Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Washington; Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2013-12-26T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78311-78315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30878]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket : EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713; FRL-9904-63-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of 
Washington, dated November 25, 2013, for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 
maintenance areas for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). A 
limited maintenance plan is used to meet Clean Air Act requirements for 
formerly designated nonattainment areas with little risk of violating 
the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(PM10 NAAQS) again. All three areas currently have monitored 
PM10 levels that are roughly one-third of the 
PM10 NAAQS, with steady declines in PM10 levels 
since the areas were first identified as potentially violating the 
PM10 NAAQS in 1987.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0713, by any of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics 
(AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.
    C. Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
    D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of 
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--107. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0713. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, 
hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
    A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Conformity under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

[[Page 78312]]

V. Review of the State's Submittal
    A. Has the State demonstrated that the maintenance areas qualify 
for the limited maintenance plan option?
    B. Does the State have an approved attainment Emissions 
Inventory?
    C. Does the Limited Maintenance Plan Include an assurance of 
continued operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality 
monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
    D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for 
contingency provisions?
    E. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan 
submitted by the State of Washington (Washington or the State), dated 
November 25, 2013, for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 
maintenance areas, including approval of a monitoring system 
modification for the area. If finalized, the EPA's approval of this 
limited maintenance plan will satisfy the section 175A Clean Air Act 
requirements for all three areas, including the portion of the Puyallup 
Indian Reservation that falls within the Tacoma PM10 
maintenance area.

II. Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA identified portions of Kent, Seattle, 
and Tacoma as ``Group I'' areas of concern for having a greater than 
95% probability of violating the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS (52 FR 
29383). On November 15, 1990, the Group I areas of Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma were designated as nonattainment for PM10 by 
operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The 
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Puget Sound Clean 
Air Agency (PSCAA) worked with the communities to establish 
PM10 pollution control strategies. Primary control 
strategies for the three areas included a residential wood smoke 
control program, a fugitive dust program, a prohibition on open 
burning, and industrial emission controls. These control measures were 
highly successful with monitoring data showing Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma meeting the PM10 NAAQS since 1987, 1990, and 1989, 
respectively, with continuing declines in PM10 levels ever 
since.
    The EPA fully approved the PM10 attainment plans for 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma on July 27, 1993, October 26, 1995, and 
October 25, 1995, respectively (58 FR 40059, 60 FR 54812, and 60 FR 
54599). The EPA then approved a 10-year maintenance plan redesignating 
all three areas from nonattainment to attainment, making them 
maintenance areas effective May 14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, published March 
13, 2001). The purpose of the current limited maintenance plan is to 
fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement, section 175A(b) of the 
Clean Air Act, to ensure compliance through 2020.

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires that each State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision offer a reasonable opportunity for 
notice and public hearing. The State provided notice and an opportunity 
for public comment beginning September 27, 2013, and ending November 4, 
2013. Under the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the State held a 
public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on October 30, 2013 in the Mill Creek Room 
of the Kent Commons, 525 Fourth Avenue N, Kent, Washington. Two sets of 
comments were received. The first comment discussed the burning of coal 
in Asia generally, and requested stronger action to address 
international pollution. The second comment requested that Ecology 
expand the Kent maintenance area boundary and consider more stringent 
control measure in the future. The EPA reviewed both sets of comments 
and determined that Ecology's responses were appropriate and adequate. 
This SIP revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was 
received by the EPA on November 29, 2013. The EPA evaluated Ecology's 
submittal and determined that the State met the requirements for 
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2).

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

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

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

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

[[Page 78313]]

V. Review of the State's Submittal

A. Has the State demonstrated that the maintenance areas qualify for 
the limited maintenance plan option?

    As discussed above, the limited maintenance plan option memo 
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify. First, the area 
should be attaining the PM10 NAAQS. Monitoring data shows 
that all three areas attained the PM10 NAAQS by 1990, with 
declining levels of PM10 ever since. The EPA formally 
redesignated the areas from nonattainment to attainment, making them 
maintenance areas effective May 14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, published March 
13, 2001).
    Second, the average design value for the past five years of 
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98 
[micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The critical 
design value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten 
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The design values for Kent, 
Seattle, and Tacoma based on 24-hour PM10 monitoring data 
from 2003 through 2007 are 57  3 [mu]g/m\3\, 68  4 [mu]g/m\3\, and 72  9 [mu]g/m\3\. As discussed 
later in this proposal, in these three areas PM10 levels can 
be estimated with a high degree of accuracy using fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) concentrations. In 2007, the EPA approved the 
State's request to shift from PM10 specific monitoring in 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma to rely on the more stringent and 
environmentally relevant PM2.5 NAAQS monitoring effort. 
PM10 design values estimated using PM2.5 
concentration levels from 2008 to 2012 are 46  3 [mu]g/
m\3\, 50  5 [mu]g/m\3\, and 58  8 [mu]g/m\3\, 
respectively. The EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by the 
State and finds that all three areas meet the design value criteria of 
98 [micro]g/m\3\ outlined in the limited maintenance plan option memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test described in Attachment B of the limited maintenance plan 
option memo. The State submitted an analysis showing that growth in on-
road mobile PM10 emissions sources was minimal and would not 
threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the limited 
maintenance plan policy. Using the EPA's methodology, the State 
calculated total growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 
emissions over the ten-year period for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma of 1.5 
[micro]g/m\3\, 2.7 [micro]g/m\3\, and 2.9 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively. 
This calculation is derived using Attachment B of the EPA's limited 
maintenance plan memo, where the projected percentage increase in 
vehicle miles traveled over the next ten years (VMTpi) is 
multipled by the on-road mobile portion of the attainment year 
inventory (DVmv), including both primary and secondary 
PM10 emissions and re-entrained road dust. The EPA reviewed 
the calculations in the State's limited maintenance plan submittal and 
concurs with the determination that all three areas meet the motor 
vehicle regional emissions analysis test. This test is met when 
(VMTpi x DVmv) plus the design value for the most 
recent five years of quality assured data is below the limited 
maintenance plan threshold of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. The results for Kent, 
Seattle, and Tacoma were 61.5 [micro]g/m\3\, 74.7 [micro]g/m\3\, and 
83.9 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively. Please see Appendix A of the State's 
submission for the full analysis.
    Lastly, the limited maintenance plan option memo requires all 
controls relied on to demonstrate attainment remain in place for the 
areas to qualify. The EPA confirmed that the underlying control 
measures for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma remain in place, thus qualifying 
for the limited maintenance plan option.
    As described above, the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance areas 
meet the qualification criteria set forth in the limited maintenance 
plan option memo. Under the limited maintenance plan option, the State 
will be expected to determine on an annual basis that the criteria are 
still being met. If the State determines that the limited maintenance 
plan criteria are not being met, it should take action to reduce 
PM10 concentrations enough to requalify. One possible 
approach the State could take is to implement contingency measures. 
Section V. I. provides a description of contingency provisions 
submitted as part of the limited maintenance plan submittal. To ensure 
this requirement is met, the State commits to reporting to the EPA on 
continued qualification for the limited maintenance plan option in the 
annual monitoring network report.

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

    Pursuant to the limited maintenance plan option memo, the State's 
submission should include an emissions inventory which can be used to 
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent 
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality 
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability 
requirements of the limited maintenance plan option.
    The limited maintenance plan submittal includes an emissions 
inventory based on the State's draft 2011 Triennial Emissions 
Inventory. This inventory is prepared as part of the 2011 National 
Emissions Inventory under the EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73 FR 
76539, December 17, 2008). The information was supplemented with annual 
2011 industrial emissions reported to PSCAA and Ecology. The 2011 base 
years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available and 
is consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the 
limited maintenance plan option (i.e., having no violations of the 
PM10 NAAQS). The emissions inventory focused on seven 
significant source categories chosen based on a review of the original 
maintenance plan. The 2011 emission categories are shown along with 
source categories from the original maintenance plan in parentheses. 
These categories are: On-road mobile (gasoline exhaust); port and 
marine, on-road mobile (diesel exhaust); port and marine (ships); 
locomotives, including fugitive dust (locomotives); residential wood 
combustion (wood burning); paved road dust, unpaved road dust (road 
dust); and industrial (allowable industrial). Other source categories, 
including outdoor burning, construction dust, aircraft emissions, 
wildfires, cigarette smoke, commercial charbroiling, and secondary 
particulate matter, are insignificant. The EPA reviewed and is 
proposing to approve the emissions inventory and methodology. The 
emissions inventory data supports the State's conclusion that the 
existing control measures in place will continue to protect and 
maintain the PM10 NAAQS.

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

    PM10 monitoring was established in the Kent, Seattle, 
and Tacoma areas between 1985 and 1987, with many changes to the 
monitoring technology and requirements since. Beginning in 1999, the 
State collocated PM2.5 monitors with the existing 
PM10 Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors to establish 
correlation data and confirm that PM10 levels could be 
accurately predicted using PM2.5 concentrations for the 
areas. Due to the high level of correlation between the 
PM2.5 and PM10 monitors, the State requested 
discontinuing the PM10 specific monitors as part of the 2007 
annual network monitoring report under 40 CFR part 58. The EPA approved 
this request in a letter dated November 16, 2007, included in the 
docket for this action.

[[Page 78314]]

    A full description of the correlation data and the estimation model 
is included in the limited maintenance plan submittal. The EPA is 
proposing to approve this monitoring system modification, using 
PM2.5 monitoring data to estimate PM10 
concentrations, under 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the second 10-year 
maintenance plan period. This estimation method is a reproducible 
approach to representing air quality in all three maintenance areas, 
and all three areas continue to meet the applicable Appendix D 
requirements evaluated as part of the annual network approval process. 
As detailed in the limited maintenance plan, the State will calculate 
the PM10 design value estimate annually from 
PM2.5 monitoring data through 2020 to confirm the area 
continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. The State also makes a 
commitment to continue operation of PM2.5 monitoring in the 
three maintenance areas through the 2020, the end of the maintenance 
period, to determine PM10 levels. In the unlikely event that 
after exceptional events are taken into account, the calculated design 
value for PM10 exceeds the limited maintenance plan 
threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\, the State will re-establish PM10 
monitoring.

D. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for contingency 
provisions?

    Clean Air Act section 175A states that a maintenance plan must 
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt 
correction of any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after 
redesignation of the area to attainment. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's 
Regulation I--Article 13.07(b) provides for prohibition of the use of 
uncertified woodstoves for the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air Act 
requirements for contingency measures. The EPA approved Article 
13.07(b) as a contingency measure for all three areas on March 13, 2001 
(66 FR 14492). Regulation I--Article 13.07(b) remains in effect today 
and the entire Article 13 was re-approved by the EPA on May 29, 2013 
(78 FR 32131).

E. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are 
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period 
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would 
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would 
result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited 
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas 
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal 
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less 
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and 
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as 
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon 
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments 
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    Upon approval of the limited maintenance plan for the Kent, 
Seattle, and Tacoma areas, the three PM10 maintenance areas 
are exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet 
project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation 
conformity criteria mentioned above.
(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements 
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies 
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause 
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current 
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement 
can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect 
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and 
documented by the state agency primarily responsible for the applicable 
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other 
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions 
budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of 
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state air 
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than those used 
in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation 
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions 
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to 
specified levels. The State has not chosen to include specific 
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the 
provisions of general conformity.

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan 
submitted by the State of Washington, dated November 25, 2013, for the 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 maintenance areas, including 
approval of a monitoring system modification for the area. If 
finalized, the EPA's approval of this limited maintenance plan will 
satisfy the section 175A Clean Air Act requirements for all three 
areas, including the portion of the Puyallup Indian Reservation that 
falls within the Tacoma PM10 maintenance area.

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.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described

[[Page 78315]]

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in 
Indian country located in the State, except for non-trust land within 
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known 
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement 
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and 
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust 
lands within the 1873 Survey Area and the EPA is therefore approving 
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless 
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter 
dated October 18, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for 
consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 12, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-30878 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P