
720
20
60
40
301
720
22
66
37
392
360
3
10
¥7
¥362
Total ..................................................................................................................
1,234
1,143
1,239
5
TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE TACOMA
AREA
Annual NOX
(tpy)
Sector
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2011
2017
2026
Net change
Point .........................................................................................................................
Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................
1,180
132
311
10,697
3,511
1,399
135
335
6,377
2,794
1,396
141
368
3,458
2,363
216
9
57
¥7,239
¥1,148
Total ..................................................................................................................
15,833
11,041
7,728
¥8,105
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
73532
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 VOC EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE TACOMA
AREA
Annual VOC
(tpy)
Sector
2011
2017
2026
Net change
Point .........................................................................................................................
Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................
454
1,521
4,218
5,058
1,462
1,315
1,468
4,448
3,114
1,157
1,409
1,442
4,964
1,938
1,206
955
¥79
746
¥3,120
¥256
Total ..................................................................................................................
12,711
11,502
10,957
¥1,754
TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE
TACOMA AREA
Annual ammonia
(tpy)
Sector
2011
2017
2026
Net change
Point .........................................................................................................................
Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................
48
70
71
184
0
48
69
75
142
0
48
72
82
123
0
0
2
11
¥61
0
Total ..................................................................................................................
374
336
325
¥49
The EPA believes that there is ample
justification to conclude that the
Tacoma area should be redesignated,
taking into consideration projections of
future direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. After consideration of the DC
Circuit’s NRDC decision, and for the
reasons set forth in this notice, the EPA
proposes to approve Washington’s
maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the Tacoma area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard.
V. The EPA’s Analysis of Washington’s
Submittal
The EPA is proposing to redesignate
the Tacoma area to attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to
approve into the Washington SIP the
associated maintenance plan. The EPA’s
proposed approval of the redesignation
request and maintenance plan is based
upon the EPA’s determination that the
area continues to attain the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for
the area. The following is a description
of how Washington’s November 3, 2014
submittal satisfies the requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
based upon quality-assured and
certified ambient air quality monitoring
data for the period of 2010–2012 (78 FR
57503). The basis and effect of these
determinations of attainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were discussed in
the notices of the proposed (77 FR
39657 and 78 FR 42905) and final (77
FR 53772 and 78 FR 57503)
rulemakings.
The EPA has reviewed the ambient air
quality PM2.5 monitoring data in the
Tacoma area, consistent with the
requirements at 40 CFR part 50, and
recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS), quality assured, qualitycontrolled, and state certified data for
the monitoring periods 2011–2013 and
preliminary data for 2014. The air
quality data show that the Tacoma area
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The area’s 24-hour PM2.5
design values 7 are provided in Table 7.
A. Redesignation Request
1. Attainment
On September 4, 2012, the EPA
published a final rulemaking that the
Tacoma area attained the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based upon quality-assured and
certified ambient air quality monitoring
data for the period of 2009–2011 (77 FR
53772). On September 19, 2013, the EPA
published another final rulemaking, in
order to approve motor vehicle emission
budgets, with the determination that the
area continued to attain the standard
TABLE 7—TACOMA AREA DESIGN VALUES 8
Monitor
2007–2009
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Tacoma—South L Street .....................................................
Tacoma Tideflats–Alexander Avenue ..................................
Puyallup—128th Street (South Hill) .....................................
Puyallup—66th Avenue (Puyallup Tribe) .............................
7 As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
section (1)(c).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
2008–2010
46
27
27
NA
38
22
22
21
8 The Tacoma—South L Street monitor, the
original violating monitor for designation as
nonattainment, is the only Federal Reference
Method (FRM) monitor. Other state or tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2009–2011
35
22
22
21
2010–2012
28
21
21
21
2011–2013
32
24
23
23
nonregulatory monitoring information for the
Tacoma area is provided for informational purposes
only.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
The EPA’s review of the monitoring
data for 2011–2013 supports the
previous determinations that the area
has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and that the area continues to
attain the standard. Preliminary 2014
data, as shown in Figure 9 of
Washington’s submittal, is also
consistent with attainment. With respect
to the maintenance plan, Washington
has committed to continue monitoring
ambient PM2.5 concentrations in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus,
the EPA is proposing to determine that
the Tacoma area continues to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
In accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Tacoma area must be fully approved
under section 110(k) and all the
requirements applicable to the area
under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements) and part D of Title I
of the CAA (SIP requirements for
nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which include enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to
the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the state after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant
Deterioration);
• Provisions for the implementation
of Part D requirements for New Source
Review permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state.
However, section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification in that
state. The EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classifications are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, the EPA does not
believe that these requirements are
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, the EPA believes that the
other section 110(a)(2) elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The Tacoma area will
still be subject to these requirements
after it is redesignated. The EPA
concludes that the section 110(a)(2) and
part D requirements which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request, and that section 110(a)(2)
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. This
approach is consistent with the EPA’s
existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October
10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996);
and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking
(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October
19, 2001).
The EPA has reviewed the
Washington SIP and has concluded that
it meets the general SIP requirements
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to
the extent they are applicable for
purposes of redesignation. The EPA has
previously approved provisions of
Washington’s SIP addressing section
110(a)(2) requirements (77 FR 30902,
May 24, 2012 and 79 FR 42683, July 23,
2014), including proposed approval of
provisions addressing PM2.5 (79 FR
62368, October 17, 2014). These
requirements are, however, statewide
requirements that are not linked to the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73533
PM2.5 nonattainment status of the
Tacoma area. Therefore, the EPA
believes that these SIP elements are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
review of the State’s PM2.5 redesignation
request.
b. Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 Applicable
SIP Requirements
Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the
CAA sets forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. All areas that were
designated nonattainment for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were
designated under this subpart of the
CAA, and the requirements applicable
to them are contained in sections 172
and 176. The EPA’s analysis of the
particulate-matter-specific provisions of
Subpart 4 of part D of Title I is
discussed earlier in this notice.
The General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I discusses the
evaluation of these requirements in the
context of the EPA’s consideration of a
redesignation request. The General
Preamble sets forth the EPA’s view of
applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluating redesignation requests when
an area is attaining the standard (See 57
FR 13498).
As mentioned previously, on
September 4, 2012, the EPA made a
determination that the Tacoma area had
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(77 FR 53772). This determination of
attainment was based upon quality
assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for the period of 2009–
2011 showing that the area had attained
the standard. In a separate rulemaking
action, dated September 19, 2013, the
EPA made another determination of
attainment for the Tacoma area for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
2010–2012 monitoring period, in order
to approve motor vehicle emission
budgets (78 FR 57503).
As previously explained, upon
determination by the EPA that the area
had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, the requirement for
Washington to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, a
RFP plan, contingency measures, and
other planning requirements related to
the attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS were suspended until the
area is redesignated to attainment for
the standard or the EPA determines that
the area has again violated the standard,
at which time such suspended planning
requirements are required to be
submitted. Thus, because attainment
has been reached for the area for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the
area continues to attain the standard, no
additional measures are needed to
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73534
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
provide for attainment. Therefore, the
requirements of section 172(c)(1),
172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) are no
longer considered to be applicable for
purposes of redesignation of the area.
However, determinations of
attainment do not relieve states from
submitting and the EPA from approving
certain planning requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28,
2012, Washington submitted a 2008
baseline emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of
PM2.5 including NOX, SO2,VOCs, and
ammonia to meet the comprehensive
emissions inventory requirement of
CAA section 172(c)(3) for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in
Washington’s submittal were SIP
strengthening rules to implement the
recommendations of the Tacoma-Pierce
County Clean Air Task Force, an
advisory committee of community
leaders, citizen representatives, public
health advocates, and other affected
parties, formed to develop PM2.5
reduction strategies. These SIP
strengthening rules were permanent and
enforceable measures focused on
controlling PM2.5 emissions from
residential wood combustion, which in
2008 comprised 74% of direct PM2.5
emissions on winter days when 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS exceedances are most
likely. The EPA approved the 2008
baseline emissions inventory and SIP
strengthening rules on May 29, 2013 (78
FR 32131).
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires
the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources in an area,
and section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the
nonattainment area. The EPA has
determined that, since PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation 9, areas being redesignated
need not comply with the requirement
that a nonattainment NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D New Source Review (NSR). A
more detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires
the SIP to meet the applicable
9 The PSD program in Washington, including
tribal land, is regulated under a Federal
Implementation Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted
previously, we believe the Washington
SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2) that are applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
As a result of the EPA’s determination
of attainment of the area for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS the only remaining
requirement under section 172 to be
considered for the PM2.5 standard is the
comprehensive emissions inventory
required under section 172(c)(3).
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
submission of a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. For purposes of the PM2.5
NAAQS, this emissions inventory
should address not only direct
emissions of PM2.5, but also emissions of
all precursors with the potential to
participate in PM2.5 formation, i.e., SO2,
NOX, VOC, and ammonia. As previously
discussed, the EPA determined that
Washington met the section 172(c)(3)
comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement in a final rulemaking on
May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131).
Section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a
SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
‘‘for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.’’ In conjunction with its
request to redesignate the Tacoma area
to attainment status, Washington
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation, through 2026.
Washington is requesting that the EPA
approve this SIP revision as meeting the
requirement of CAA section 175A. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the
Tacoma area will ensure that the SIP for
Washington meets the requirements of
the CAA regarding maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA’s
analysis of the maintenance plan is
provided in section V.B. of this
rulemaking action.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed, funded or
approved under title 23 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal
Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally
supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability which
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the EPA promulgated pursuant to its
authority under the CAA. The EPA
interprets the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under CAA section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation, and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)
(upholding this interpretation) and
Tampa, Florida discussion (60 FR
62748, December 7, 1995).
Thus, for purposes of redesignating
the Tacoma area to attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is
proposing to determine that Washington
has met all the applicable SIP
requirements under part D of Title I of
the CAA.
c. The Tacoma Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
For purposes of redesignation to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, the EPA has fully approved all
applicable requirements of
Washington’s SIP for the Tacoma area in
accordance with section 110(k) of the
CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions
In many parts of the nation, PM2.5
nonattainment is often a result of
secondary formation of precursors into
particulate matter from point or mobile
sources. As shown in Tables 3 through
6, most of these precursor emissions are
projected to decline significantly due to
federal engine and fuel requirements for
cars, trucks, ships, trains, and nonroad
equipment. These estimated precursor
reductions will aid in continued
attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. However, the Tacoma area,
like some other areas in the Pacific
Northwest, is somewhat unique for a
large urban area in that elevated 24-hour
particulate matter levels are heavily
dominated by direct PM2.5 emissions
from local residential wood combustion.
As shown previously in Table 2,
residential wood combustion currently
accounts for 76% of direct PM2.5
emissions on a typical winter day, the
season most relevant to PM2.5
exceedances. Other sources of direct
PM2.5 are much smaller, including 7%
for onroad vehicles, 6% for dust, 4% for
major point sources, and 4% for
nonroad vehicles and engines. As
discussed in Washington’s SIP
submission, elevated PM2.5 levels are
particularly acute during wintertime
meteorological inversion events when a
shallow pool of cold air is trapped at
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ground level, allowing little to no
mixing with the upper atmosphere. On
these days, monitored 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations increase as do emissions
from residential wood combustion.
In response to these episodic
inversion events, Washington
established a mandatory wood stove
(solid fuel burning device) curtailment
program dating back to the late 1980s
and early 1990s to address coarse
particulate matter (PM10)
nonattainment. The curtailment
program rapidly brought most wood
smoke dominated PM10 areas, including
Tacoma, into attainment by the mid1990s (see 60 FR 54599, October 25,
1995). The curtailment program was so
successful that Washington had no
PM2.5 nonattainment areas when the
EPA established the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS of 65 mg/m3 in 1997. It was not
until 2006, when the EPA tightened the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3 that
Washington again experienced wood
smoke dominated nonattainment
problems. In response, Washington
enacted a series of statutory and
regulatory changes in 2007, 2008, and
2012 to update the curtailment program.
The EPA most recently approved the
updates to the curtailment program
enforced by the local Puget Sound Clean
Air Agency (PSCAA) on May 29, 2013
(78 FR 32131) and to the statewide
Ecology curtailment regulations on May
9, 2014 (79 FR 26628).10
For an area at risk of nonattainment
like Tacoma, when forecasted
meteorological conditions are predicted
to cause PM2.5 levels to reach or exceed
30 mg/m3, measured on a twenty-four
hour average, PSCAA or Ecology can
declare a first stage of impaired air
quality. Use of an uncertified solid fuel
burning device is prohibited during a
first stage of impaired air quality, with
limited exceptions.11 PSCAA or Ecology
can declare a second stage of impaired
air quality when: (1.) A first stage of
impaired air quality has been in force
and has not been sufficient to reduce the
increasing PM2.5 trend; (2.) PM2.5 levels
are monitored at an ambient level of 25
10 The Puyallup Tribe of Indians operates the
curtailment program on tribal trust lands within the
Tacoma area. Technical assistance and management
of the Tacoma airshed is coordinated under a
cooperative agreement. See Cooperative Agreement
between the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Regarding Implementation of the Puyallup Tribe
Air Quality Program included in the docket for this
action. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians also
participates in the PSCAA Advisory Council.
11 During both a first and second stage of
impaired air quality, the curtailment programs
allow a limited exemption for buildings with no
adequate source of heat other than a solid fuel
burning device, if certain qualification criteria are
met.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
mg/m3 measured on a twenty-four hour
average; and (3.) forecasted
meteorological conditions are not
expected to allow PM2.5 levels to decline
below 25 mg/m3 for a period of 24 hours
or more. PSCAA or Ecology can also
proceed directly to a second stage of
impaired air quality without first calling
a first stage if conditions are particularly
severe. See Revised Code of Washington
70.94.473. Use of any solid fuel burning
device, certified or uncertified, is
prohibited during the second stage of
impaired air quality, with limited
exceptions.
Despite challenging meteorological
conditions in both 2011 and 2013, as
discussed in the weight of evidence
analysis contained in Washington’s
redesignation request, the Tacoma area
continues to remain in attainment. Data
analyses conducted by Washington that
adjusts for year-to-year meteorological
variation shows that PM2.5 levels on the
highest winter days have come down
over 10 mg/m3 since 2009. Based on our
review of Washington’s weight of
evidence analysis, the EPA is proposing
to determine that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from Washington’s curtailment
program and other permanent and
enforceable reductions, such as federal
air pollutant control regulations.
B. Maintenance Plan
On November 3, 2014, Ecology
submitted a maintenance plan for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required
by section 175A of the CAA. The
maintenance plan includes all
emissions inventories, motor vehicle
emission budgets, and technical
analyses demonstrating current and
future attainment for the entire Tacoma
area, including tribal trust and non-trust
lands. The EPA’s analysis for proposing
approval of the maintenance plan is
provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory is comprised
of the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. Ecology
determined that the appropriate
attainment inventory year for the
maintenance plan is 2011, one of the
years in the period during which the
Tacoma area monitored attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
2011 inventory included in the
maintenance plan contains primary
PM2.5 emissions (including
condensables), SO2, NOX, VOCs, and
ammonia. In its redesignation request
and maintenance plan for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard, Ecology described
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73535
the methods used for developing the
inventory. The EPA reviewed the
procedures used to develop the 2011
attainment year inventory and found
them to be reasonable and approvable.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Section 175A of the CAA requires a
state seeking redesignation to
attainment to submit a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the
NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years
after the redesignation.’’ The EPA has
interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years
following redesignation.’’ Where the
emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to
show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase
over the attainment year inventory. See
1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9–
10.
For a demonstration of maintenance,
emissions inventories are required to be
projected to future dates to assess the
influence of future growth and controls;
however, the demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA,
supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See
also 66 FR 53099–53100 and 68 FR
25430–32. Ecology developed projected
inventories to show that the Tacoma
area will remain in attainment through
the year 2026. See Tables 1 through 6.
These projected inventories, covering an
interim year of 2017 and a maintenance
plan end year of 2026, show that future
emissions of NOX, VOCs, ammonia, and
direct PM2.5 will remain at or below the
2011 attainment-level emissions for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Sulfur
dioxide levels are projected to increase
slightly (5 tpy) between 2011 and 2026;
however, this projected increase above
the 2011 inventory is partially due to
Washington’s conservative estimation
methodology using historical 10-year
maximum emission levels in projecting
the future point source inventory.
Considering the relatively minor
influence of secondary formation in the
Tacoma airshed, the EPA does not
believe the 5 tpy increase in SO2
projected in the future year inventories
would significantly impact maintenance
of the PM2.5 NAAQS should these
conservative estimates (i.e. likely
overestimating future emissions) prove
correct.
Similarly, Ecology uses a conservative
estimation methodology throughout the
projected inventories, opting to forego
taking credit for future emission
reductions that are not known with
relative certainty. For example,
Washington did not incorporate into the
2017 and 2026 emissions inventories
reductions that could come about from
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
73536
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the more stringent federal emissions
standards in the proposed New Source
Performance Standards for Residential
Wood Heaters (79 FR 6330, February 3,
2014). Given the dominance of
residential wood smoke in the PM2.5
emissions inventory, finalization of this
EPA rule could have a large impact on
reducing future emissions.
Washington’s projections also do not
incorporate PM2.5 reductions from likely
increased participation in PSCAA’s
voluntary change-out program in
anticipation of the ban on uncertified
wood stoves in the Tacoma area after
September 2015. Lastly, because the
wood stove curtailment program is only
in effect during a handful of days when
inversion conditions exist, these
reductions are also not captured in the
annual or ‘‘typical winter day’’
inventories shown in Tables 1 and 2.
The EPA has reviewed the
documentation provided by Washington
for developing the 2017 and 2026
emissions inventories for the Tacoma
area. Based on our review, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the
inventories are reasonable and
approvable. The EPA is also proposing
to determine that the projected
emissions inventories show that the
Tacoma area will continue to maintain
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard during
the maintenance period.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Monitoring Network
There are three PM2.5 monitors in the
Tacoma area. Washington’s
maintenance plan includes a
commitment to continue to operate its
EPA-approved monitoring network, as
necessary to demonstrate ongoing
compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Ecology will consult with the
EPA prior to making any necessary
changes to the PM2.5 monitoring
network and will continue to quality
assure the monitoring data in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
Washington will acquire ambient
monitoring and source emission data to
track attainment and maintenance.
Washington will also track the progress
of the maintenance demonstration by
periodically updating the emissions
inventory as required by the Annual Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements Rule
(AERR), or as required by federal
regulation during the maintenance plan
period. This includes developing annual
inventories for major point sources and
a comprehensive periodic inventory
covering all source categories every
three years. Tracking will include the
evaluation of annual and periodic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
evaluations for any significant emission
increases above the 2011 attainment
year levels.
5. Contingency Measures
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to prevent or promptly correct
a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS that occurs in the area after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
the EPA deems necessary to ensure that
Washington will promptly correct a
violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS that occurs in the area after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
Washington’s maintenance plan
outlines the procedures for the adoption
and implementation of contingency
measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur. Washington’s
contingency measures include a
warning level response and an action
level response. An initial warning level
response is triggered for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS when the 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration
for a single calendar year reaches 35.5
mg/m3 or greater within the area. An
action level response will be prompted
by any one of the following: (1) A two
year average of the 98th percentile
reaches 35.5 mg/m3 or greater within the
area; or (2) a violation of the standard
occurs in the area (i.e. a three-year
average of the 98th percentile reaches
35.5 mg/m3 or greater).
In order to select appropriate
corrective measures for warning or
action level triggers, PSCAA will
conduct a study to determine the cause
of exceeding the trigger levels and the
control measures necessary to mitigate
the problem. The study will evaluate
whether the trend, if any, is likely to
continue and if so, the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend taking
into consideration ease and timing for
implementation as well as economic
and social considerations. Based on the
results of the analysis, contingency
measures will be selected. However, if
a new measure is already promulgated
and scheduled to be implemented at the
federal or state level at such time after
the exceedance, and that measure or
control is determined to be sufficient to
address the upward trend in air quality,
additional local measures may be
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
unnecessary. PSCAA will submit to the
EPA an analysis to demonstrate the
proposed measures are adequate to
return the area to attainment.
Should a warning level response be
triggered, measures that can be
implemented in a short time will be
selected in order to be in place within
18 months from the determination of a
warning level event based on quality
assured data. Should an action level
response be triggered, implementation
of necessary control measures will take
place as expeditiously as possible, but
in no event later than 18 months after
PSCAA makes a determination, based
on quality-assured ambient data, that an
action level trigger has been exceeded.
Adoption of additional control measures
is subject to necessary administrative
and legal processes.
Washington has identified the
following potential contingency
measures for the maintenance plan.
• Measures to address emissions from
residential wood combustion (e.g.
emissions from fireplaces under the
existing authority granted in Revised
Code of Washington 70.94.477).
Residential wood combustion represents
the largest emissions inventory source
category at 76% of direct PM2.5
emissions.
• Additional measures to address
other PM2.5 sources identified in the
emissions inventory such as onroad
vehicles, nonroad vehicles and engines,
industrial sources, and dust. These
source categories represent 7%, 4%,
4%, and 6%, respectively, of the current
emissions inventory.
6. The EPA’s Evaluation of VOC and
Ammonia Precursors in Washington’s
Maintenance Plan
With regard to the redesignation of
the Tacoma area in evaluating the effect
of the Court’s remand of the EPA’s 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, which
included presumptions against
consideration of VOC and ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors, the EPA in this
proposed rulemaking action is also
considering the impact of the decision
on the maintenance plan required under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To
begin with, the EPA notes that the area
has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and that Washington has
shown that attainment of the standard is
due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions.
The EPA proposes to determine that
the Washington maintenance plan
shows continued maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by tracking
the levels of direct PM2.5 and associated
precursors which brought about
attainment of the standard in the
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Tacoma area. The EPA, therefore,
believes that the only additional
consideration related to the
maintenance plan requirements that
results from the NRDC decision is that
of assessing the potential role of VOC
and ammonia in demonstrating
continued maintenance in this area.
Based upon emission inventory
documentation provided by Washington
and supporting information, the EPA
believes that the maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area need not include any
additional local control measures for
VOC or ammonia in order to provide for
continued maintenance of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
First, VOC emission levels in the
Tacoma area have historically been
well-controlled under SIP requirements
related to ozone and other pollutants.
Second, total ammonia emissions
throughout the Tacoma area are low,
especially in comparison to the total
amounts of SO2, NOX, and direct PM2.5
emissions from sources in the area.
Emissions inventories for 2017 and 2026
show that VOC and ammonia emissions
are projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy
and 49 tpy, respectively, between 2011
and 2026. See Tables 5 and 6. Given that
the Tacoma area is already attaining the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS even with
the current level of emissions from
sources in the area, the downward trend
of emissions inventories would be
consistent with continued attainment.
Thus, the EPA believes that there is
ample justification to conclude that the
Tacoma area should be redesignated,
even taking into consideration the
emissions of other precursors
potentially relevant to PM2.5. After
consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s NRDC
decision, and for the reasons set forth in
this rulemaking action, the EPA
proposes to approve Washington’s
maintenance plan and request to
redesignate the Tacoma area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard.
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the
goals of SIPs. This means that such
actions will not cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, worsen the
severity of an existing violation, or
delay timely attainment of any NAAQS
or any interim milestone. Actions
involving Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to the
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
part 93, subpart A). Under this rule,
metropolitan planning organizations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
(MPOs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state
air quality and transportation agencies,
the EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to
demonstrate that their long range
transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs (TIP) conform to
applicable SIPs. This is typically
determined by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned
highway and transit systems are less
than or equal to the MVEBs contained
in the SIP.
On November 3, 2014, Washington
submitted a SIP revision that contains
the PM2.5 and NOX on-road mobile
source budgets. In a separate and
concurrent process, the EPA is
conducting a process to find adequate
the MVEBs which are associated with
the Washington maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area. Concurrently with the
EPA’s proposal to approve the SIP, a
notice will be posted on the EPA’s Web
site at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/state
resources/transconf/currsips.htm for the
purpose of opening a 30-day public
comment period on the adequacy of the
MVEBs in the maintenance plan for the
Tacoma area. That notice will inform
the public of the availability of the
Washington SIP revision on Ecology’s
Web site. Interested members of the
public can access Washington’s
November 3, 2014 SIP revision on line
at www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0808. Following
the EPA’s public comment period,
responses to any comments received
will be addressed. The EPA has
reviewed the MVEBs and found them
consistent with the maintenance plan
and that the budgets meet the criteria for
adequacy and approval. Additional
information pertaining to the review of
the MVEBs can be found in the
technical support document (TSD) in
this docket titled Adequacy Findings for
the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
the Maintenance Plan for the Tacoma,
WA Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area.
VI. Proposed Actions
The EPA is proposing to redesignate
the Tacoma area, including tribal trust
and non-trust lands, from
nonattainment to attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.12 The EPA
has evaluated the technical analyses,
12 Control measures on tribal trust land will
continue to be regulated pursuant to 40 CFR part
49, which includes the Federal Implementation
Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian
Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington (70
FR 18074, April 8, 2005) and Review of New
Sources and Modifications in Indian Country (76
FR 38748, July 1, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73537
emissions inventories, and motor
vehicle emission budgets covering the
entire nonattainment area. We have
determined that the Tacoma area meets
the criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The EPA
believes that the monitoring data
demonstrate that the Tacoma area is
attaining and will continue to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is
also proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan for the Tacoma area
as a revision to the Washington SIP
because it meets the requirements of
CAA section 175A. For transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA is also
proposing to approve MVEBs for the
Tacoma area. Final approval of the
redesignation request would change the
official designation of the Tacoma area
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81, from
nonattainment to attainment, and would
incorporate into the Washington SIP the
associated maintenance plan ensuring
continued attainment of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area for the
next 10 years, until 2026. This proposed
action was reached after offering
consultation to the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians. The EPA did not receive a
request for consultation. The EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
73538
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to the requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land in Washington
except for as specifically noted below
and is also not approved to apply in any
other area in Washington where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country where the SIP does not
apply, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Washington’s SIP is
approved to apply to non-trust land
within the exterior boundaries of the
Puyallup Indian Reservation, also
known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773,
Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority
over activities on non-trust lands within
the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with
EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the
Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated
September 8, 2014. The EPA did not
receive a request for consultation.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 14, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014–28150 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002 [FRL–9920–
31–Region–5]]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan National
Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 5 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Belvidere
Municipal Landfill Superfund Site (Site)
located in Belvidere, Illinois from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Illinois, through the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: Thomas Smith, Remedial
Project Manager, at smith.thomasl@
epa.gov or Janet Pope, Community
Involvement Coordinator, at
pope.janet@epa.gov.
• Fax: Gladys Beard at (312) 886–
4071.
• Mail: Thomas Smith, Remedial
Project Manager, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (SR–6J), 77 W.
Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886–
6540 or Janet Pope, Community
Involvement Coordinator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (SI–
7J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604,
(312) 353–0628 or 1–800–621–8431.
• Hand delivery: Janet Pope,
Community Involvement Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(SI–7J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Chicago, IL 60604. 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–HQ–SFUND–1983–
0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://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 https://
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 docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312)
353–1063, Hours: Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST,
excluding Federal holidays.
• Ida Public Library, 320 N. State St.,
Belvidere, IL 61008, Phone: (815)
544–3838, Hours: Monday through
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73525-73538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28150]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket #: EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0808; FRL-9919-88-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Redesignation to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County
Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate to attainment the entire Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment
area (hereafter ``the Tacoma area'' or ``the area'') for the 2006 24-
hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). The EPA is also proposing to approve as a
revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP), the
associated maintenance plan that provides for continued compliance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2026 motor vehicle emissions budgets
included in Washington's maintenance plan for PM2.5 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX). In the course of proposing to approve
redesignation of the Tacoma area, the EPA addresses a number of
additional issues, including the effects of a January 4, 2013 decision
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit or Court) to remand to the EPA two final rules
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0808, by any of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics
(AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
C. Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0808. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the 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
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The EPA's Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
C. How have tribal governments been involved in this process?
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
A. Background
B. Proposal on This Issue
V. The EPA's Analysis of Washington's Submittal
A. Redesignation Request
B. Maintenance Plan
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
established on July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). The EPA
promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a three-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard). In the same rulemaking action, the EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR
61144), the EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\,
but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the
three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
[[Page 73526]]
concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard or daily
standard). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA published
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became
effective on December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, the EPA
designated the Tacoma area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 58774 and 40 CFR 81.348).
On September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53772), the EPA determined that the
Tacoma area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c), in effect at that time, the requirements
for the Tacoma area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to the attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS are suspended until such time as: The area is redesignated to
attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or the EPA
determines that the area has again violated the standard, at which time
such plans are required to be submitted. On September 19, 2013 (78 FR
57503), the EPA finalized a subsequent determination of attainment
considering the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013
decision to remand the implementation rule containing the provisions of
40 CFR 51.1004(c) on the area. Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (2013). A full description of the EPA's rationale for
the determination of attainment is contained in the proposal for that
action (78 FR 42095, July 18, 2013).
A determination of attainment does not relieve a state from
submitting, and the EPA from approving, certain planning SIP revisions
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, Washington
submitted a 2008 baseline emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of PM2.5
including nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
to meet the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 172(c) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Also included in Washington's submittal were SIP strengthening rules to
implement the recommendations of the Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air
Task Force, an advisory committee of community leaders, citizen
representatives, public health advocates, and other affected parties,
formed to develop PM2.5 reduction strategies. These SIP
strengthening rules were focused on controlling PM2.5
emissions from residential wood combustion, which at that time
comprised 74% of direct PM2.5 emissions on winter days when
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS exceedances are most likely. The EPA
approved the 2008 baseline emissions inventory and SIP strengthening
rules on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131). On November 3, 2014, Ecology
submitted a request to redesignate the Tacoma area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
submittal included a maintenance plan as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment of the standard over the next 10 years.
The EPA is also taking into account the recent decision in NRDC v.
EPA, in which the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final
rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428.
II. The EPA's Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The EPA determines that
the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the EPA has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5)
the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to
the area under section 110 and part D.
The EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992)(the ``General Preamble''), and has provided further guidance on
processing redesignation requests in the following documents: (1)
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter the ``1992 Calcagni
Memorandum''); (2) ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted
in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
and (3) ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994.
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after an area is
redesignated to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following
the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency
measures, with a schedule for implementation, as the EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5
violations.
The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance
plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
C. How have tribal governments been involved in this process?
Consistent with the EPA's tribal policy, the EPA offered
government-to-government consultation to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
regarding the action in this notice because part of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation is located in the Tacoma area. The Puyallup Indian
Reservation is divided into tribal trust land and non-trust land. Under
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773,
Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington
authority over activities on non-trust lands within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. As shown in figure
[[Page 73527]]
3 of the EPA's technical support document designating the Tacoma area
(then known as the Wapato Hills-Puyallup River Valley Nonattainment
Area) to nonattainment, the vast proportion of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation within the Tacoma area is under Washington's jurisdiction.
The EPA, working in consultation and coordination with the Puyallup
Tribe, has CAA authority over the small parcels of tribal trust lands
in the Tacoma area. Air quality management on tribal trust lands is
addressed pursuant to 40 CFR part 49, which includes the Federal
Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in
Idaho, Oregon and Washington (70 FR 18074, April 8, 2005, the Federal
Air Rules for Reservations) and the Review of New Sources and
Modifications in Indian Country (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011).
Under a cooperative agreement between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), all emissions
inventories, motor vehicle emission budgets, and technical analyses
demonstrating current and future attainment included in the State's
maintenance plan cover the entire Tacoma area, including both trust and
non-trust land. As a member of the PSCAA Advisory Council, the Puyallup
Indian Tribe is engaged in all decisions affecting the Tacoma area. As
discussed later in this proposal, Ecology and PSCAA chose a
conservative estimation methodology for calculating future year
emissions budgets, not taking credit for any wood stove curtailment
activities on tribal trust land. Therefore, any current or future
emission reductions attributable to implementation of the Federal Air
Rules for Reservations are supplemental and additional to emission
reductions calculated for the area. As shown in Table 7 below,
PM2.5 levels at the Puyallup tribal monitor are consistently
low. For these reasons, and based on discussions with the Puyallup
Tribe of Indians, the EPA is proposing to redesignate to attainment all
tribal trust land within the Tacoma area.
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
The EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to
the redesignation of the Tacoma area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find that the Tacoma
area meets the requirements for redesignation of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The EPA
is thus proposing to change the legal designation of the entire Tacoma
area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the Tacoma area as a revision to the
Washington SIP, including motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The approval of the maintenance
plans is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of the Tacoma area
to attainment. Washington's maintenance plan is designed to ensure
continued attainment for 10 years after redesignation.
The EPA previously determined that the Tacoma area attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 53772), and the EPA is
proposing to find that the area continues to attain the standard.
Furthermore, the EPA previously approved under section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA, the 2008 comprehensive emissions inventory for the Tacoma area as
part of Washington's SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013). The EPA's analysis of the proposed actions
is provided in section V of today's proposed rulemaking action.
IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
A. Background
As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d
428, the D.C. Circuit remanded to the EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine
Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule''). The Court found that the EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA
(subpart 1), rather than the particulate-matter-specific provisions of
subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4).
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, states had worked towards
meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
accordance with the EPA regulations and guidance derived from subpart 1
of Part D of Title I of the CAA. The EPA took this history into account
by setting a new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be
required of moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the Court's
decision regarding the applicability of subpart 4. On June 2, 2014, the
EPA issued the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification
and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, Jun. 2, 2014) which identifies the
classification under subpart 4 for areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards. The
EPA's final rulemaking also sets deadlines for states to submit
attainment-related and new source review (NSR) SIP elements required
for these areas pursuant to subpart 4, and identifies the EPA guidance
that is currently available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The final
rule specifies December 31, 2014, as the deadline for the states to
submit any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be
needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment
NSR requirements in subpart 4. Therefore, for Washington, any
additional attainment-related SIP-elements that may be needed for the
Tacoma area to meet the requirements of subpart 4 were not due at the
time that Washington submitted the November 3, 2014 redesignation
request.
B. Proposal on This Issue
In this portion of the proposed redesignation, the EPA addresses
the effect of the NRDC v. EPA ruling and the PM2.5 Subpart 4
Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule on the proposed
redesignation. As explained below, the EPA is proposing to determine
that the Court's decision does not prevent the EPA from redesignating
the Tacoma area to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decision,
redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and the EPA's
longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding
redesignation. The EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation
that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a
complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is
attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. Second, the EPA shows that, even applying the
subpart 4 requirements to the Tacoma area redesignation request and
disregarding the provisions of the remanded 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule, the State's request for redesignation of this area
still qualifies for approval. The EPA's discussion also takes into
account the effect of the Court's ruling and the PM2.5
Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule on the area's
maintenance plan, which the EPA views as approvable when subpart 4
requirements are considered.
[[Page 73528]]
1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation
Request
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's ruling rejected the EPA's reasons for implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to the EPA, so that it could
address implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart
4 of Part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating Washington's redesignation request for the area, to the
extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated nonattainment, the EPA believes that
those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus the EPA is not required to consider
subpart 4 requirements with respect to the Tacoma area redesignation.
Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, the EPA has
interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that
the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' and which must be
approved in order for the EPA to redesignate an area include only those
which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See 1992 Calcagni memorandum. See also ``State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation
to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,''
Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air
and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final
Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7,
1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-
27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir.
2004) (upholding the EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation and expressly rejecting that the meaning of
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\1\ In
this case, at the time that Washington submitted its redesignation
request, requirements under subpart 4 were not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Tacoma area
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time
Washington submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the
EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In
South Coast, the Court found that the EPA was not permitted to
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and
held that the EPA was required under the statute to implement the
standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well.
Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon
redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were
submitted to the EPA for areas under subpart 1, the EPA applied its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable
requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those
actions, the EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 requirements to
be ``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area
should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
The EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA Section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
the EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements
that came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after a state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for the EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance
with the 18-month deadline Congress set for the EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require the EPA
to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on
those submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking
that would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-
month timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and the EPA's June 2,
2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and
Deadline Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that
come due after the redesignation request is submitted. Washington
submitted its redesignation request on November 3, 2014, which is prior
to the deadline by which the Tacoma area is required to meet the
attainment plan and other requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
To evaluate Washington's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 for which the
deadline to comply has not yet come, would be to give retroactive
effect to such requirements and contravene the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v.
[[Page 73529]]
Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\2\ where it upheld the District
Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive the EPA's determination
that the St. Louis area did not meet its attainment deadline. In that
case, petitioners urged the Court to make the EPA's nonattainment
determination effective as of the date that the statute required,
rather than the later date on which the EPA actually made the
determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that applying it
``would likely impose large costs on States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans . . . even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, it
would be unreasonable to penalize the State of Washington by rejecting
its redesignation request for an area that is already attaining the
2006 PM2.5 standard and that met all applicable requirements
known to be in effect at the time of the request. For the EPA now to
reject the redesignation request solely because the State did not
expressly address subpart 4 requirements which have not yet come due
would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the Court in Sierra Club
v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite
different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to
give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing
denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Subpart 4 Requirements and Washington's Redesignation Request
Even if the EPA interpreted the NRDC decision to mean that subpart
4 requirements were due and in effect when Washington submitted its
redesignation request, the EPA proposes to determine that the Tacoma
area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As explained
below, the EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Tacoma
area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements,
substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of
redesignating the area to attainment.
With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Tacoma area, the EPA notes
that the section 172(c) general air quality planning requirements for
areas designated as nonattainment are also applicable. Subpart 4
contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for
PM10 \3\ nonattainment areas, and consistent with the
decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply
to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As noted, the General Preamble
sets forth the EPA's longstanding general guidance that interprets the
1990 amendments to the CAA, and provides recommendations to states for
meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas (57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992). In the General Preamble, the EPA discussed
the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and
pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed
by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10 requirements''
(57 FR 13538). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things,
provisions for attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, consistent
with the EPA's PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification
and Deadline Rule, we classified the Tacoma area as a ``moderate''
PM2.5 nonattainment area. As the EPA explained in its June
2, 2014 final rule, section 188 of the CAA provides that all designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are initially classified by
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and remain
moderate nonattainment areas unless and until the EPA reclassifies the
area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area (79 FR 31567). Accordingly,
the EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of
subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the
following requirements: (1) An approved permit program for construction
of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions
for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones
demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(section 189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, the EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does
not itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional
requirements for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\4\
In any event, in the context of redesignation, the EPA has long relied
on the interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source
review program is not considered an applicable requirement for
redesignation, provided the area can maintain the standard with a
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program after
redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' See
also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7,
1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\5\ when the EPA evaluates a redesignation request under
either subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the
PM2.5 standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment
planning requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, the EPA
has for many years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not
applicable for areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble,
the EPA stated that the requirements for RFP will not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a
minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has
already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point (57 FR
13564). The General Preamble also explained in discussing contingency
measures that the section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements
no longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for these
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that,
``The requirements for reasonable further
[[Page 73530]]
progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining
the standard.''
It is evident that even if we were to consider the decision in NRDC
v. EPA to mean that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart
4 should be imposed retroactively \6\ or prior to December 31, 2014
and, thus, were due prior to Washington's redesignation request, those
requirements do not apply to an area that is attaining the 2006
PM2.5 standard for the purpose of evaluating a pending
request to redesignate the area to attainment. The EPA has consistently
enunciated this interpretation of applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty
years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of the EPA's authority to
interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as to
impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club
v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, the EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit the attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that the EPA
determines are attaining the standard. The EPA's prior ``Clean Data
Policy'' rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by
the requirements of subpart 4, explain the EPA's reasoning. They
describe the effects of a determination of attainment on the
attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4. See
``Determination of Attainment for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,''
(75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso Junction proposed
PM10 redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643-47 October 30, 2006). In short, the EPA has also long
concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP planning
requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so long as
those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.
In this notice the EPA proposes to determine that the area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Under its
longstanding interpretation, the EPA is also proposing to determine
that the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of
subparts 1 and 4. Thus, the EPA is proposing to conclude that the
requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B),
a RACM determination under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c),
a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request.
3. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
With regard to the redesignation of the Tacoma area, in evaluating
the effect of the Court's remand of the EPA's implementation rule,
which included presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors, the EPA in this proposal is also
considering the impact of the decision on the maintenance plan required
under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, the EPA notes
that the area has attained the 2006 PM2.5 standard and that
the State has shown that attainment of that standard is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
The EPA proposes to determine that Washington's maintenance plan,
in addition to direct PM2.5 controls, shows continued
maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the
PM2.5 precursors. The EPA believes that the only additional
consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results
from the NRDC decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC
and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As
explained below, based upon documentation provided by the State and
supporting information, the EPA believes that the maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area need not include any additional control measures for
VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the
standard.
First, VOC emission levels in this area have historically been
well-controlled under SIP requirements related to the former Seattle-
Tacoma Puget Sound ozone nonattainment area. These requirements remain
in place today and the area remain in attainment with more stringent
ozone standards promulgated by the EPA in 1997 and 2008. Second, total
ammonia emissions throughout the Tacoma area are very low, estimated to
be 374 tons per year in 2011. See Table 6 below. This amount of ammonia
emissions appears especially small in comparison to the total amounts
of SO2, NOX, and direct PM2.5
emissions from sources in the area. Third, as described below, VOC and
ammonia emissions are expected to decline over the maintenance period,
due primarily to fleet turnover with cleaner vehicles, and will
therefore not interfere with or undermine the maintenance
demonstration.
Washington's maintenance plan shows that emissions of direct
PM2.5, and NOX are projected to decrease over the
maintenance period by 100 tons per year (tpy) and 8,105 tpy,
respectively, while SO2 emissions are estimated to increase
slightly by 5 tpy. See Tables 1-4 below. Note that Ecology chose to use
conservative 10-year maximum values for estimating future (2017, 2026)
point source emissions but used actual emissions for the 2011 base
year, so the estimated 5 tpy increase in SO2 emissions is
likely a conservative overestimate and is not expected to impact
maintenance of the standard. In addition, emissions inventories show
that VOC and ammonia emissions are projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy
and 49 tpy, respectively between 2011 and 2026. See Tables 5 and 6
below. Given that the Tacoma area is already attaining the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of emissions from
sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions inventories would
be consistent with continued attainment. Indeed, projected emissions
reductions indicate that the area should continue to attain the NAAQS
following the control strategies that Washington has already elected to
pursue. For these reasons, the EPA believes that local emissions of all
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will not
increase to the extent that they will cause monitored PM2.5
levels to violate the 2006 PM2.5 standard during the
maintenance period.
[[Page 73531]]
Table 1--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual direct PM2.5 (tpy)
Sector -------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2026 Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 240 364 347 107
Residential Wood Combustion............................. 1,182 1,174 1,193 11
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust)................. 528 556 649 121
On-road................................................. 359 229 150 -209
Nonroad................................................. 276 193 143 -133
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2,585 2,518 2,485 -100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector for the Tacoma Area in
Pounds per Winter Weekday
[Seasonal inventory most relevant to elevated particulate matter levels]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter weekday direct PM2.5 (lbs/day)
Sector -------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2026 Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 1,313 1,995 1,903 590
Residential Wood Combustion............................. 25,520 25,355 25,787 267
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust)................. 3,048 3,149 3,842 794
On-road................................................. 2,497 1,642 1,149 -1,348
Nonroad................................................. 1,384 956 697 -687
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 33,761 33,099 33,379 -382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual SO2 (tpy)
Sector -------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2026 Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 360 720 720 360
Residential Wood Combustion............................. 19 20 22 3
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust)................. 56 60 66 10
On-road................................................. 44 40 37 -7
Nonroad................................................. 754 301 392 -362
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,234 1,143 1,239 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 NOX Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual NOX (tpy)
Sector -------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2026 Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 1,180 1,399 1,396 216
Residential Wood Combustion............................. 132 135 141 9
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust)................. 311 335 368 57
On-road................................................. 10,697 6,377 3,458 -7,239
Nonroad................................................. 3,511 2,794 2,363 -1,148
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 15,833 11,041 7,728 -8,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73532]]
Table 5--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 VOC Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual VOC (tpy)
Sector -------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2026 Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 454 1,315 1,409 955
Residential Wood Combustion............................. 1,521 1,468 1,442 -79
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust)................. 4,218 4,448 4,964 746
On-road................................................. 5,058 3,114 1,938 -3,120
Nonroad................................................. 1,462 1,157 1,206 -256
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 12,711 11,502 10,957 -1,754
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual ammonia (tpy)
Sector -------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017 2026 Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 48 48 48 0
Residential Wood Combustion............................. 70 69 72 2
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust)................. 71 75 82 11
On-road................................................. 184 142 123 -61
Nonroad................................................. 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 374 336 325 -49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude that
the Tacoma area should be redesignated, taking into consideration
projections of future direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emissions. After consideration of the DC Circuit's NRDC
decision, and for the reasons set forth in this notice, the EPA
proposes to approve Washington's maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the Tacoma area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.
V. The EPA's Analysis of Washington's Submittal
The EPA is proposing to redesignate the Tacoma area to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve into the
Washington SIP the associated maintenance plan. The EPA's proposed
approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan is based
upon the EPA's determination that the area continues to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other redesignation
criteria have been met for the area. The following is a description of
how Washington's November 3, 2014 submittal satisfies the requirements
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.
A. Redesignation Request
1. Attainment
On September 4, 2012, the EPA published a final rulemaking that the
Tacoma area attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for
the period of 2009-2011 (77 FR 53772). On September 19, 2013, the EPA
published another final rulemaking, in order to approve motor vehicle
emission budgets, with the determination that the area continued to
attain the standard based upon quality-assured and certified ambient
air quality monitoring data for the period of 2010-2012 (78 FR 57503).
The basis and effect of these determinations of attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were discussed in the notices of the proposed
(77 FR 39657 and 78 FR 42905) and final (77 FR 53772 and 78 FR 57503)
rulemakings.
The EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality PM2.5
monitoring data in the Tacoma area, consistent with the requirements at
40 CFR part 50, and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS),
quality assured, quality-controlled, and state certified data for the
monitoring periods 2011-2013 and preliminary data for 2014. The air
quality data show that the Tacoma area continues to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The area's 24-hour PM2.5 design
values \7\ are provided in Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section (1)(c).
\8\ The Tacoma--South L Street monitor, the original violating
monitor for designation as nonattainment, is the only Federal
Reference Method (FRM) monitor. Other state or tribal nonregulatory
monitoring information for the Tacoma area is provided for
informational purposes only.
Table 7--Tacoma Area Design Values \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacoma_South L Street........... 46 38 35 28 32
Tacoma Tideflats-Alexander 27 22 22 21 24
Avenue.........................
Puyallup_128th Street (South 27 22 22 21 23
Hill)..........................
Puyallup_66th Avenue (Puyallup NA 21 21 21 23
Tribe).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73533]]
The EPA's review of the monitoring data for 2011-2013 supports the
previous determinations that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the area continues to attain the
standard. Preliminary 2014 data, as shown in Figure 9 of Washington's
submittal, is also consistent with attainment. With respect to the
maintenance plan, Washington has committed to continue monitoring
ambient PM2.5 concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. Thus, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Tacoma area
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Tacoma area must be
fully approved under section 110(k) and all the requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) and
part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for nonattainment areas)
must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration);
Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. However, section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification in that state. The EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, the
EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, the EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2)
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The Tacoma area will still be subject to
these requirements after it is redesignated. The EPA concludes that the
section 110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that
section 110(a)(2) elements not linked to the area's nonattainment
status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach
is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement.
See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also, the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR
at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).
The EPA has reviewed the Washington SIP and has concluded that it
meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. The
EPA has previously approved provisions of Washington's SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2) requirements (77 FR 30902, May 24, 2012 and 79 FR
42683, July 23, 2014), including proposed approval of provisions
addressing PM2.5 (79 FR 62368, October 17, 2014). These
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked
to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Tacoma area.
Therefore, the EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of the State's PM2.5
redesignation request.
b. Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 Applicable SIP Requirements
Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All
areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were designated under this subpart of the CAA,
and the requirements applicable to them are contained in sections 172
and 176. The EPA's analysis of the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of Subpart 4 of part D of Title I is discussed earlier in
this notice.
The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I discusses the
evaluation of these requirements in the context of the EPA's
consideration of a redesignation request. The General Preamble sets
forth the EPA's view of applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining the
standard (See 57 FR 13498).
As mentioned previously, on September 4, 2012, the EPA made a
determination that the Tacoma area had attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 53772). This determination of attainment
was based upon quality assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for the period of 2009-2011 showing that the area had
attained the standard. In a separate rulemaking action, dated September
19, 2013, the EPA made another determination of attainment for the
Tacoma area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2010-
2012 monitoring period, in order to approve motor vehicle emission
budgets (78 FR 57503).
As previously explained, upon determination by the EPA that the
area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirement for Washington to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning
requirements related to the attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS were suspended until the area is redesignated to
attainment for the standard or the EPA determines that the area has
again violated the standard, at which time such suspended planning
requirements are required to be submitted. Thus, because attainment has
been reached for the area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and the area continues to attain the standard, no additional measures
are needed to
[[Page 73534]]
provide for attainment. Therefore, the requirements of section
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) are no longer considered
to be applicable for purposes of redesignation of the area.
However, determinations of attainment do not relieve states from
submitting and the EPA from approving certain planning requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, Washington
submitted a 2008 baseline emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of PM2.5
including NOX, SO2,VOCs, and ammonia to meet the
comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in
Washington's submittal were SIP strengthening rules to implement the
recommendations of the Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air Task Force, an
advisory committee of community leaders, citizen representatives,
public health advocates, and other affected parties, formed to develop
PM2.5 reduction strategies. These SIP strengthening rules
were permanent and enforceable measures focused on controlling
PM2.5 emissions from residential wood combustion, which in
2008 comprised 74% of direct PM2.5 emissions on winter days
when 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS exceedances are most likely. The
EPA approved the 2008 baseline emissions inventory and SIP
strengthening rules on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131).
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA has
determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation
\9\, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that
a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D New Source Review (NSR). A more detailed rationale for this view
is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The PSD program in Washington, including tribal land, is
regulated under a Federal Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted previously, we
believe the Washington SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
that are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As a result of the EPA's determination of attainment of the area
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS the only remaining
requirement under section 172 to be considered for the PM2.5
standard is the comprehensive emissions inventory required under
section 172(c)(3). Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission of
a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions.
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, this emissions inventory
should address not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also
emissions of all precursors with the potential to participate in
PM2.5 formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC,
and ammonia. As previously discussed, the EPA determined that
Washington met the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement in a final rulemaking on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131).
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' In
conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tacoma area to
attainment status, Washington submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation, through 2026. Washington is requesting that
the EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA
section 175A. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the Tacoma area
will ensure that the SIP for Washington meets the requirements of the
CAA regarding maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The EPA's analysis of the maintenance plan is provided in section V.B.
of this rulemaking action.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded or approved under
title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
which the EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. The
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under CAA section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation,
and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
this interpretation) and Tampa, Florida discussion (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995).
Thus, for purposes of redesignating the Tacoma area to attainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is proposing to
determine that Washington has met all the applicable SIP requirements
under part D of Title I of the CAA.
c. The Tacoma Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
For purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has fully approved all applicable
requirements of Washington's SIP for the Tacoma area in accordance with
section 110(k) of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
In many parts of the nation, PM2.5 nonattainment is
often a result of secondary formation of precursors into particulate
matter from point or mobile sources. As shown in Tables 3 through 6,
most of these precursor emissions are projected to decline
significantly due to federal engine and fuel requirements for cars,
trucks, ships, trains, and nonroad equipment. These estimated precursor
reductions will aid in continued attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the Tacoma area, like some other areas
in the Pacific Northwest, is somewhat unique for a large urban area in
that elevated 24-hour particulate matter levels are heavily dominated
by direct PM2.5 emissions from local residential wood
combustion. As shown previously in Table 2, residential wood combustion
currently accounts for 76% of direct PM2.5 emissions on a
typical winter day, the season most relevant to PM2.5
exceedances. Other sources of direct PM2.5 are much smaller,
including 7% for onroad vehicles, 6% for dust, 4% for major point
sources, and 4% for nonroad vehicles and engines. As discussed in
Washington's SIP submission, elevated PM2.5 levels are
particularly acute during wintertime meteorological inversion events
when a shallow pool of cold air is trapped at
[[Page 73535]]
ground level, allowing little to no mixing with the upper atmosphere.
On these days, monitored 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations
increase as do emissions from residential wood combustion.
In response to these episodic inversion events, Washington
established a mandatory wood stove (solid fuel burning device)
curtailment program dating back to the late 1980s and early 1990s to
address coarse particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment. The
curtailment program rapidly brought most wood smoke dominated
PM10 areas, including Tacoma, into attainment by the mid-
1990s (see 60 FR 54599, October 25, 1995). The curtailment program was
so successful that Washington had no PM2.5 nonattainment
areas when the EPA established the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65
[mu]g/m\3\ in 1997. It was not until 2006, when the EPA tightened the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ that Washington again
experienced wood smoke dominated nonattainment problems. In response,
Washington enacted a series of statutory and regulatory changes in
2007, 2008, and 2012 to update the curtailment program. The EPA most
recently approved the updates to the curtailment program enforced by
the local Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) on May 29, 2013 (78 FR
32131) and to the statewide Ecology curtailment regulations on May 9,
2014 (79 FR 26628).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Puyallup Tribe of Indians operates the curtailment
program on tribal trust lands within the Tacoma area. Technical
assistance and management of the Tacoma airshed is coordinated under
a cooperative agreement. See Cooperative Agreement between the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Regarding Implementation of the Puyallup Tribe Air Quality Program
included in the docket for this action. The Puyallup Tribe of
Indians also participates in the PSCAA Advisory Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an area at risk of nonattainment like Tacoma, when forecasted
meteorological conditions are predicted to cause PM2.5
levels to reach or exceed 30 [mu]g/m\3\, measured on a twenty-four hour
average, PSCAA or Ecology can declare a first stage of impaired air
quality. Use of an uncertified solid fuel burning device is prohibited
during a first stage of impaired air quality, with limited
exceptions.\11\ PSCAA or Ecology can declare a second stage of impaired
air quality when: (1.) A first stage of impaired air quality has been
in force and has not been sufficient to reduce the increasing
PM2.5 trend; (2.) PM2.5 levels are monitored at
an ambient level of 25 [mu]g/m\3\ measured on a twenty-four hour
average; and (3.) forecasted meteorological conditions are not expected
to allow PM2.5 levels to decline below 25 [mu]g/m\3\ for a
period of 24 hours or more. PSCAA or Ecology can also proceed directly
to a second stage of impaired air quality without first calling a first
stage if conditions are particularly severe. See Revised Code of
Washington 70.94.473. Use of any solid fuel burning device, certified
or uncertified, is prohibited during the second stage of impaired air
quality, with limited exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ During both a first and second stage of impaired air
quality, the curtailment programs allow a limited exemption for
buildings with no adequate source of heat other than a solid fuel
burning device, if certain qualification criteria are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite challenging meteorological conditions in both 2011 and
2013, as discussed in the weight of evidence analysis contained in
Washington's redesignation request, the Tacoma area continues to remain
in attainment. Data analyses conducted by Washington that adjusts for
year-to-year meteorological variation shows that PM2.5
levels on the highest winter days have come down over 10 [mu]g/m\3\
since 2009. Based on our review of Washington's weight of evidence
analysis, the EPA is proposing to determine that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from Washington's curtailment program and other permanent and
enforceable reductions, such as federal air pollutant control
regulations.
B. Maintenance Plan
On November 3, 2014, Ecology submitted a maintenance plan for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by section 175A of the
CAA. The maintenance plan includes all emissions inventories, motor
vehicle emission budgets, and technical analyses demonstrating current
and future attainment for the entire Tacoma area, including tribal
trust and non-trust lands. The EPA's analysis for proposing approval of
the maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory is comprised of the emissions during the
time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
Ecology determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year for
the maintenance plan is 2011, one of the years in the period during
which the Tacoma area monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2011 inventory included in the maintenance
plan contains primary PM2.5 emissions (including
condensables), SO2, NOX, VOCs, and ammonia. In
its redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, Ecology described the methods used for
developing the inventory. The EPA reviewed the procedures used to
develop the 2011 attainment year inventory and found them to be
reasonable and approvable.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to
attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of
the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.'' The EPA has interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ``for a period of ten years following redesignation.''
Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used,
its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period
will not increase over the attainment year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum, pages 9-10.
For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of
future growth and controls; however, the demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.
See also 66 FR 53099-53100 and 68 FR 25430-32. Ecology developed
projected inventories to show that the Tacoma area will remain in
attainment through the year 2026. See Tables 1 through 6. These
projected inventories, covering an interim year of 2017 and a
maintenance plan end year of 2026, show that future emissions of
NOX, VOCs, ammonia, and direct PM2.5 will remain
at or below the 2011 attainment-level emissions for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Sulfur dioxide levels are projected to increase
slightly (5 tpy) between 2011 and 2026; however, this projected
increase above the 2011 inventory is partially due to Washington's
conservative estimation methodology using historical 10-year maximum
emission levels in projecting the future point source inventory.
Considering the relatively minor influence of secondary formation in
the Tacoma airshed, the EPA does not believe the 5 tpy increase in
SO2 projected in the future year inventories would
significantly impact maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS should
these conservative estimates (i.e. likely overestimating future
emissions) prove correct.
Similarly, Ecology uses a conservative estimation methodology
throughout the projected inventories, opting to forego taking credit
for future emission reductions that are not known with relative
certainty. For example, Washington did not incorporate into the 2017
and 2026 emissions inventories reductions that could come about from
[[Page 73536]]
the more stringent federal emissions standards in the proposed New
Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters (79 FR 6330,
February 3, 2014). Given the dominance of residential wood smoke in the
PM2.5 emissions inventory, finalization of this EPA rule
could have a large impact on reducing future emissions. Washington's
projections also do not incorporate PM2.5 reductions from
likely increased participation in PSCAA's voluntary change-out program
in anticipation of the ban on uncertified wood stoves in the Tacoma
area after September 2015. Lastly, because the wood stove curtailment
program is only in effect during a handful of days when inversion
conditions exist, these reductions are also not captured in the annual
or ``typical winter day'' inventories shown in Tables 1 and 2. The EPA
has reviewed the documentation provided by Washington for developing
the 2017 and 2026 emissions inventories for the Tacoma area. Based on
our review, the EPA is proposing to determine that the inventories are
reasonable and approvable. The EPA is also proposing to determine that
the projected emissions inventories show that the Tacoma area will
continue to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard during
the maintenance period.
3. Monitoring Network
There are three PM2.5 monitors in the Tacoma area.
Washington's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue to
operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Ecology will consult with the EPA prior to making any necessary
changes to the PM2.5 monitoring network and will continue to
quality assure the monitoring data in accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
Washington will acquire ambient monitoring and source emission data
to track attainment and maintenance. Washington will also track the
progress of the maintenance demonstration by periodically updating the
emissions inventory as required by the Annual Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements Rule (AERR), or as required by federal regulation during
the maintenance plan period. This includes developing annual
inventories for major point sources and a comprehensive periodic
inventory covering all source categories every three years. Tracking
will include the evaluation of annual and periodic evaluations for any
significant emission increases above the 2011 attainment year levels.
5. Contingency Measures
The contingency plan provisions are designed to prevent or promptly
correct a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that
occurs in the area after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as
the EPA deems necessary to ensure that Washington will promptly correct
a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in
the area after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the
events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a
contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be
adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by
which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
Washington's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur. Washington's contingency measures
include a warning level response and an action level response. An
initial warning level response is triggered for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS when the 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentration for a single calendar year reaches 35.5
[mu]g/m\3\ or greater within the area. An action level response will be
prompted by any one of the following: (1) A two year average of the
98th percentile reaches 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater within the area; or
(2) a violation of the standard occurs in the area (i.e. a three-year
average of the 98th percentile reaches 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater).
In order to select appropriate corrective measures for warning or
action level triggers, PSCAA will conduct a study to determine the
cause of exceeding the trigger levels and the control measures
necessary to mitigate the problem. The study will evaluate whether the
trend, if any, is likely to continue and if so, the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend taking into consideration ease and
timing for implementation as well as economic and social
considerations. Based on the results of the analysis, contingency
measures will be selected. However, if a new measure is already
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the federal or state
level at such time after the exceedance, and that measure or control is
determined to be sufficient to address the upward trend in air quality,
additional local measures may be unnecessary. PSCAA will submit to the
EPA an analysis to demonstrate the proposed measures are adequate to
return the area to attainment.
Should a warning level response be triggered, measures that can be
implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place
within 18 months from the determination of a warning level event based
on quality assured data. Should an action level response be triggered,
implementation of necessary control measures will take place as
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 18 months after
PSCAA makes a determination, based on quality-assured ambient data,
that an action level trigger has been exceeded. Adoption of additional
control measures is subject to necessary administrative and legal
processes.
Washington has identified the following potential contingency
measures for the maintenance plan.
Measures to address emissions from residential wood
combustion (e.g. emissions from fireplaces under the existing authority
granted in Revised Code of Washington 70.94.477). Residential wood
combustion represents the largest emissions inventory source category
at 76% of direct PM2.5 emissions.
Additional measures to address other PM2.5
sources identified in the emissions inventory such as onroad vehicles,
nonroad vehicles and engines, industrial sources, and dust. These
source categories represent 7%, 4%, 4%, and 6%, respectively, of the
current emissions inventory.
6. The EPA's Evaluation of VOC and Ammonia Precursors in Washington's
Maintenance Plan
With regard to the redesignation of the Tacoma area in evaluating
the effect of the Court's remand of the EPA's 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, which included presumptions against consideration
of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, the EPA in this
proposed rulemaking action is also considering the impact of the
decision on the maintenance plan required under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, the EPA notes that the area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that Washington
has shown that attainment of the standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
The EPA proposes to determine that the Washington maintenance plan
shows continued maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
by tracking the levels of direct PM2.5 and associated
precursors which brought about attainment of the standard in the
[[Page 73537]]
Tacoma area. The EPA, therefore, believes that the only additional
consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results
from the NRDC decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC
and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. Based
upon emission inventory documentation provided by Washington and
supporting information, the EPA believes that the maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area need not include any additional local control measures
for VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
First, VOC emission levels in the Tacoma area have historically
been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to ozone and other
pollutants. Second, total ammonia emissions throughout the Tacoma area
are low, especially in comparison to the total amounts of
SO2, NOX, and direct PM2.5 emissions
from sources in the area. Emissions inventories for 2017 and 2026 show
that VOC and ammonia emissions are projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy
and 49 tpy, respectively, between 2011 and 2026. See Tables 5 and 6.
Given that the Tacoma area is already attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of emissions from
sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions inventories would
be consistent with continued attainment. Thus, the EPA believes that
there is ample justification to conclude that the Tacoma area should be
redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of other
precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. After
consideration of the D.C. Circuit's NRDC decision, and for the reasons
set forth in this rulemaking action, the EPA proposes to approve
Washington's maintenance plan and request to redesignate the Tacoma
area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA,
and the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP)
conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing
that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit
systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.
On November 3, 2014, Washington submitted a SIP revision that
contains the PM2.5 and NOX on-road mobile source
budgets. In a separate and concurrent process, the EPA is conducting a
process to find adequate the MVEBs which are associated with the
Washington maintenance plan for the Tacoma area. Concurrently with the
EPA's proposal to approve the SIP, a notice will be posted on the EPA's
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose of opening a 30-day public comment period
on the adequacy of the MVEBs in the maintenance plan for the Tacoma
area. That notice will inform the public of the availability of the
Washington SIP revision on Ecology's Web site. Interested members of
the public can access Washington's November 3, 2014 SIP revision on
line at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0808.
Following the EPA's public comment period, responses to any comments
received will be addressed. The EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and found
them consistent with the maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the
criteria for adequacy and approval. Additional information pertaining
to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the technical support
document (TSD) in this docket titled Adequacy Findings for the Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Tacoma, WA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area.
VI. Proposed Actions
The EPA is proposing to redesignate the Tacoma area, including
tribal trust and non-trust lands, from nonattainment to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\12\ The EPA has evaluated the
technical analyses, emissions inventories, and motor vehicle emission
budgets covering the entire nonattainment area. We have determined that
the Tacoma area meets the criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. The EPA believes that the monitoring data demonstrate that the
Tacoma area is attaining and will continue to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the Tacoma area as a revision to the
Washington SIP because it meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
For transportation conformity purposes, the EPA is also proposing to
approve MVEBs for the Tacoma area. Final approval of the redesignation
request would change the official designation of the Tacoma area for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81, from
nonattainment to attainment, and would incorporate into the Washington
SIP the associated maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area for the next 10
years, until 2026. This proposed action was reached after offering
consultation to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The EPA did not receive
a request for consultation. The EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Control measures on tribal trust land will continue to be
regulated pursuant to 40 CFR part 49, which includes the Federal
Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations
in Idaho, Oregon and Washington (70 FR 18074, April 8, 2005) and
Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country (76 FR
38748, July 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
[[Page 73538]]
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except for as specifically noted below and is also not
approved to apply in any other area in Washington where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country where the SIP does not apply, the rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Washington's SIP is
approved to apply to non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of
the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area.
Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C.
1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873
Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated
September 8, 2014. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 14, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-28150 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
