```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47259-47264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0088; FRL-9841-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: 
Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a limited maintenance plan 
submitted by the State of Washington on July 1, 2013, for the Thurston 
County maintenance area (Thurston County) for particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal

[[Page 47260]]

10 micrometers (PM10). The EPA is also proposing to approve 
both local and state regulatory updates related to this maintenance 
plan.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0088, 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-
2013-0088. 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. This Action
II. Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
    A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Conformity under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
V. Review of the State's Submittal
    A. Has the State demonstrated that Thurston County qualifies for 
the limited maintenance plan option?
    B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions 
inventory?
    C. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of 
continued operation of an appropriate EPA-Approved air quality 
monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
    D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for 
contingency provisions?
    E. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Revisions to the Washington SIP
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan 
submitted by the State of Washington (the State) on July 1, 2013, for 
Thurston County, including approval of a monitoring system modification 
for the area. The limited maintenance plan also includes Washington 
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulatory changes that 
strengthen the control measures contained in the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) since our last approval on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). In 
addition to the state regulatory changes, the EPA is proposing to 
approve corresponding local regulations adopted by the Olympic Region 
Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) because they have direct implementation 
authority in Thurston County. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to remove 
Chapter 173-433-170 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Retail Sales 
Fee from the SIP because this provision was not a control measure 
relied on for attainment or a required element of the SIP. The EPA has 
determined that removal of this provision will not interfere with 
continued attainment and maintenance of the standard. Similarly, the 
EPA is proposing to remove Chapter 173-433-200 WAC Regulatory Actions 
and Penalties from the SIP incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470. 
The EPA reviews and approves state submissions to ensure they provide 
adequate enforcement authority. However, regulations describing agency 
enforcement authority are not incorporated into the SIP to avoid 
potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. Likewise, 
the EPA has reviewed and is proposing approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 
Penalties as having adequate enforcement authority, but will not 
incorporate this section by reference into the SIP codified in 40 CFR 
52.2470.

II. Background

    The EPA identified a portion of Thurston County as a ``Group I'' 
area of concern due to measured violations of the newly promulgated 24-
hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on 
August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383). Ecology and ORCAA worked with the 
communities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater to develop a plan for 
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. The plan was focused on wood 
smoke reduction and was submitted in November 1988. On November 15, 
1990, the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments under section 107(d)(4)(B), 
designated the Thurston County Group I area as nonattainment for 
PM10 by operation of law. The EPA published a Federal 
Register notice announcing all areas designated nonattainment for 
PM10 on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). In order to address 
the additional moderate area requirements imposed by the 1990 CAA 
Amendments, Ecology submitted a supplement to the attainment plan in 
November 1991. EPA took final action to approve the entire plan on July 
27, 1993 (58 FR 40056).
    The control measures contained in the Thurston County plan rapidly 
brought the area into attainment by 1991 and

[[Page 47261]]

formed the foundation of the wood smoke reduction program still in use 
today. As PM10 levels in the area steadily declined, the EPA 
redesignated the Thurston County nonattainment area to a maintenance 
area on October 4, 2000 (65 FR 59128). In addition to approving 
Ecology's redesignation request for the area, the EPA also approved a 
maintenance plan to ensure continued compliance with the 
PM10 NAAQS for ten years. The purpose of the current limited 
maintenance plan is to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement 
of Clean Air Act section 175A (b) to ensure compliance through 2020.

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires that each SIP 
revision offer a reasonable opportunity for notice and public hearing. 
This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by the State to 
the EPA. The State provided notice and an opportunity for public 
comment beginning April 22, 2013, with no comments received. Under the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the State also offered an opportunity 
for a public hearing; however no requests were received. This SIP 
revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was received by 
the EPA on July 1, 2013. The EPA evaluated Ecology's submittal and 
determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice 
and public hearing under section 110(a)(2).

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined 
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality 
Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (limited 
maintenance plan option memo). The limited maintenance plan option memo 
contains a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air 
quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the 
standard ten years into the future. Thus, the EPA provided the 
maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in 
the memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these 
areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation 
conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the limited maintenance plan option the State must 
demonstrate the area meets the criteria described below. First, the 
area should have attained the PM10 NAAQS. Second, the most 
recent five years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, 
called the 24-hour average design value, should be at or below 98 
[mu]g/m\3\. Third, the State should expect only limited growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) 
and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis 
test. Lastly, the memo identifies core provisions that must be included 
in all limited maintenance plans. These provisions include an 
attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation 
of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency 
provisions.

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule 
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance 
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity 
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms 
to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from 
the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the 
area.
    While qualification for the limited maintenance plan option does 
not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may 
be demonstrated without submitting an emissions budget. Under the 
limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as 
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period 
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would 
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the 
PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity 
purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas need not 
be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions 
analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to 
the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget 
test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons 
that the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

V. Review of the State's Submittal

A. Has the State demonstrated that Thurston County qualifies for the 
limited maintenance plan option?

    As discussed above, the limited maintenance plan option memo 
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify. First, the area 
should be attaining the NAAQS. Thurston County has been attaining the 
NAAQS since 1991. EPA formally redesignated the area from nonattainment 
to attainment, making it a maintenance area effective December 4, 2000 
(65 FR 59128).
    Second, the average design value for the past five years of 
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98 
[mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The critical design 
value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten 
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. Using the most recently available 
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitoring data for the years 2001-2005, 
the State's analysis demonstrated that Thurston County's average design 
value was 60 [mu]g/m\3\, well below the 98 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold. An FRM 
monitor is one that has been approved by the EPA under 40 CFR part 58 
to measure compliance with the NAAQS. As discussed later in this 
proposal, Ecology and ORCAA also calculated average design values using 
more recent non-FRM nephelometer data for the period 2008 to 2012. This 
more recent monitoring data shows that PM10 levels continued 
to decline with an average design value of 45 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA 
reviewed the data provided by Ecology and ORCAA and finds that Thurston 
County meets the design value criteria outlined in the limited 
maintenance plan option memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test described in attachment B of the limited maintenance plan 
option memo. Ecology submitted an analysis showing that growth in on-
road mobile PM10 emissions sources was minimal and would not 
threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the limited 
maintenance plan policy. Using the EPA's methodology, Ecology 
calculated a regional emissions analysis margin of safety of 62 [mu]g/
m\3\, easily meeting the threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA reviewed 
the calculations in the State's limited maintenance plan submittal and 
concurs with this conclusion.
    Lastly, the limited maintenance plan option memo requires all 
controls relied on to demonstrate attainment remain in place for the 
area to qualify. The controls on wood smoke reduction, Chapter 173-433 
WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards, were

[[Page 47262]]

approved by the EPA into the SIP on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). As 
discussed later in this proposal, Ecology made updates to Chapter 173-
433 WAC strengthening the control measures since the EPA's last 
approval. The EPA reviewed these changes and confirmed that the 
underlying control measures remain in place, thus qualifying for the 
limited maintenance plan option.
    As described above, Thurston County meets the qualification 
criteria set forth in the limited maintenance plan option memo. Under 
the limited maintenance plan option, the State will be expected to 
determine on an annual basis that the criteria are still being met. If 
the State determines that the limited maintenance plan criteria are not 
being met, it should take action to reduce PM10 
concentrations enough to requalify. One possible approach the State 
could take is to implement contingency measures. Section V. I. provides 
a description of contingency provisions submitted as part of the 
limited maintenance plan submittal. To insure this requirement is met, 
Ecology commits to reporting to the EPA on continued qualification for 
the limited maintenance plan option in the annual monitoring network 
report.

B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory?

    Pursuant to the limited maintenance plan option memo, the State's 
approved attainment plan should include an emissions inventory which 
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory 
should represent emissions during the same five-year period associated 
with air quality data used to determine whether the area meets the 
applicability requirements of the limited maintenance plan option.
    Ecology's Thurston County limited maintenance plan submittal 
includes an emissions inventory based on Ecology's 2005 Triennial 
Emissions Inventory and the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. These 
base years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available 
and are consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the 
limited maintenance plan option (i.e., having no violations of the 
PM10 NAAQS). The emissions inventory focused on four 
significant source categories chosen based on a review of the original 
maintenance plan. These source categories, in order of relative impact, 
are wood burning, construction dust, road dust, and vehicle exhaust and 
tire wear. Since the Thurston County area is primarily residential and 
governmental, other source categories, including industrial sources, 
are insignificant. This data supports Ecology's conclusion that the 
control measures contained in the original attainment plan will 
continue to protect and maintain the PM10 NAAQS.

C. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of continued 
operation of an appropriate EPA-Approved air quality monitoring 
network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?

    PM10 monitoring was established in the Thurston County 
area in 1985, with many changes to the monitoring technology and 
requirements since. Beginning in 1990, Ecology and ORCAA collocated a 
nephelometer with the existing PM10 FRM monitor. A 
nephelometer is an instrument that is widely used to calculate 
particulate matter concentrations based on light scatter measurements. 
While not an EPA-approved FRM monitoring method, Ecology and ORCAA 
found that the nephelometer and the PM10 FRM monitor were 
highly correlated. Because of this high level of correlation between 
the monitors, as part of the 2007 annual network monitoring report 
under 40 CFR part 58, Ecology requested replacing the FRM monitor with 
the nephelometer so that resources could be redirected to more pressing 
environmental issues such as ensuring that areas of concern in the 
State were in compliance with the recently revised fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, which is defined as particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 
micrometers. The EPA approved this request on November 16, 2007. A full 
description of the correlation data is included in the limited 
maintenance plan submittal. The EPA is proposing to approve this 
monitoring system modification, using nephelometer data to represent 
PM10 concentrations, under 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the second 
10-year maintenance plan period because this modification is a 
reproducible approach to representing air quality in the Thurston 
County maintenance area, and the area continues to meet all applicable 
Appendix D requirements evaluated as part of the annual network 
approval process. As detailed in the limited maintenance plan, ORCAA 
will calculate the PM10 design value estimate annually from 
nephelometer data through 2020 to confirm the area continues to meet 
the PM10 NAAQS. ORCAA also makes a commitment to continue 
operation of a nephelometer in the Thurston County maintenance area 
through the 2020, the end of the maintenance period, to determine 
PM10 levels. In the unlikely event that after exceptional 
events are discounted, the second highest PM10 concentration 
in a calendar year based on nephelometer monitoring exceeds the LMP 
threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\, Ecology, ORCAA, and EPA will discuss 
reestablishment of FRM monitoring as part of the annual network 
monitoring report process.

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for contingency 
provisions?

    Clean Air Act section 175A states that a maintenance plan must 
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt 
correction of any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after 
redesignation of the area to attainment. The EPA is proposing approval 
of ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) into the SIP. This regulation was passed in 
conjunction with the 1997 maintenance plan submission and prohibits the 
use of uncertified woodstoves in the Thurston County maintenance area 
for the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air Act requirements for 
contingency measures. The EPA reviewed ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) and 
determined that it meets the contingency measure requirements. The 
contingency measure will be triggered if a violation of the 
PM10 standard occurs at the Thurston County maintenance area 
monitor based on nephelometer and/or FRM monitoring. A violation of the 
PM10 standard will be determined by the procedures outlined 
in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix K--Interpretation of the NAAQS for 
Particulate Matter.

E. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are 
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period 
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would 
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would 
result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited 
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas 
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal 
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;

[[Page 47263]]

    (c) The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less 
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments 
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the 
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as 
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon 
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments 
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    Upon approval of the Thurston County limited maintenance plan, the 
area is exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must 
meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation 
conformity criteria mentioned above.
(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements 
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies 
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause 
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current 
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement 
can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect 
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and 
documented by the state agency primarily responsible for the applicable 
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other 
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions 
budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of 
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state air 
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than those used 
in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation 
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions 
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to 
specified levels. The State has not chosen to include specific 
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the 
provisions of general conformity.

VI. Revisions to the Washington SIP

    As previously discussed, the EPA approved the wood smoke control 
measures contained in Chapter 173-433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device 
Standards on January 15, 1993, based on state regulatory provisions in 
effect as of October 18, 1990 (58 FR 4578). Ecology subsequently 
revised Chapter 173-433 WAC to strengthen the control measures with 
changes such as adding one of the nation's most stringent state 
woodstove certification standards and by moving towards a two-stage 
burn ban system to encourage adoption of the cleaner burning 
woodstoves. These changes to Chapter 173-433 WAC were effective on 
April 20, 1991 and March 6, 1993, but were not submitted for adoption 
into the SIP at that time. A redline strikeout copy of the regulatory 
changes along with the EPA's analysis is included in the docket for 
this action. Based on our review, the EPA is proposing to approve 
Ecology's 1991 and 1993 regulatory updates. In addition, Ecology 
requested that the EPA remove from the approved SIP Chapter 173-433-170 
WAC Retail Sales Fee (state effective January 3, 1989) because this 
provision is not a control measure or a required element of the SIP. 
After reviewing the original Thurston County attainment plan, the EPA 
agrees that this provision was not a control measure relied upon for 
attainment and removal of Chapter 173-433-170 from the SIP will not 
interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. 
Similarly, the EPA erred in including Chapter 173-433-200 WAC 
Regulatory Actions and Penalties in the SIP incorporated by reference 
in 40 CFR 52.2470. The EPA reviews and approves state submissions to 
ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority. However, 
regulations describing agency enforcement authority are not 
incorporated into the SIP to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's 
independent authorities. Therefore, we will remove Chapter 173-433-200 
WAC from 40 CFR 52.2470.
    While the provisions of Chapter 173-433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning 
Device Standards apply statewide per Chapter 173-433-020 WAC, Ecology 
requested that the EPA approve portions of ORCAA Rule 8.1 Wood Heating 
and ORCAA Rule 6.2 Outdoor Burning because ORCAA has direct 
implementation authority in Thurston County. The EPA reviewed these 
regulations to ensure they are as stringent as the existing control 
measures, with a full copy of the EPA's analysis included in the docket 
for this action. It is important to note that the ORCAA control 
measures, particularly burn ban trigger levels, focus on the more 
stringent and environmentally relevant 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Ecology and ORCAA provided an analysis of PM10 and 
PM2.5 data collected by collocated FRM monitors at the 
Thurston County monitoring site. ORCAA found that the two pollutants 
were correlated and one could be determined from the other with a high 
degree of accuracy within the range of observations. The 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS revised in 2006 has a protection level of 35 
[mu]g/m\3\ compared to the 1987 PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 
[mu]g/m\3\. Based on the monitoring data from Thurston County, ORCAA 
found that in the critical winter season the majority of 
PM10 is PM2.5. The statistical relationship 
between the two PM parameters indicates PM2.5 levels would 
need to exceed 139 [mu]g/m\3\ before the PM10 NAAQS is 
exceeded. The EPA concurs that Thurston County would violate the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS well before it exceeded the PM10 
NAAQS. By setting burn ban trigger levels to protect the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, ORCAA is simultaneously protecting the 
150 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Finally, ORCAA Rule 
8.1.4(e) provides a local clean air agency rule for implementing the 
contingency measure which would prohibit the use of uncertified wood 
stoves. The EPA reviewed the ORCAA regulations and determined that they 
strengthen the SIP and meet the CAA requirements. As discussed above 
with respect to enforcement authorities, the EPA reviewed and proposes 
approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 Penalties but will not incorporate this 
provision by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  State or local
             Agency                      Citation                  Title          effective date     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology........................  173-433-030............  Definitions...........        04/20/91        07/01/13

[[Page 47264]]

 
Ecology........................  173-433-100............  Emission performance          03/06/93        07/01/13
                                                           standards.
Ecology........................  173-433-110............  Opacity standards.....        03/06/93        07/01/13
Ecology........................  173-433-120............  Prohibited fuel types.        04/20/91        07/01/13
Ecology........................  173-433-140............  Impaired air quality          04/20/91        07/01/13
                                                           criteria.
Ecology........................  173-433-150............  Curtailment...........        04/20/91        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  6.2.3 (only as it        No residential or land        02/04/12        07/01/13
                                  applies to the cities    clearing burning.
                                  of Olympia, Lacey, and
                                  Tumwater).
ORCAA..........................  6.2.6..................  Curtailment...........        03/18/11        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  6.2.7..................  Recreational Burning..        03/18/11        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  8.1.1..................  Definitions...........        05/22/10        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  8.1.2 (b) and (c)......  General emission              05/22/10        07/01/13
                                                           standards.
ORCAA..........................  8.1.3..................  Prohibited fuel types.        05/22/10        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  8.1.4..................  Curtailment...........        05/22/10        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  8.1.5..................  Exceptions............        05/22/10        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  8.1.6..................  Penalties.............        05/22/10        07/01/13
ORCAA..........................  8.1.7..................  Sale and installation         05/22/10        07/01/13
                                                           of uncertified
                                                           woodstoves.
ORCAA..........................  8.1.8..................  Disposal of                   05/22/10        07/01/13
                                                           uncertified
                                                           woodstoves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year limited 
maintenance plan for Thurston County submitted by Washington State. The 
state's submittal also included a request to approve state regulatory 
updates to the original control measures included in Chapter 173-433 
WAC as well as corresponding local ORCAA regulations. The EPA is 
proposing to approve these regulatory changes as well as corrections to 
the EPA's January 1993 approval because these changes strengthen the 
SIP.

VIII. 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.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in 
Indian country located in the State, except for 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 and the EPA is therefore approving 
this SIP on such lands.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 22, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-18843 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```