[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73525-73538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2026 motor vehicle emissions budgets 
included in Washington's maintenance plan for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>). 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d6f0c0d106d485f51545e627e5250505853494e7d584d5c135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99cba8a9b4c9ecfbf5f0fac6daf6f4f4fcf7edead9fce9f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f199849f85df9b949797b1948190df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127a677c663c78777474527762733c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations (the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard or daily 
standard). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA published 
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, Washington 
submitted a 2008 baseline emissions inventory for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursors to the formation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
including nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs), ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>), and sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) 
to meet the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of Clean Air 
Act (CAA) section 172(c) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> reduction strategies. These SIP 
strengthening rules were focused on controlling PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
emissions from residential wood combustion, which at that time 
comprised 74% of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions on winter days when 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)'' 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find that the Tacoma 
area meets the requirements for redesignation of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)'' final rule (73 FR 
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule''). The Court found that the EPA erred in 
implementing the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, the 
Court's ruling rejected the EPA's reasons for implementing the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> \3\ nonattainment areas, and consistent with the 
decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply 
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\ PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification 
and Deadline Rule, we classified the Tacoma area as a ``moderate'' 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> controls, shows continued 
maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> are projected to decrease over the 
maintenance period by 100 tons per year (tpy) and 8,105 tpy, 
respectively, while SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors will not 
increase to the extent that they will cause monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
levels to violate the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    On September 4, 2012, the EPA published a final rulemaking that the 
Tacoma area attained the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The area's 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state 
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
    <bullet> Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate 
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
    <bullet> Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for 
the implementation of Part C requirements (Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration);
    <bullet> Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements 
for New Source Review permit programs;
    <bullet> Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
    <bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> (79 FR 62368, October 17, 2014). These 
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked 
to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, Washington 
submitted a 2008 baseline emissions inventory for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursors to the formation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
including NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>,VOCs, and ammonia to meet the 
comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3) 
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> reduction strategies. These SIP strengthening rules 
were permanent and enforceable measures focused on controlling 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from residential wood combustion, which in 
2008 comprised 74% of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions on winter days 
when 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS the only remaining 
requirement under section 172 to be considered for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, this emissions inventory 
should address not only direct emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, but also 
emissions of all precursors with the potential to participate in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation, i.e., SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from local residential wood 
combustion. As shown previously in Table 2, residential wood combustion 
currently accounts for 76% of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions on a 
typical winter day, the season most relevant to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
exceedances. Other sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (PM<INF>10</INF>) nonattainment. The 
curtailment program rapidly brought most wood smoke dominated 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
areas when the EPA established the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS of 65 
[mu]g/m\3\ in 1997. It was not until 2006, when the EPA tightened the 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> trend; (2.) PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The 2011 inventory included in the maintenance 
plan contains primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions (including 
condensables), SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOCs, and ammonia. In 
its redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X,</INF> VOCs, ammonia, and direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> will remain 
at or below the 2011 attainment-level emissions for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> projected in the future year inventories would 
significantly impact maintenance of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions inventory, finalization of this EPA rule 
could have a large impact on reducing future emissions. Washington's 
projections also do not incorporate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard during 
the maintenance period.
3. Monitoring Network
    There are three PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. Ecology will consult with the EPA prior to making any necessary 
changes to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS when the 98th percentile 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
    <bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
    <bullet> Additional measures to address other PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule, which included presumptions against consideration 
of VOC and ammonia as PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
by tracking the levels of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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]]

    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>