Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73525 

EPA is not proposing to approve this 

infrastructure SIP certification and 

repeal of the cement kilns rule to apply 

on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this proposed approval does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: November 24, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29091 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket #: EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0808; 

FRL–9919–88–Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Washington; Redesignation to 

Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce 

County Nonattainment Area and 

Approval of Associated Maintenance 

Plan for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

redesignate to attainment the entire 

Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment 

area (hereafter ‘‘the Tacoma area’’ or 

‘‘the area’’) for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The EPA is also proposing to approve as 

a revision to the Washington State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

associated maintenance plan that 

provides for continued compliance of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2017 and 2026 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets included in 

Washington’s maintenance plan for 

PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). In the 

course of proposing to approve 

redesignation of the Tacoma area, the 

EPA addresses a number of additional 

issues, including the effects of a January 

4, 2013 decision by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court) to 

remand to the EPA two final rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0808, by any of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

C. Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014– 

0808. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@

epa.gov, or by using the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

C. How have tribal governments been 

involved in this process? 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

A. Background 

B. Proposal on This Issue 

V. The EPA’s Analysis of Washington’s 

Submittal 

A. Redesignation Request 

B. Maintenance Plan 

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were established on July 16, 1997 

(62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). The EPA 

promulgated an annual standard at a 

level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), based on a three-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the 

same rulemaking action, the EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 

mg/m3, based on a three-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71 

FR 61144), the EPA retained the annual 

average standard at 15 mg/m3, but 

revised the 24-hour standard to 35 mg/ 

m3, based again on the three-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard or daily standard). On 

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the 

EPA published designations for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which 

became effective on December 14, 2009. 

In that rulemaking action, the EPA 

designated the Tacoma area as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 58774 and 40 

CFR 81.348). 

On September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53772), 

the EPA determined that the Tacoma 

area had attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c), in effect at that time, the 

requirements for the Tacoma area to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to the attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until 

such time as: The area is redesignated 

to attainment, at which time the 

requirements no longer apply; or the 

EPA determines that the area has again 

violated the standard, at which time 

such plans are required to be submitted. 

On September 19, 2013 (78 FR 57503), 

the EPA finalized a subsequent 

determination of attainment considering 

the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision to remand the 

implementation rule containing the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.1004(c) on the 

area. Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (2013). A full 

description of the EPA’s rationale for 

the determination of attainment is 

contained in the proposal for that action 

(78 FR 42095, July 18, 2013). 

A determination of attainment does 

not relieve a state from submitting, and 

the EPA from approving, certain 

planning SIP revisions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, 

Washington submitted a 2008 baseline 

emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and 

precursors to the formation of PM2.5

including nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) to meet the comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also 

included in Washington’s submittal 

were SIP strengthening rules to 

implement the recommendations of the 

Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air Task 

Force, an advisory committee of 

community leaders, citizen 

representatives, public health advocates, 

and other affected parties, formed to 

develop PM2.5 reduction strategies. 

These SIP strengthening rules were 

focused on controlling PM2.5 emissions 

from residential wood combustion, 

which at that time comprised 74% of 

direct PM2.5 emissions on winter days 

when 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

exceedances are most likely. The EPA 

approved the 2008 baseline emissions 

inventory and SIP strengthening rules 

on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131). On 

November 3, 2014, Ecology submitted a 

request to redesignate the Tacoma area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submittal included a maintenance plan 

as a SIP revision to ensure continued 

attainment of the standard over the next 

10 years. 

The EPA is also taking into account 

the recent decision in NRDC v. EPA, in 

which the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA 

the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428. 

II. The EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) The 

EPA determines that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k); (3) the EPA determines 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the EPA 

has fully approved a maintenance plan 

for the area as meeting the requirements 

of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the 

state containing such area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D. 

The EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 

1992)(the ‘‘General Preamble’’), and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992 (hereafter the ‘‘1992 

Calcagni Memorandum’’); (2) ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

and (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after an area is redesignated to 

attainment. Eight years after the 

redesignation, the state must submit a 

revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation, as the EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future PM2.5 violations. 

The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum 

provides additional guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan. The 

memorandum states that a maintenance 

plan should address the following 

provisions: (1) An attainment emissions 

inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain 

the existing monitoring network; (4) 

verification of continued attainment; 

and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

C. How have tribal governments been 

involved in this process? 

Consistent with the EPA’s tribal 

policy, the EPA offered government-togovernment consultation to the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians regarding the 

action in this notice because part of the 

Puyallup Indian Reservation is located 

in the Tacoma area. The Puyallup 

Indian Reservation is divided into tribal 

trust land and non-trust land. Under the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement 

Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress 

explicitly provided state and local 

agencies in Washington authority over 

activities on non-trust lands within the 

exterior boundaries of the Puyallup 

Indian Reservation, also known as the 

1873 Survey Area. As shown in figure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73527 

3 of the EPA’s technical support 

document designating the Tacoma area 

(then known as the Wapato HillsPuyallup River Valley Nonattainment 

Area) to nonattainment, the vast 

proportion of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation within the Tacoma area is 

under Washington’s jurisdiction. The 

EPA, working in consultation and 

coordination with the Puyallup Tribe, 

has CAA authority over the small 

parcels of tribal trust lands in the 

Tacoma area. Air quality management 

on tribal trust lands is addressed 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 49, which 

includes the Federal Implementation 

Plans Under the Clean Air Act for 

Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon 

and Washington (70 FR 18074, April 8, 

2005, the Federal Air Rules for 

Reservations) and the Review of New 

Sources and Modifications in Indian 

Country (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011). 

Under a cooperative agreement 

between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

(PSCAA), all emissions inventories, 

motor vehicle emission budgets, and 

technical analyses demonstrating 

current and future attainment included 

in the State’s maintenance plan cover 

the entire Tacoma area, including both 

trust and non-trust land. As a member 

of the PSCAA Advisory Council, the 

Puyallup Indian Tribe is engaged in all 

decisions affecting the Tacoma area. As 

discussed later in this proposal, Ecology 

and PSCAA chose a conservative 

estimation methodology for calculating 

future year emissions budgets, not 

taking credit for any wood stove 

curtailment activities on tribal trust 

land. Therefore, any current or future 

emission reductions attributable to 

implementation of the Federal Air Rules 

for Reservations are supplemental and 

additional to emission reductions 

calculated for the area. As shown in 

Table 7 below, PM2.5 levels at the 

Puyallup tribal monitor are consistently 

low. For these reasons, and based on 

discussions with the Puyallup Tribe of 

Indians, the EPA is proposing to 

redesignate to attainment all tribal trust 

land within the Tacoma area. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

The EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignation of the Tacoma area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find 

that the Tacoma area meets the 

requirements for redesignation of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The 

EPA is thus proposing to change the 

legal designation of the entire Tacoma 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

associated maintenance plan for the 

Tacoma area as a revision to the 

Washington SIP, including motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

approval of the maintenance plans is 

one of the CAA criteria for redesignation 

of the Tacoma area to attainment. 

Washington’s maintenance plan is 

designed to ensure continued 

attainment for 10 years after 

redesignation. 

The EPA previously determined that 

the Tacoma area attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 53772), and 

the EPA is proposing to find that the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

Furthermore, the EPA previously 

approved under section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA, the 2008 comprehensive 

emissions inventory for the Tacoma area 

as part of Washington’s SIP for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 32131, 

May 29, 2013). The EPA’s analysis of 

the proposed actions is provided in 

section V of today’s proposed 

rulemaking action. 

IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

A. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, the 

D.C. Circuit remanded to the EPA the 

‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). The Court 

found that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

pursuant to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title 

I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the 

particulate-matter-specific provisions of 

subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

states had worked towards meeting the 

air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in accordance with the EPA 

regulations and guidance derived from 

subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. 

The EPA took this history into account 

by setting a new deadline for any 

remaining submissions that may be 

required of moderate nonattainment 

areas as a result of the Court’s decision 

regarding the applicability of subpart 4. 

On June 2, 2014, the EPA issued the 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadline Rule (79 FR 

31566, Jun. 2, 2014) which identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

The EPA’s final rulemaking also sets 

deadlines for states to submit 

attainment-related and new source 

review (NSR) SIP elements required for 

these areas pursuant to subpart 4, and 

identifies the EPA guidance that is 

currently available regarding subpart 4 

requirements. The final rule specifies 

December 31, 2014, as the deadline for 

the states to submit any additional 

attainment-related SIP elements that 

may be needed to meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

to submit SIPs addressing the 

nonattainment NSR requirements in 

subpart 4. Therefore, for Washington, 

any additional attainment-related SIPelements that may be needed for the 

Tacoma area to meet the requirements of 

subpart 4 were not due at the time that 

Washington submitted the November 3, 

2014 redesignation request. 

B. Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of the proposed 

redesignation, the EPA addresses the 

effect of the NRDC v. EPA ruling and the 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadline Rule on the 

proposed redesignation. As explained 

below, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Court’s decision does 

not prevent the EPA from redesignating 

the Tacoma area to attainment. Even in 

light of the Court’s decision, 

redesignation for this area is appropriate 

under the CAA and the EPA’s 

longstanding interpretations of the 

CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. The EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, the EPA shows that, even 

applying the subpart 4 requirements to 

the Tacoma area redesignation request 

and disregarding the provisions of the 

remanded 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, the State’s request for 

redesignation of this area still qualifies 

for approval. The EPA’s discussion also 

takes into account the effect of the 

Court’s ruling and the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which the EPA views 

as approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Applicable 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. 

1. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s ruling 

rejected the EPA’s reasons for 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely 

in accordance with the provisions of 

subpart 1, and remanded that matter to 

the EPA, so that it could address 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D of the 

CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the 

purposes of evaluating Washington’s 

redesignation request for the area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, the EPA believes that 

those requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ 

for the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and thus the EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

Tacoma area redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

the EPA has interpreted section 

107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold 

matter, that the part D provisions which 

are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for the EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum. See also ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding the EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

that the meaning of ‘‘applicable’’ under 

the statute is ‘‘whatever should have 

been in the plan at the time of 

attainment rather than whatever 

actually was in the plan and already 

implemented or due at the time of 

attainment’’).1 In this case, at the time 

that Washington submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due. 

The EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Tacoma area 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

Washington submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that the 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that the EPA 

was required under the statute to 

implement the standard under the 

ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 

as well. Subsequent to the South Coast 

decision, in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to the EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, the EPA applied its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA 

that ‘‘applicable requirements’’, for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation, 

are those that had been due at the time 

the redesignation request was 

submitted. See, e.g., Proposed 

Redesignation of Manitowoc County 

and Door County Nonattainment Areas 

(75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In 

those actions, the EPA therefore did not 

consider subpart 2 requirements to be 

‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of 

evaluating whether the area should be 

redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E). 

The EPA’s interpretation derives from 

the provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support the EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ as only 

those requirements that came due prior 

to submission of a complete 

redesignation request. First, holding 

states to an ongoing obligation to adopt 

new CAA requirements that arose after 

a state submitted its redesignation 

request, in order to be redesignated, 

would make it problematic or 

impossible for the EPA to act on 

redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for the EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require the EPA to undertake 

further notice-and-comment rulemaking 

actions to act on those submissions. 

This would create a regime of unceasing 

rulemaking that would delay action on 

the redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. 

EPA and the EPA’s June 2, 2014 PM2.5

Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification 

and Deadline Rule compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. Washington 

submitted its redesignation request on 

November 3, 2014, which is prior to the 

deadline by which the Tacoma area is 

required to meet the attainment plan 

and other requirements pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

To evaluate Washington’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation 

request to comply now with 

requirements of subpart 4 for which the 

deadline to comply has not yet come, 

would be to give retroactive effect to 

such requirements and contravene the 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73529 

2Sierra 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). 

3PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

4The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

5 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),2

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive the 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make the EPA’s 

nonattainment determination effective 

as of the date that the statute required, 

rather than the later date on which the 

EPA actually made the determination. 

The Court rejected this view, stating that 

applying it ‘‘would likely impose large 

costs on States, which would face fines 

and suits for not implementing air 

pollution prevention plans . . . even 

though they were not on notice at the 

time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be 

unreasonable to penalize the State of 

Washington by rejecting its 

redesignation request for an area that is 

already attaining the 2006 PM2.5

standard and that met all applicable 

requirements known to be in effect at 

the time of the request. For the EPA now 

to reject the redesignation request solely 

because the State did not expressly 

address subpart 4 requirements which 

have not yet come due would inflict the 

same unfairness condemned by the 

Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Washington’s Redesignation Request 

Even if the EPA interpreted the NRDC 

decision to mean that subpart 4 

requirements were due and in effect 

when Washington submitted its 

redesignation request, the EPA proposes 

to determine that the Tacoma area still 

qualifies for redesignation to attainment. 

As explained below, the EPA believes 

that the redesignation request for the 

Tacoma area, though not expressed in 

terms of subpart 4 requirements, 

substantively meets the requirements of 

that subpart for purposes of 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Tacoma area, the EPA notes that the 

section 172(c) general air quality 

planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment are also 

applicable. Subpart 4 contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 3 nonattainment areas, and 

consistent with the decision in NRDC v. 

EPA, these same statutory requirements 

also apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

As noted, the General Preamble sets 

forth the EPA’s longstanding general 

guidance that interprets the 1990 

amendments to the CAA, and provides 

recommendations to states for meeting 

the statutory requirements for SIPs for 

nonattainment areas (57 FR 13498, April 

16, 1992). In the General Preamble, the 

EPA discussed the relationship of 

subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP 

requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements’’ (57 FR 13538). The 

subpart 1 requirements include, among 

other things, provisions for attainment 

demonstrations, reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, consistent with the EPA’s 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadline Rule, we 

classified the Tacoma area as a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

As the EPA explained in its June 2, 2014 

final rule, section 188 of the CAA 

provides that all designated 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are 

initially classified by operation of law as 

‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and 

remain moderate nonattainment areas 

unless and until the EPA reclassifies the 

area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area 

(79 FR 31567). Accordingly, the EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to limit 

the evaluation of the potential impact of 

subpart 4 requirements to those that 

would be applicable to moderate 

nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) 

and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate 

nonattainment areas and include the 

following requirements: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, the EPA believes 

that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.4 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, the EPA has long relied 

on the interpretation that a fully 

approved nonattainment new source 

review program is not considered an 

applicable requirement for 

redesignation, provided the area can 

maintain the standard with a prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

program after redesignation. A detailed 

rationale for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,5 when the EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, the EPA 

has for many years interpreted 

attainment-linked requirements as not 

applicable for areas attaining the 

standard. In the General Preamble, the 

EPA stated that the requirements for 

RFP will not apply in evaluating a 

request for redesignation to attainment 

since, at a minimum, the air quality data 

for the area must show that the area has 

already attained. Showing that the State 

will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point 

(57 FR 13564). The General Preamble 

also explained in discussing 

contingency measures that the section 

172(c)(9) requirements are directed at 

ensuring RFP and attainment by the 

applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained 

the standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans provides 

specific requirements for contingency 

measures that effectively supersede the 

requirements of section 172(c)(9) for 

these areas. 

The EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6As 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. 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the decision in NRDC v. EPA 

to mean that attainment-related 

requirements specific to subpart 4 

should be imposed retroactively 6 or 

prior to December 31, 2014 and, thus, 

were due prior to Washington’s 

redesignation request, those 

requirements do not apply to an area 

that is attaining the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

for the purpose of evaluating a pending 

request to redesignate the area to 

attainment. The EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble 

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

the EPA’s authority to interpret 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ in the 

redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, the EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit the attainmentrelated SIP planning requirements of 

subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that 

the EPA determines are attaining the 

standard. The EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ rulemakings for the PM10

NAAQS, also governed by the 

requirements of subpart 4, explain the 

EPA’s reasoning. They describe the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

on the attainment-related SIP planning 

requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, the EPA has also long concluded 

that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

In this notice the EPA proposes to 

determine that the area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Under its 

longstanding interpretation, the EPA is 

also proposing to determine that the 

area meets the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. Thus, 

the EPA is proposing to conclude that 

the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

3. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Tacoma area, in evaluating the effect 

of the Court’s remand of the EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

the EPA in this proposal is also 

considering the impact of the decision 

on the maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, the EPA notes that the area 

has attained the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

and that the State has shown that 

attainment of that standard is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

Washington’s maintenance plan, in 

addition to direct PM2.5 controls, shows 

continued maintenance of the standard 

by tracking the levels of the PM2.5

precursors. The EPA believes that the 

only additional consideration related to 

the maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the NRDC decision is that 

of assessing the potential role of VOC 

and ammonia in demonstrating 

continued maintenance in this area. As 

explained below, based upon 

documentation provided by the State 

and supporting information, the EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Tacoma area need not include any 

additional control measures for VOC or 

ammonia in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the standard. 

First, VOC emission levels in this area 

have historically been well-controlled 

under SIP requirements related to the 

former Seattle-Tacoma Puget Sound 

ozone nonattainment area. These 

requirements remain in place today and 

the area remain in attainment with more 

stringent ozone standards promulgated 

by the EPA in 1997 and 2008. Second, 

total ammonia emissions throughout the 

Tacoma area are very low, estimated to 

be 374 tons per year in 2011. See Table 

6 below. This amount of ammonia 

emissions appears especially small in 

comparison to the total amounts of SO2, 

NOX, and direct PM2.5 emissions from 

sources in the area. Third, as described 

below, VOC and ammonia emissions are 

expected to decline over the 

maintenance period, due primarily to 

fleet turnover with cleaner vehicles, and 

will therefore not interfere with or 

undermine the maintenance 

demonstration. 

Washington’s maintenance plan 

shows that emissions of direct PM2.5, 

and NOX are projected to decrease over 

the maintenance period by 100 tons per 

year (tpy) and 8,105 tpy, respectively, 

while SO2 emissions are estimated to 

increase slightly by 5 tpy. See Tables 1– 

4 below. Note that Ecology chose to use 

conservative 10-year maximum values 

for estimating future (2017, 2026) point 

source emissions but used actual 

emissions for the 2011 base year, so the 

estimated 5 tpy increase in SO2

emissions is likely a conservative 

overestimate and is not expected to 

impact maintenance of the standard. In 

addition, emissions inventories show 

that VOC and ammonia emissions are 

projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy and 

49 tpy, respectively between 2011 and 

2026. See Tables 5 and 6 below. Given 

that the Tacoma area is already attaining 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the 

current level of emissions from sources 

in the area, the downward trend of 

emissions inventories would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Indeed, projected emissions reductions 

indicate that the area should continue to 

attain the NAAQS following the control 

strategies that Washington has already 

elected to pursue. For these reasons, the 

EPA believes that local emissions of all 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will 

not increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard during the 

maintenance period. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73531 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

TACOMA AREA

Sector 

Annual direct PM2.5

(tpy) 

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] 

Sector 

Winter weekday direct PM2.5

(lbs/day) 

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

Sector 

Annual SO2

(tpy) 

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

Sector 

Annual NOX

(tpy) 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 

section (1)(c). 

8The 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 5—COMPARISON OF 2011, 2017, AND 2026 VOC EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE TACOMA

AREA

Sector 

Annual VOC 

(tpy) 

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

Sector 

Annual ammonia 

(tpy) 

2011 2017 2026 Net change 

Point ......................................................................................................................... 48 48 48 0 

Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................................ 70 69 72 2 

Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust) ................................................................ 71 75 82 11 

On-road .................................................................................................................... 184 142 123 ¥61 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................. 374 336 325 ¥49 

The EPA believes that there is ample 

justification to conclude that the 

Tacoma area should be redesignated, 

taking into consideration projections of 

future direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions. After consideration of the DC 

Circuit’s NRDC decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, the EPA 

proposes to approve Washington’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Tacoma area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. 

V. The EPA’s Analysis of Washington’s 

Submittal 

The EPA is proposing to redesignate 

the Tacoma area to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to 

approve into the Washington SIP the 

associated maintenance plan. The EPA’s 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

request and maintenance plan is based 

upon the EPA’s determination that the 

area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met for 

the area. The following is a description 

of how Washington’s November 3, 2014 

submittal satisfies the requirements of 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

A. Redesignation Request 

1. Attainment 

On September 4, 2012, the EPA 

published a final rulemaking that the 

Tacoma area attained the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS based upon quality-assured and 

certified ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the period of 2009–2011 (77 FR 

53772). On September 19, 2013, the EPA 

published another final rulemaking, in 

order to approve motor vehicle emission 

budgets, with the determination that the 

area continued to attain the standard 

based upon quality-assured and 

certified ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the period of 2010–2012 (78 FR 

57503). The basis and effect of these 

determinations of attainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were discussed in 

the notices of the proposed (77 FR 

39657 and 78 FR 42905) and final (77 

FR 53772 and 78 FR 57503) 

rulemakings. 

The EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality PM2.5 monitoring data in the 

Tacoma area, consistent with the 

requirements at 40 CFR part 50, and 

recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS), quality assured, qualitycontrolled, and state certified data for 

the monitoring periods 2011–2013 and 

preliminary data for 2014. The air 

quality data show that the Tacoma area 

continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The area’s 24-hour PM2.5

design values 7 are provided in Table 7. 

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 Avenue .................................. 27 22 22 21 24 

Puyallup—128th Street (South Hill) ..................................... 27 22 22 21 23 

Puyallup—66th Avenue (Puyallup Tribe) ............................. NA 21 21 21 23 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73533 

The EPA’s review of the monitoring 

data for 2011–2013 supports the 

previous determinations that the area 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and that the area continues to 

attain the standard. Preliminary 2014 

data, as shown in Figure 9 of 

Washington’s submittal, is also 

consistent with attainment. With respect 

to the maintenance plan, Washington 

has committed to continue monitoring 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, 

the EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Tacoma area continues to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

In accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Tacoma area must be fully approved 

under section 110(k) and all the 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 of the CAA (general 

SIP requirements) and part D of Title I 

of the CAA (SIP requirements for 

nonattainment areas) must be met. 

a. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to 

the following: 

• Submittal of a SIP that has been 

adopted by the state after reasonable 

public notice and hearing; 

• Provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

• Implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of Part D requirements for New Source 

Review permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. 

However, section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. The EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, the EPA does not 

believe that these requirements are 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, the EPA believes that the 

other section 110(a)(2) elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Tacoma area will 

still be subject to these requirements 

after it is redesignated. The EPA 

concludes that the section 110(a)(2) and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request, and that section 110(a)(2) 

elements not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. This 

approach is consistent with the EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability of 

conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and 

oxygenated fuels requirement. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 

10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 

rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); 

and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 

(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See 

also, the discussion on this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at 

37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania 

redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 

19, 2001). 

The EPA has reviewed the 

Washington SIP and has concluded that 

it meets the general SIP requirements 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to 

the extent they are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. The EPA has 

previously approved provisions of 

Washington’s SIP addressing section 

110(a)(2) requirements (77 FR 30902, 

May 24, 2012 and 79 FR 42683, July 23, 

2014), including proposed approval of 

provisions addressing PM2.5 (79 FR 

62368, October 17, 2014). These 

requirements are, however, statewide 

requirements that are not linked to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment status of the 

Tacoma area. Therefore, the EPA 

believes that these SIP elements are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

review of the State’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request. 

b. Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 Applicable 

SIP Requirements 

Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the 

CAA sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. All areas that were 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were 

designated under this subpart of the 

CAA, and the requirements applicable 

to them are contained in sections 172 

and 176. The EPA’s analysis of the 

particulate-matter-specific provisions of 

Subpart 4 of part D of Title I is 

discussed earlier in this notice. 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I discusses the 

evaluation of these requirements in the 

context of the EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth the EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard (See 57 

FR 13498). 

As mentioned previously, on 

September 4, 2012, the EPA made a 

determination that the Tacoma area had 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(77 FR 53772). This determination of 

attainment was based upon quality 

assured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the period of 2009– 

2011 showing that the area had attained 

the standard. In a separate rulemaking 

action, dated September 19, 2013, the 

EPA made another determination of 

attainment for the Tacoma area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

2010–2012 monitoring period, in order 

to approve motor vehicle emission 

budgets (78 FR 57503). 

As previously explained, upon 

determination by the EPA that the area 

had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, the requirement for 

Washington to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, a 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning requirements related to 

the attainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS were suspended until the 

area is redesignated to attainment for 

the standard or the EPA determines that 

the area has again violated the standard, 

at which time such suspended planning 

requirements are required to be 

submitted. Thus, because attainment 

has been reached for the area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

area continues to attain the standard, no 

additional measures are needed to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9The PSD program in Washington, including 

tribal land, is regulated under a Federal 

Implementation Plan. 

provide for attainment. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1), 

172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) are no 

longer considered to be applicable for 

purposes of redesignation of the area. 

However, determinations of 

attainment do not relieve states from 

submitting and the EPA from approving 

certain planning requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 

2012, Washington submitted a 2008 

baseline emissions inventory for direct 

PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of 

PM2.5 including NOX, SO2,VOCs, and 

ammonia to meet the comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement of 

CAA section 172(c)(3) for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in 

Washington’s submittal were SIP 

strengthening rules to implement the 

recommendations of the Tacoma-Pierce 

County Clean Air Task Force, an 

advisory committee of community 

leaders, citizen representatives, public 

health advocates, and other affected 

parties, formed to develop PM2.5

reduction strategies. These SIP 

strengthening rules were permanent and 

enforceable measures focused on 

controlling PM2.5 emissions from 

residential wood combustion, which in 

2008 comprised 74% of direct PM2.5

emissions on winter days when 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS exceedances are most 

likely. The EPA approved the 2008 

baseline emissions inventory and SIP 

strengthening rules on May 29, 2013 (78 

FR 32131). 

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires 

the identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. The EPA has 

determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation 9, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D New Source Review (NSR). A 

more detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ 

Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires 

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted 

previously, we believe the Washington 

SIP meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) that are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. 

As a result of the EPA’s determination 

of attainment of the area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 to be 

considered for the PM2.5 standard is the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

required under section 172(c)(3). 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. For purposes of the PM2.5

NAAQS, this emissions inventory 

should address not only direct 

emissions of PM2.5, but also emissions of 

all precursors with the potential to 

participate in PM2.5 formation, i.e., SO2, 

NOX, VOC, and ammonia. As previously 

discussed, the EPA determined that 

Washington met the section 172(c)(3) 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement in a final rulemaking on 

May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131). 

Section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ In conjunction with its 

request to redesignate the Tacoma area 

to attainment status, Washington 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation, through 2026. 

Washington is requesting that the EPA 

approve this SIP revision as meeting the 

requirement of CAA section 175A. Once 

approved, the maintenance plan for the 

Tacoma area will ensure that the SIP for 

Washington meets the requirements of 

the CAA regarding maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA’s 

analysis of the maintenance plan is 

provided in section V.B. of this 

rulemaking action. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects that are developed, funded or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federally 

supported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability which 

the EPA promulgated pursuant to its 

authority under the CAA. The EPA 

interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under CAA section 107(d) 

because state conformity rules are still 

required after redesignation, and federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 

(upholding this interpretation) and 

Tampa, Florida discussion (60 FR 

62748, December 7, 1995). 

Thus, for purposes of redesignating 

the Tacoma area to attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that Washington 

has met all the applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA. 

c. The Tacoma Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

For purposes of redesignation to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, the EPA has fully approved all 

applicable requirements of 

Washington’s SIP for the Tacoma area in 

accordance with section 110(k) of the 

CAA. 

3. Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

In many parts of the nation, PM2.5

nonattainment is often a result of 

secondary formation of precursors into 

particulate matter from point or mobile 

sources. As shown in Tables 3 through 

6, most of these precursor emissions are 

projected to decline significantly due to 

federal engine and fuel requirements for 

cars, trucks, ships, trains, and nonroad 

equipment. These estimated precursor 

reductions will aid in continued 

attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. However, the Tacoma area, 

like some other areas in the Pacific 

Northwest, is somewhat unique for a 

large urban area in that elevated 24-hour 

particulate matter levels are heavily 

dominated by direct PM2.5 emissions 

from local residential wood combustion. 

As shown previously in Table 2, 

residential wood combustion currently 

accounts for 76% of direct PM2.5

emissions on a typical winter day, the 

season most relevant to PM2.5

exceedances. Other sources of direct 

PM2.5 are much smaller, including 7% 

for onroad vehicles, 6% for dust, 4% for 

major point sources, and 4% for 

nonroad vehicles and engines. As 

discussed in Washington’s SIP 

submission, elevated PM2.5 levels are 

particularly acute during wintertime 

meteorological inversion events when a 

shallow pool of cold air is trapped at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73535 

10The Puyallup Tribe of Indians operates the 

curtailment program on tribal trust lands within the 

Tacoma area. Technical assistance and management 

of the Tacoma airshed is coordinated under a 

cooperative agreement. See Cooperative Agreement 

between the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control 

Agency and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

Regarding Implementation of the Puyallup Tribe 

Air Quality Program included in the docket for this 

action. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians also 

participates in the PSCAA Advisory Council. 

11 During both a first and second stage of 

impaired air quality, the curtailment programs 

allow a limited exemption for buildings with no 

adequate source of heat other than a solid fuel 

burning device, if certain qualification criteria are 

met. 

ground level, allowing little to no 

mixing with the upper atmosphere. On 

these days, monitored 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations increase as do emissions 

from residential wood combustion. 

In response to these episodic 

inversion events, Washington 

established a mandatory wood stove 

(solid fuel burning device) curtailment 

program dating back to the late 1980s 

and early 1990s to address coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) 

nonattainment. The curtailment 

program rapidly brought most wood 

smoke dominated PM10 areas, including 

Tacoma, into attainment by the mid1990s (see 60 FR 54599, October 25, 

1995). The curtailment program was so 

successful that Washington had no 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas when the 

EPA established the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 65 mg/m3 in 1997. It was not 

until 2006, when the EPA tightened the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3 that 

Washington again experienced wood 

smoke dominated nonattainment 

problems. In response, Washington 

enacted a series of statutory and 

regulatory changes in 2007, 2008, and 

2012 to update the curtailment program. 

The EPA most recently approved the 

updates to the curtailment program 

enforced by the local Puget Sound Clean 

Air Agency (PSCAA) on May 29, 2013 

(78 FR 32131) and to the statewide 

Ecology curtailment regulations on May 

9, 2014 (79 FR 26628).10

For an area at risk of nonattainment 

like Tacoma, when forecasted 

meteorological conditions are predicted 

to cause PM2.5 levels to reach or exceed 

30 mg/m3, measured on a twenty-four 

hour average, PSCAA or Ecology can 

declare a first stage of impaired air 

quality. Use of an uncertified solid fuel 

burning device is prohibited during a 

first stage of impaired air quality, with 

limited exceptions.11 PSCAA or Ecology 

can declare a second stage of impaired 

air quality when: (1.) A first stage of 

impaired air quality has been in force 

and has not been sufficient to reduce the 

increasing PM2.5 trend; (2.) PM2.5 levels 

are monitored at an ambient level of 25 

mg/m3 measured on a twenty-four hour 

average; and (3.) forecasted 

meteorological conditions are not 

expected to allow PM2.5 levels to decline 

below 25 mg/m3 for a period of 24 hours 

or more. PSCAA or Ecology can also 

proceed directly to a second stage of 

impaired air quality without first calling 

a first stage if conditions are particularly 

severe. See Revised Code of Washington 

70.94.473. Use of any solid fuel burning 

device, certified or uncertified, is 

prohibited during the second stage of 

impaired air quality, with limited 

exceptions. 

Despite challenging meteorological 

conditions in both 2011 and 2013, as 

discussed in the weight of evidence 

analysis contained in Washington’s 

redesignation request, the Tacoma area 

continues to remain in attainment. Data 

analyses conducted by Washington that 

adjusts for year-to-year meteorological 

variation shows that PM2.5 levels on the 

highest winter days have come down 

over 10 mg/m3 since 2009. Based on our 

review of Washington’s weight of 

evidence analysis, the EPA is proposing 

to determine that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from Washington’s curtailment 

program and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions, such as federal 

air pollutant control regulations. 

B. Maintenance Plan 

On November 3, 2014, Ecology 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required 

by section 175A of the CAA. The 

maintenance plan includes all 

emissions inventories, motor vehicle 

emission budgets, and technical 

analyses demonstrating current and 

future attainment for the entire Tacoma 

area, including tribal trust and non-trust 

lands. The EPA’s analysis for proposing 

approval of the maintenance plan is 

provided in this section. 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

An attainment inventory is comprised 

of the emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. Ecology 

determined that the appropriate 

attainment inventory year for the 

maintenance plan is 2011, one of the 

years in the period during which the 

Tacoma area monitored attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

2011 inventory included in the 

maintenance plan contains primary 

PM2.5 emissions (including 

condensables), SO2, NOX, VOCs, and 

ammonia. In its redesignation request 

and maintenance plan for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, Ecology described 

the methods used for developing the 

inventory. The EPA reviewed the 

procedures used to develop the 2011 

attainment year inventory and found 

them to be reasonable and approvable. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A of the CAA requires a 

state seeking redesignation to 

attainment to submit a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years 

after the redesignation.’’ The EPA has 

interpreted this as a showing of 

maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years 

following redesignation.’’ Where the 

emissions inventory method of showing 

maintenance is used, its purpose is to 

show that emissions during the 

maintenance period will not increase 

over the attainment year inventory. See 

1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9– 

10. 

For a demonstration of maintenance, 

emissions inventories are required to be 

projected to future dates to assess the 

influence of future growth and controls; 

however, the demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See 

also 66 FR 53099–53100 and 68 FR 

25430–32. Ecology developed projected 

inventories to show that the Tacoma 

area will remain in attainment through 

the year 2026. See Tables 1 through 6. 

These projected inventories, covering an 

interim year of 2017 and a maintenance 

plan end year of 2026, show that future 

emissions of NOX, VOCs, ammonia, and 

direct PM2.5 will remain at or below the 

2011 attainment-level emissions for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Sulfur 

dioxide levels are projected to increase 

slightly (5 tpy) between 2011 and 2026; 

however, this projected increase above 

the 2011 inventory is partially due to 

Washington’s conservative estimation 

methodology using historical 10-year 

maximum emission levels in projecting 

the future point source inventory. 

Considering the relatively minor 

influence of secondary formation in the 

Tacoma airshed, the EPA does not 

believe the 5 tpy increase in SO2

projected in the future year inventories 

would significantly impact maintenance 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS should these 

conservative estimates (i.e. likely 

overestimating future emissions) prove 

correct. 

Similarly, Ecology uses a conservative 

estimation methodology throughout the 

projected inventories, opting to forego 

taking credit for future emission 

reductions that are not known with 

relative certainty. For example, 

Washington did not incorporate into the 

2017 and 2026 emissions inventories 

reductions that could come about from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the more stringent federal emissions 

standards in the proposed New Source 

Performance Standards for Residential 

Wood Heaters (79 FR 6330, February 3, 

2014). Given the dominance of 

residential wood smoke in the PM2.5

emissions inventory, finalization of this 

EPA rule could have a large impact on 

reducing future emissions. 

Washington’s projections also do not 

incorporate PM2.5 reductions from likely 

increased participation in PSCAA’s 

voluntary change-out program in 

anticipation of the ban on uncertified 

wood stoves in the Tacoma area after 

September 2015. Lastly, because the 

wood stove curtailment program is only 

in effect during a handful of days when 

inversion conditions exist, these 

reductions are also not captured in the 

annual or ‘‘typical winter day’’ 

inventories shown in Tables 1 and 2. 

The EPA has reviewed the 

documentation provided by Washington 

for developing the 2017 and 2026 

emissions inventories for the Tacoma 

area. Based on our review, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

inventories are reasonable and 

approvable. The EPA is also proposing 

to determine that the projected 

emissions inventories show that the 

Tacoma area will continue to maintain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard during 

the maintenance period. 

3. Monitoring Network 

There are three PM2.5 monitors in the 

Tacoma area. Washington’s 

maintenance plan includes a 

commitment to continue to operate its 

EPA-approved monitoring network, as 

necessary to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Ecology will consult with the 

EPA prior to making any necessary 

changes to the PM2.5 monitoring 

network and will continue to quality 

assure the monitoring data in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Washington will acquire ambient 

monitoring and source emission data to 

track attainment and maintenance. 

Washington will also track the progress 

of the maintenance demonstration by 

periodically updating the emissions 

inventory as required by the Annual Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements Rule 

(AERR), or as required by federal 

regulation during the maintenance plan 

period. This includes developing annual 

inventories for major point sources and 

a comprehensive periodic inventory 

covering all source categories every 

three years. Tracking will include the 

evaluation of annual and periodic 

evaluations for any significant emission 

increases above the 2011 attainment 

year levels. 

5. Contingency Measures 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to prevent or promptly correct 

a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS that occurs in the area after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

the EPA deems necessary to ensure that 

Washington will promptly correct a 

violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS that occurs in the area after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the events that would 

‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and 

implementation of a contingency 

measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 

that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

measure(s). 

Washington’s maintenance plan 

outlines the procedures for the adoption 

and implementation of contingency 

measures to further reduce emissions 

should a violation occur. Washington’s 

contingency measures include a 

warning level response and an action 

level response. An initial warning level 

response is triggered for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS when the 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration 

for a single calendar year reaches 35.5 

mg/m3 or greater within the area. An 

action level response will be prompted 

by any one of the following: (1) A two 

year average of the 98th percentile 

reaches 35.5 mg/m3 or greater within the 

area; or (2) a violation of the standard 

occurs in the area (i.e. a three-year 

average of the 98th percentile reaches 

35.5 mg/m3 or greater). 

In order to select appropriate 

corrective measures for warning or 

action level triggers, PSCAA will 

conduct a study to determine the cause 

of exceeding the trigger levels and the 

control measures necessary to mitigate 

the problem. The study will evaluate 

whether the trend, if any, is likely to 

continue and if so, the control measures 

necessary to reverse the trend taking 

into consideration ease and timing for 

implementation as well as economic 

and social considerations. Based on the 

results of the analysis, contingency 

measures will be selected. However, if 

a new measure is already promulgated 

and scheduled to be implemented at the 

federal or state level at such time after 

the exceedance, and that measure or 

control is determined to be sufficient to 

address the upward trend in air quality, 

additional local measures may be 

unnecessary. PSCAA will submit to the 

EPA an analysis to demonstrate the 

proposed measures are adequate to 

return the area to attainment. 

Should a warning level response be 

triggered, measures that can be 

implemented in a short time will be 

selected in order to be in place within 

18 months from the determination of a 

warning level event based on quality 

assured data. Should an action level 

response be triggered, implementation 

of necessary control measures will take 

place as expeditiously as possible, but 

in no event later than 18 months after 

PSCAA makes a determination, based 

on quality-assured ambient data, that an 

action level trigger has been exceeded. 

Adoption of additional control measures 

is subject to necessary administrative 

and legal processes. 

Washington has identified the 

following potential contingency 

measures for the maintenance plan. 

• Measures to address emissions from 

residential wood combustion (e.g. 

emissions from fireplaces under the 

existing authority granted in Revised 

Code of Washington 70.94.477). 

Residential wood combustion represents 

the largest emissions inventory source 

category at 76% of direct PM2.5

emissions. 

• Additional measures to address 

other PM2.5 sources identified in the 

emissions inventory such as onroad 

vehicles, nonroad vehicles and engines, 

industrial sources, and dust. These 

source categories represent 7%, 4%, 

4%, and 6%, respectively, of the current 

emissions inventory. 

6. The EPA’s Evaluation of VOC and 

Ammonia Precursors in Washington’s 

Maintenance Plan 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Tacoma area in evaluating the effect 

of the Court’s remand of the EPA’s 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, which 

included presumptions against 

consideration of VOC and ammonia as 

PM2.5 precursors, the EPA in this 

proposed rulemaking action is also 

considering the impact of the decision 

on the maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, the EPA notes that the area 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and that Washington has 

shown that attainment of the standard is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

the Washington maintenance plan 

shows continued maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by tracking 

the levels of direct PM2.5 and associated 

precursors which brought about 

attainment of the standard in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73537 

12Control 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). 

Tacoma area. The EPA, therefore, 

believes that the only additional 

consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the NRDC decision is that 

of assessing the potential role of VOC 

and ammonia in demonstrating 

continued maintenance in this area. 

Based upon emission inventory 

documentation provided by Washington 

and supporting information, the EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Tacoma area need not include any 

additional local control measures for 

VOC or ammonia in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

First, VOC emission levels in the 

Tacoma area have historically been 

well-controlled under SIP requirements 

related to ozone and other pollutants. 

Second, total ammonia emissions 

throughout the Tacoma area are low, 

especially in comparison to the total 

amounts of SO2, NOX, and direct PM2.5

emissions from sources in the area. 

Emissions inventories for 2017 and 2026 

show that VOC and ammonia emissions 

are projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy 

and 49 tpy, respectively, between 2011 

and 2026. See Tables 5 and 6. Given that 

the Tacoma area is already attaining the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS even with 

the current level of emissions from 

sources in the area, the downward trend 

of emissions inventories would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Thus, the EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Tacoma area should be redesignated, 

even taking into consideration the 

emissions of other precursors 

potentially relevant to PM2.5. After 

consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s NRDC 

decision, and for the reasons set forth in 

this rulemaking action, the EPA 

proposes to approve Washington’s 

maintenance plan and request to 

redesignate the Tacoma area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. 

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

the EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIP) conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the MVEBs contained 

in the SIP. 

On November 3, 2014, Washington 

submitted a SIP revision that contains 

the PM2.5 and NOX on-road mobile 

source budgets. In a separate and 

concurrent process, the EPA is 

conducting a process to find adequate 

the MVEBs which are associated with 

the Washington maintenance plan for 

the Tacoma area. Concurrently with the 

EPA’s proposal to approve the SIP, a 

notice will be posted on the EPA’s Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/state

resources/transconf/currsips.htm for the 

purpose of opening a 30-day public 

comment period on the adequacy of the 

MVEBs in the maintenance plan for the 

Tacoma area. That notice will inform 

the public of the availability of the 

Washington SIP revision on Ecology’s 

Web site. Interested members of the 

public can access Washington’s 

November 3, 2014 SIP revision on line 

at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 

EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0808. Following 

the EPA’s public comment period, 

responses to any comments received 

will be addressed. The EPA has 

reviewed the MVEBs and found them 

consistent with the maintenance plan 

and that the budgets meet the criteria for 

adequacy and approval. Additional 

information pertaining to the review of 

the MVEBs can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

this docket titled Adequacy Findings for 

the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the Maintenance Plan for the Tacoma, 

WA Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

The EPA is proposing to redesignate 

the Tacoma area, including tribal trust 

and non-trust lands, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.12 The EPA 

has evaluated the technical analyses, 

emissions inventories, and motor 

vehicle emission budgets covering the 

entire nonattainment area. We have 

determined that the Tacoma area meets 

the criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The EPA 

believes that the monitoring data 

demonstrate that the Tacoma area is 

attaining and will continue to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is 

also proposing to approve the associated 

maintenance plan for the Tacoma area 

as a revision to the Washington SIP 

because it meets the requirements of 

CAA section 175A. For transportation 

conformity purposes, the EPA is also 

proposing to approve MVEBs for the 

Tacoma area. Final approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the Tacoma area 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

found at 40 CFR part 81, from 

nonattainment to attainment, and would 

incorporate into the Washington SIP the 

associated maintenance plan ensuring 

continued attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area for the 

next 10 years, until 2026. This proposed 

action was reached after offering 

consultation to the Puyallup Tribe of 

Indians. The EPA did not receive a 

request for consultation. The EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on any 

Indian reservation land in Washington 

except for as specifically noted below 

and is also not approved to apply in any 

other area in Washington where EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country where the SIP does not 

apply, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Washington’s SIP is 

approved to apply to non-trust land 

within the exterior boundaries of the 

Puyallup Indian Reservation, also 

known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under 

the Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, 

Congress explicitly provided state and 

local agencies in Washington authority 

over activities on non-trust lands within 

the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with 

EPA policy, the EPA provided a 

consultation opportunity to the 

Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

September 8, 2014. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

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

Dated: November 14, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28150 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002 [FRL–9920– 

31–Region–5]] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 5 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Belvidere 

Municipal Landfill Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Belvidere, Illinois from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 

which is the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Illinois, through the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(IEPA), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Thomas Smith, Remedial 

Project Manager, at smith.thomasl@

epa.gov or Janet Pope, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, at 

pope.janet@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Gladys Beard at (312) 886– 

4071. 

• Mail: Thomas Smith, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (SR–6J), 77 W. 

Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886– 

6540 or Janet Pope, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (SI– 

7J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, 

(312) 353–0628 or 1–800–621–8431. 

• Hand delivery: Janet Pope, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(SI–7J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson 

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 

353–1063, Hours: Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

• Ida Public Library, 320 N. State St., 

Belvidere, IL 61008, Phone: (815) 

544–3838, Hours: Monday through 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS