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 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 http://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: • http://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 http:// 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 http:// www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http:// 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 http:// 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 http:// 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 http://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