```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59128-59135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25226]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA-71-7146a; FRL-6879-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves the Thurston 
County, Washington PM-10 area maintenance plan and redesignation 
request from nonattainment to attainment as revisions to the Washington 
State Implementation Plan. PM-10 air pollution is suspended particulate 
matter with a diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on December 4, 2000 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 3, 
2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Debra Suzuki, EPA, 
Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101.
    Copies of the State's request and other information supporting this 
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and State of Washington Department 
of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, PO Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-
7600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Downey, Office of Air Quality 
(OAQ-107), EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553-0682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action
II. Supplementary Information
    1. What is the purpose of this rulemaking?
    2. What is a State Implementation Plan?
    3. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in 
today's rulemaking?
    4. What are the characteristics of the Thurston County airshed?
    5. What is the background information for this action?
    6. What criteria did EPA use to review the Thurston County PM-10 
redesignation request and maintenance plan?
    7. How does the State show that the Thurston County area has 
attained the PM-10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard?
    Table 1: Mt View PM-10 Data (24 hr. average g/
m3)
    8. Does the Thurston County nonattainment area have a fully 
approved attainment plan SIP?
    9. Are the improvements in air quality permanent and 
enforceable?
    10. Has the State met all the section 110 and part D planning 
requirements applicable to this nonattainment area?
    11. How does the State meet section 110 requirements?
    12. How does the State meet part D requirements?
    13. How does the State meet the section 172(c) plan provisions 
requirements?
    14. How does the State meet subpart 4 requirements?
    15. Has the State submitted a fully approvable maintenance plan 
for the Thurston County PM-10 area?
    16. How has the State met the attainment inventory requirement?
    17. How does the State demonstrate maintenance of the PM-10 
standard in the future?
    18. How will the State monitor air quality to verify continued 
attainment?
    19. What contingency plan will the State rely upon to correct 
any future violation of the NAAQS?
    20. How does this action affect Transportation Conformity?
    21. What is the motor vehicle emissions budget for Thurston 
County?
    22. In summary, what conclusion has EPA reached and what is it 
doing in this action?
III. Final Action
IV. Administrative Review

I. Summary of Action

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves the Thurston County 
PM-10 area maintenance plan and redesignation request from 
nonattainment to attainment as revisions to the Washington State 
Implementation Plan.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective December 4, 
2000, without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse 
comments by November 3, 2000.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will publish a 
Federal Register document withdrawing the final rule and informing the 
public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received 
will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed 
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties 
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments 
are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on 
December 4, 2000, and no further action will be taken on the proposed 
rule.

II. Supplementary Information

1. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?

    Today's rulemaking announces two actions being taken by EPA related 
to air quality in the State of Washington. These actions are taken at 
the request of the Governor of Washington in response to Clean Air Act 
(Act) requirements and EPA regulations.
    First, EPA approves the PM-10 maintenance plan for the Thurston 
County nonattainment area and incorporates this plan into the 
Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP).
    Second, EPA redesignates Thurston County from nonattainment to 
attainment for PM-10. This redesignation is based on validated 
monitoring data and projections of ambient concentrations made in the 
maintenance plan's demonstration. EPA believes the area will continue 
to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM-10 for at 
least ten years beyond this redesignation, as required by the Act.

2. What Is a State Implementation Plan?

    The Clean Air Act requires States to keep ambient concentrations of 
specific air pollutants below certain thresholds to provide an adequate 
margin of safety

[[Page 59129]]

for public health and welfare. These maximum concentrations are 
established by EPA and known as the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, or NAAQS.
    The State's plan for attaining the NAAQS are outlined in its State 
Implementation Plan, or SIP. The SIP is a planning document that, when 
implemented, is designed to ensure the attainment of the NAAQS. Each 
State currently has a SIP in place, and the Act requires that SIP 
revisions be made periodically.
    SIPs include the following: (1) Inventories of emissions from 
point, area, and mobile sources; (2) relevant statutes and regulations 
adopted by the state legislature and executive agencies; (3) air 
quality analyses that include demonstrations that adequate controls are 
in place to ensure the area will attain the NAAQS; and (4) contingency 
measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain or make 
reasonable progress toward attainment by the required date.
    The SIP must be presented to the public in a hearing and approved 
by the Governor of the State or appointed designee prior to submittal 
to EPA. The approved SIP serves as the State's commitment to actions 
that will reduce or eliminate air quality problems. Once approved by 
EPA, the SIP becomes part of the Code of Federal Regulations and is 
Federally enforceable. Any subsequent changes must go through the 
formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.
    Washington submitted their original SIP on January 28, 1972 and it 
was subsequently approved by EPA. The Thurston County PM-10 maintenance 
plan and redesignation request was submitted as a revision to the SIP 
on August 16, 1999. This revision is the subject of today's action.

3. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards Are Considered in 
Today's Rulemaking?

    As stated previously, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) are safety thresholds for certain ambient air pollutants set by 
EPA to protect public health and welfare. Suspended particulate matter 
is one of these criteria air pollutants regulated by EPA by way of 
these health-based national standards.
    Particulate matter causes adverse health effects by penetrating 
deep in the lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the 
elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most 
vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
particulate matter with a new indicator that includes only those 
particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 
10 micrometers (PM-10). (See 40 CFR 50.6).
    The 24-hour primary PM-10 standard is 150 micrograms per cubic 
meter (g/m\3\), with no more than one expected exceedance per 
year. The annual primary PM-10 standard is 50 g/m3 
expected annual arithmetic mean. The secondary PM-10 standards are 
identical to the primary standards.

4. What are the characteristics of the Thurston County airshed?

    The Thurston County PM-10 area consists of the adjoining cities of 
Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater, Washington. Geographically, the area is 
characterized by low rolling terrain with hills rising higher toward 
its southern and western boundaries. Land use is primarily residential 
and commercial with several office parks and very little industry. The 
surrounding hills trap pollutants during stable meteorological 
conditions that occur frequently in the late fall and winter.
    Residential wood combustion is the largest source of PM-10 in the 
nonattainment area. Re-suspended road dust is also a significant, but 
smaller, source. All other sources are considered insignificant. The 
Thurston County PM-10 attainment plan, approved in 1993, identifies a 
24-hour concentration of 286 g/m3 as representative 
of worst case PM-10 conditions before the use of any emission controls. 
For a discussion of the initial Thurston County PM-10 SIP see 58 FR 
40056 (July 27, 1993). Because the health based standard is set at 150 
g/m3, this clearly shows that Thurston County 
experienced severely impaired air quality prior to implementing the 
control strategy in the attainment plan. As presented in the 
maintenance demonstration, with implementation of the control strategy, 
modeling predicts maximum concentrations that are below the 24-hour 
NAAQS of 150 g/m3 through the year 2010.

5. What Is the Background Information for This Action?

    On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), EPA identified the Thurston 
County, Washington area as a PM-10 ``Group I'' area of concern, i.e., 
an area with a 95% or greater likelihood of violating the PM-10 NAAQS 
and requiring substantial SIP revisions. Subsequent monitoring data and 
emission inventory estimates confirmed that the area experienced 
episodes where the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS was exceeded, violating the 
health-based standard. The area was subsequently designated as a 
moderate PM-10 nonattainment area upon enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (November 15, 1990).
    Title I, section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act as explained in detail in 
the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) hereafter 
referred to as the General Preamble), allow the Governor of a State to 
request the redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. 
Under a cover letter dated August 16, 1999, the State submitted a 
maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Thurston County PM-
10 nonattainment area.

6. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review of the Thurston County PM-10 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan?

    The criteria used to review the redesignation request are derived 
from the Act, General Preamble, and the following policy and guidance 
memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. Section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that an area can be redesignated to 
attainment if the following conditions are met:
    1. EPA has determined that the NAAQS have been attained.
    2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by 
EPA under section 110(k).
    3. EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
    4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under 
section 110 and part D.
    5. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a 
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.

7. How Does the State Show That the Thurston County Area Has Attained 
the PM-10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard?

    Demonstrating that an area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS involves 
submittal of ambient air quality data from an ambient air monitoring 
network representing peak PM-10 concentrations, which is recorded in 
the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The area must show 
that the average number of expected exceedances per year is less than 
or equal to one. (40 CFR 50.6) To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality,

[[Page 59130]]

collected in accordance with EPA methodologies, must be used.
    There is one PM-10 ambient air quality monitoring site in Thurston 
County. The Olympic Air Pollution Control Agency (OAPCA) has operated 
this monitor, located at the Mt. View Elementary School, since November 
1985.
    The Washington State Department of Ecology submitted ambient air 
quality data and supporting documentation from this monitoring site for 
the 1985-1995 period demonstrating that the area has attained the PM-10 
NAAQS. Also, supplemental data was submitted under separate cover by 
the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority for 1996-1999. This air 
quality data was quality assured and entered into AIRS. These data are 
summarized in the following table:

      Table 1: Mt. View PM-10 Data (24 hr. Average g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                         Maximum   2nd highest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985..........................................          254          242
1986..........................................          193          179
1987..........................................          177          130
1988..........................................          169          120
1989..........................................          128          118
1990..........................................          141           86
1991..........................................          106           99
1992..........................................          102           78
1993..........................................           79           78
1994..........................................           77           63
1995..........................................           76           65
1996..........................................           55           53
1997..........................................           66           58
1998..........................................           54           46
1999..........................................           41           35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown above, an exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS was not recorded 
at the Mt. View Elementary School site between 1989 and 1999. Also, the 
State has adequately demonstrated attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS 
through the dispersion modeling and the attainment of the annual PM-10 
NAAQS through emissions inventory comparison (this is discussed in 
greater detail later in this action). Thus, the area is considered in 
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, easily meeting the requirement of three 
consecutive years of clean data.

8. Does the Thurston County Nonattainment Area Have a Fully Approved 
Attainment Plan SIP?

    Yes. Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment 
areas were required to submit a SIP by November 15, 1991, which 
implemented reasonably available control measures (RACM) by December 
10, 1993, and demonstrated attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 
31, 1994. The SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 
110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the 
area.
    On July 27, 1993, (58 FR 40056), EPA approved the Thurston County 
PM-10 nonattainment area SIP originally submitted by the State on 
February 17, 1989, and supplemented on November 13, 1991.

9. Are the Improvements in Air Quality Permanent and Enforceable?

    Yes. The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement 
in air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In 
making this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality 
improvements are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. 
This estimate should consider emission rates, production capacities, 
and other related information. The analysis should assume that sources 
are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless 
evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.
    The attainment plan and the maintenance plan identify residential 
wood combustion as the primary source of PM-10 emissions in the area, 
citing a 1986 aerosol characterization study. Chemical mass balance 
analysis of the filters collected at the Mt. View Elementary School 
show that woodsmoke contributes 80-95% of ambient PM-10 concentrations 
on the high pollution days analyzed. The State concluded that the most 
important control measures for achieving attainment are those that 
reduce emissions from residential wood combustion.
    In response, Thurston County has implemented a residential wood 
burning curtailment program, a public education program, emission 
standards for new woodstoves, and restrictions on certain fuels since 
the submittal of the 1989 attainment plan SIP. The attainment 
demonstration (discussed in further detail below) clearly shows that 
these controls are responsible for the attainment of the NAAQS. The 
continued implementation of these and other controls in the maintenance 
plan will assure continued attainment of the NAAQS.
    The State shows that the reduction of 136 g/m\3\ needed 
for attainment, or 6841 kg PM-10 emissions per day, is a result of 
implementing the federally enforceable control measures (see the 
Technical Support Document accompanying this Federal Register document 
for additional description of the control measures). Thus, the emission 
reductions responsible for attainment of the NAAQS are permanent and 
enforceable.

10. Has the State met all the Section 110 and Part D Planning 
Requirements Applicable to This Nonattainment Area?

    Yes. The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum explains that for 
redesignation purposes a State must meet all of the applicable section 
110 and part D planning requirements. Thus, EPA interprets the Act to 
mean that before EPA may approve a redesignation request, the 
applicable programs under section 110 and part D, that were due prior 
to the submittal of a redesignation request, must be adopted by the 
State and approved by EPA into the SIP. How the State has met these 
requirements is discussed in detail below.

11. How Does the State Meet Section 110 Requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for 
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited 
to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures 
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit 
program; provisions for part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for 
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; 
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency 
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of 
these requirements.
    For purposes of redesignation, the Washington SIP was reviewed to 
ensure that all requirements under the Act were satisfied. 40 CFR 
52.2473, further evidences that the Washington SIP was approved under 
section 110 of the Act and found that the SIP satisfied all part D, 
Title I requirements (46 FR 45607, September 14, 1981).

12. How Does the State Meet Part D Requirements?

    Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all areas 
which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of the NAAQS. 
The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific 
to each pollutant. All PM-10 nonattainment areas must meet the 
applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific

[[Page 59131]]

PM-10 provisions in subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for Particulate 
Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following paragraphs discuss these 
requirements as they apply to the Thurston County area.

13. How Does the State Meet the Section 172(c) Plan Provisions 
Requirements?

    Section 172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment 
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the 
General Preamble. EPA anticipates that areas will already have met most 
or all of these requirements to the extent that they are not superseded 
by more specific part D requirements. The requirements for reasonable 
further progress, identification of certain emissions increases, and 
other measures needed for attainment will not apply to redesignations 
because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard. 
The requirements for an emission inventory will be satisfied by the 
inventory requirements of the maintenance plan. The requirements of the 
part D New Source Review (NSR) program will be replaced by the part C 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program for PM-10 upon 
the effective date of this redesignation action. The Federal PSD 
regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21 are the PSD rules in effect in 
Washington.

14. How Does the State Meet Subpart 4 Requirements?

    The Thurston County area is classified as a moderate nonattainment 
area. Therefore, part D, subpart 4, section 189(a) requirements apply. 
The requirements which came due prior to the submission of the request 
to redesignate the Thurston County area must be fully approved into the 
SIP before redesignating the area to attainment. These requirements are 
discussed below:
    (a) Provisions to assure that RACM shall be implemented by December 
10, 1993;
    (b) Either a demonstration that the plan will provide for 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 
31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by that date is 
impracticable;
    (c) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years 
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
    (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable 
to major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which 
exceed the NAAQS in the area.
    As previously stated, EPA approved the Thurston County PM-10 SIP, 
which met the initial requirements of the 1990 amendments for moderate 
PM-10 nonattainment areas, on July 27, 1993, (58 FR 40056). Other 
provisions were due at a later date.
    States with initial PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to 
submit a permit program for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992. States 
also were to submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993, which 
become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a 
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to 
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See 
sections 172(c)(9) and 189(a) and 57 FR 13543-13544.
    The State has presented an adequate demonstration that it has met 
the requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. 
EPA approved Washington State's NSR regulations effective June 2, 1995. 
EPA approved, as part of the Thurston County PM-10 attainment plan, a 
contingency measure that would ban the use of uncertified woodstoves in 
the Thurston county nonattainment area if the area failed to attain or 
maintain the standard. State law allowed this regulation to take effect 
on or after July 1, 1995.

15. Has the State Submitted a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan for The 
Thurston County PM-10 Area?

    Yes. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act stipulates that for an area to 
be redesignated, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan which meets 
the requirements of section 175A. Section 175A defines the general 
framework of a maintenance plan, which must provide for maintenance of 
the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. The following is a list of core provisions required in 
an approvable maintenance plan.
    (a) Plan revision: the maintenance plan must provide for the 
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten years beyond redesignation.
    (b) Subsequent plan revisions: Eight years after redesignation, the 
maintenance plan must provide for additional revisions as needed to 
maintain the standard for an additional ten years.
    (c) Nonattainment requirements applicable pending plan approval: 
all provisions and controls in place as part of the nonattainment plan 
must be implemented until final redesignation to attainment.
    (d) Contingency provisions: the maintenance plan must include 
contingency control measures which will go into effect automatically to 
correct any future violation of the NAAQS. These provisions must 
include a requirement that the State will implement all measures 
contained in the nonattainment area SIP.

16. How Has the State Met the Attainment Inventory Requirement?

    The State should develop an attainment emissions inventory to 
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS. Where the State has made an adequate demonstration 
that air quality has improved as a result of the SIP, the attainment 
inventory will generally be the actual inventory at the time the area 
attained the standard. This inventory should be consistent with EPA's 
most recent guidance on emission inventories for nonattainment areas 
available at the time and should include the emissions during the time 
period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
    For the Thurston County maintenance plan, updated, gridded based 
year (1995) and future year (2010) emission inventories were compiled 
to show emission levels consistent with attainment and continued 
maintenance of the PM-10 standard. The previous inventories for the 
area prepared for a base year of 1985 consisted primarily of emissions 
from woodsmoke sources. Updated emission factors and sources of 
activity data were used to develop the revised PM-10 emission 
inventories.
    The inventories were gridded and temporally allocated for use in 
air quality modeling. This is discussed in further detail below.
    The State has adequately developed an attainment emissions 
inventory for 1995 that identifies the levels of emissions of PM-10 in 
the area that are consistent with attainment of the NAAQS.

17. How Does the State Demonstrate Maintenance of the PM-10 Standard in 
the Future?

    A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by 
either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors 
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling 
to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not 
cause a violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, PM-10 areas

[[Page 59132]]

were required to submit modeled attainment demonstrations to show that 
proposed reductions in emissions will be sufficient to attain the 
applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the maintenance demonstration should 
be based upon the same level of modeling.
    The State has adequately demonstrated attainment of the 24-hour PM-
10 NAAQS through the dispersion modeling and the annual PM-10 NAAQS 
through emissions inventory comparison (i.e., rollback). The dispersion 
modeling analysis was based upon the guidelines established by EPA for 
the regulatory application of the urban airshed model for area wide 
sources.
    Inputs for this model were developed using available 
meteorological, emissions, air quality, and land use data. The domain 
modeled was 30 x 27 grids, 1 km each. These parameters were chosen 
based on future and known emission sources, location of meteorological 
sites, and the wind direction during typical PM-10 episodes. Air 
quality inputs were based on hourly tapered element oscillating 
microbalance (TEOM) data collected at the Mt. View Elementary School 
site and assumed to represent uniform concentrations across the domain. 
The model used was a base case scenario that took place on January 2-3, 
1995. Day specific emission rates for point sources, activity patterns, 
and meteorological data were used. The emission reduction benefits from 
the burn ban implemented on that day were also considered.
    After comparing the concentrations generated by the model for 
January 2-3, 1995 with the actual monitored data collected on those 
days, the State concluded that the model adequately characterized the 
PM-10 episode. Based on this success, the model was used to generate 
future year concentrations.
    The 2010 model was run using the projected inventory and the inputs 
from the 1995 run. Higher concentrations were simulated for 2010 than 
for 1995, but the maximum concentration in any one grid, 149.9 
g/m\3\, does not exceed the 24-hour standard. (Note: despite 
the fact that this maximum value is very near the standard of 150.0 
g/m\3\, EPA is confident that the area will maintain the 
standard based on the area's history and the overall strength of the 
maintenance plan.)
    When the model was run without the benefits of the burn ban, the 
grid cell over the urban core exceeded the standard with a 
concentration of 177.7 g/m\3\. Thus, the model demonstrates 
that the continued implementation of the control measures in the 
attainment plan are needed to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 
standard.
    The emissions inventory comparison between attainment and forecast 
years demonstrated continued attainment of the annual PM-10 standard. 
The projected annual average was 25.6 g/m\3\ in 2010, well 
within the standard of 50.0 g/m\3\. This concentration was 
based on maximum allowable point source emissions and is therefore 
somewhat conservative.
    The State has adequately demonstrated attainment of the 24-hour PM-
10 NAAQS through the dispersion modeling and the annual PM-10 NAAQS 
through emissions inventory comparison (i.e., rollback). The dispersion 
modeling analysis was based upon the guidelines established by EPA for 
the regulatory application of the urban airshed model for area wide 
sources (EPA, 1991, 1992).

18. How Will the State Monitor Air Quality to Verify Continued 
Attainment?

    Once an area has been redesignated, the State must continue to 
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The 
maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of 
air quality monitors that will provide such verification. In its 
submittal, the State commits to continue to operate and maintain the 
network of PM-10 monitoring stations necessary to verify ongoing 
compliance with the PM-10 NAAQS.

19. What Contingency Plan Will the State Rely Upon To Correct any 
Future Violation of the NAAQS?

    Section 175A of the Act also requires that a maintenance plan 
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly address any 
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. These 
contingency measures are distinguished from those generally required 
for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9) which are discussed 
above. However, if the contingency measures in a nonattainment SIP have 
not been implemented at the time the area is redesignated to attainment 
and the contingency measures included a requirement that they be 
implemented prior to redesignation, then they can be carried over into 
the area's maintenance plan.
    The major contingency measure in the Thurston County PM-10 
attainment plan, and carried forward in the maintenance plan, further 
reduced residential woodsmoke emissions. Under this measure, RCW 
70.94.477(2), Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority can limit wood 
burning devices to fireplaces, certified woodstoves, and pellet stoves 
in a specific geographical area.
    The State believes that additional contingency measures beyond 
tighter residential wood combustion regulations are not needed in the 
maintenance plan to assure prompt correction of a violation. However, 
the plan cites many additional options the State could use to control 
major sources of PM-10 if needed. These include additional wood 
seasoning rules, stove retrofits, weatherization, utility rate 
incentives, stove replacement, stove licensing, stove and fireplace 
ban, woodstove removal, voluntary curtailment, asphalt shoulders, 
street maintenance, sanding reduction, control of construction 
entrainment, new paving, and others. EPA finds the State plan includes 
adequate contingency measures in the maintenance plan to meet the 
requirement of 175A.

20. How Does This Action Affect Transportation Conformity?

    Under section 176(c) of the Act, transportation plans, programs, 
and projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or 
approved under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, must conform to 
the applicable SIPs. However, a motor vehicle emission budget was not 
included in the 1998 attainment plan because at the time of the 
attainment demonstration, it was believed that motor vehicle emissions 
were not a significant factor for attainment. In the maintenance plan, 
motor vehicle emissions are a much higher percentage of the total 
emission inventory. Therefore, it is more important to monitor growth 
of motor vehicle emissions in the air quality planning process. The 
maintenance plan includes a motor vehicle emissions budget which 
results in the need for conformity determinations for PM-10 on future 
Transportation Improvement Plans and Regional Transportation Plans.

21. What is the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for Thurston County?

    Transportation conformity determinations must be consistent with 
the motor vehicle emissions budget of 776.36 tons of PM-10 per year. 
The mobile source emissions are a combination of vehicle exhaust, tire 
wear, and road dust.

[[Page 59133]]

22. In Summary, What Conclusion has EPA Reached and What is it Doing in 
This Action?

    EPA has reviewed the maintenance plan as a revision to the 
Washington SIP and the adequacy of the State's request to redesignate 
the Thurston County PM-10 nonattainment area to attainment. EPA finds 
that the submittal sufficiently meets the requirements for 
redesignation requests. Therefore, the EPA approves Washington's 
redesignation request for the Thurston County PM-10 area and approves 
the maintenance plan as a revision to the Washington SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA approves the PM-10 maintenance plan for the Thurston County, 
Washington PM-10 nonattainment area and redesignates the area from 
nonattainment to attainment for PM-10.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Additionally, redesignation of an area to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on 
small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a 
geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on 
sources. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

[[Page 59134]]

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective December 4, 2000 unless EPA 
receives adverse written comments by November 3, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2000. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: September 12, 2000.
Michael F. Gearheard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

    2. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(80) to read 
as follows:

Sec. 52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (80) On August 16, 1999, the Washington State Department of Ecology 
submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Thurston 
County PM-10 nonattainment area (dated June 11, 1997). EPA approves the 
Thurston County, Washington PM-10 area maintenance plan and the 
redesignation to attainment.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec. 81.348  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 81.348, the table entitled ``Washington--PM-10'' is 
amended by revising the entry for ``Thurston County, Cities of Olympia, 
Tumwater, and Lacey'' to read as follows:
* * * * *

                                                Washington--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type                Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *
Thurston County Cities of         December 4, 2000..      Attainment....  ..................  ..................
 Olympia, Tumwater, and Lacey.                                                                 .................
                                                                                               .
 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59135]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-25226 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```