[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14492-14500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6082]



[[Page 14492]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA-72-7147a; FRL-6938-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) approves 
the maintenance plan and request for redesignation from nonattainment 
to attainment for three Washington areas in the Puget Sound region, 
(Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma) that are currently designated nonattainment 
for suspended particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 
or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM-10).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 14, 2001 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 12, 2001. 
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, EPA, Office of Air 
Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206) 
553-0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action
II. Supplementary Information
    1. What is the purpose of this rulemaking?
    2. What is a State Implementation Plan?
    3. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in 
today's rulemaking?
    4. What are the air quality characteristics of the areas?
    5. What is the background information for this action?
    6. What criteria did EPA use to review the redesignation request 
and maintenance plan?
    7. How does the State show that the areas have attained the PM-
10 National Ambient Quality Standard?
    8. Do the nonattainment areas have a fully approved 
nonattainment SIPs?
    9. Are the improvements in air quality which warrant this 
redesignation permanent and enforceable?
    10. Has the State met all the Section 110 and Part D 
requirements applicable to this nonattainment area?
    11. How does the State meet Section 110 requirements?
    12. How does the State meet Part D requirements?
    13. How does the State meet the Section 172(c) plan provisions 
requirements?
    14. How does the State meet Subpart 4 requirements?
    15. Has the State submitted a fully approvable maintenance plan 
for the Kent, Seattle and Tacoma PM-10 areas?
    16. How has the State met the attainment year emission inventory 
requirement?
    17. How does the State demonstrate maintenance of the PM-10 
standard in the future?
    18. How will the State monitor air quality to verify continued 
attainment?
    19. What contingency plan will the State rely upon to correct 
any future violation of the NAAQS?
    20. How does this action affect Transportation Conformity?
    21. What is the motor vehicle emissions budget for Kent, 
Seattle, and Tacoma areas?
    22. In summary, what conclusion has EPA reached and what is it 
doing in this action?
III. Final Action
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Summary of Action

    On August 23, 1999, the State of Washington submitted a maintenance 
plan for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM-10 nonattainment areas as 
well as a request for redesignation of these areas from nonattainment 
to attainment. This maintenance plan was prepared by the Puget Sound 
Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), submitted to the Washington State Department 
of Ecology, adopted by the State, and submitted by the Department of 
Ecology to EPA. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for these areas 
and redesignating the areas from nonattainment to attainment for PM-10.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, EPA is concurrently publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 14, 
2001 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments 
by April 12, 2001.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a Federal 
Register document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public 
that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will 
then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed 
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties 
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments 
are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on 
May 14, 2001 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

II. Supplementary Information

1. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?

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

2. What Is a State Implementation Plan?

    The Clean Air Act requires states to attain and maintain ambient 
air quality equal to or better than standards that provide an adequate 
margin of safety for public health and welfare. These ambient air 
quality standards are established by EPA and known as the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS.
    The state's commitments for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are 
outlined in the State Implementation Plan (or SIP) for that state. The 
SIP is a planning document that, when implemented, is designed to 
ensure the achievement of the NAAQS. Each state currently has a SIP in 
place, and the Act

[[Page 14493]]

requires that SIP revisions be made periodically as necessary to 
provide continued compliance with the standards.
    SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) An inventory 
of emission sources; (2) statutes and regulations adopted by the state 
legislature and executive agencies; (3) air quality analyses that 
include demonstrations that adequate controls are in place to meet the 
NAAQS; and (4) contingency measures to be undertaken if an area fails 
to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment by 
the required date.
    The state must make the SIP available for public review and comment 
through a public hearing, it must be adopted by the state, and 
submitted to EPA by the Governor or his appointed designee. EPA takes 
federal action on the SIP submittal thus rendering the rules and 
regulations federally enforceable. The approved SIP serves as the 
state's commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air 
quality problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through 
the formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.
    Washington submitted their original SIP on January 28, 1972, and it 
was approved by EPA soon thereafter. Other SIP revisions have been 
submitted over the intervening years and likewise have been approved. 
The maintenance plan and redesignation request for Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma, that is the subject of this action, was prepared by the Puget 
Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), the local air pollution control agency 
with primary regulatory authority over most sources in these areas. The 
State of Washington retains primary regulatory jurisdiction over kraft 
pulp mills and aluminum smelters. PSCAA submitted the maintenance plan 
to the Washington Department of Ecology. The State subsequently 
submitted it to EPA on August 23, 1999, as a revision to the SIP.

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

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 
micrometers (PM-10) is the pollutant that is the subject of this 
action. The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air 
pollutants set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is 
among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established a 
health-based standard.
    PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the 
lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, 
and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the NAAQS for 
particulate matter with an indicator that includes only those particles 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers. (See 40 CFR 50.6).
    The 24-hour primary PM-10 standard is 150 micrograms per cubic 
meter (ug/m3), with no more than one expected exceedance per 
year. The annual primary PM-10 standard is 50 ug/m3 as an 
expected annual arithmetic mean. The secondary PM-10 standards, 
promulgated to protect against adverse welfare effects, are identical 
to the primary standards.

4. What Are the Air Quality Characteristics of the Areas?

Kent
    The Kent nonattainment area is located approximately 15 miles south 
of Seattle, Washington, and is an area comprised of commercial, light 
industrial and residential development. Motor vehicle exhaust and 
residential wood combustion are the largest sources of PM-10 in the 
nonattainment area, each category contributing approximately 40% of the 
mass on days of high concentration. Fugitive dust comprises 
approximately 16% of the measured PM-10 mass. Sulfate and marine 
aerosol account for the remaining 4%. All other sources are considered 
insignificant.
    Air quality has been monitored in the Kent area since 1988 using 
federal reference or equivalent methods. No violations of the 24-hour 
or annual PM-10 standards have ever been recorded in the nonattainment 
area since monitoring began in 1988. The Kent PM-10 nonattainment plan, 
approved on July 27, 1993, (58 FR 40059) identifies a 24-hour 
concentration of 125 ug/m3 as the 1991 attainment year 
concentration. The current 1994 24-hour design value based on 1993 
through 1995 measured air quality data is 76 ug/m3. The 24-hour design 
value in the year 2010 is projected to be 70 ug/m3 based on 
continued reductions in emissions from the attainment year. Because the 
health based 24-hour standard is set at 150 ug/m3, this data 
clearly shows that the Kent area continues to attain, and will 
maintain, the PM-10 NAAQS.
Seattle
    The Seattle nonattainment area is comprised of the Duwamish 
industrial and commercial area immediately south of the downtown 
district and includes the Port of Seattle. Emissions primarily come 
from industrial sources (83%) with a minor amount of emissions from 
diesel exhaust (8%) and gasoline fueled motor vehicles (4%). All 
remaining sources are insignificant.
    Exceedences of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS were recorded in 1988. The 
maximum 24-hour concentration reported was 178 ug/m3. This information 
was sufficient at the time for designation as nonattainment by 
operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990. No exceedence of the 24-hour or annual PM-10 NAAQS has been 
recorded since 1988 using federal reference or equivalent methods. The 
1994 design value using 1993 though 1995 measured air quality data is 
117 ug/m3. With minor projected emission reductions of 3%, the 
predicted design value in 2010 is 115 ug/m3.
Tacoma
    The Tacoma PM-10 nonattainment area is comprised of the industrial 
area of Tacoma, including the Port of Tacoma, a kraft pulp mill, an 
aluminum smelter, forest product operations, and other industrial 
operations. Industry accounts for 92% of emissions in the area, with 
diesel exhaust the next most significant source at 3%.
    There are three ambient monitoring sites for PM-10 in the Tacoma 
nonattainment area. The Fire Station #12 site measures the highest 
concentrations in the area. In 1990, a 24-hour PM-10 level of 186 ug/m3 
was reported. There have been no exceedences of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS 
in the Tacoma area since 1991. The 1994 design value using measured air 
quality data from 1993 through 1995 is 95 ug/m3. With a projected 3.7% 
increase in emissions between 1994 and 2010, the predicted design value 
for 2010 is 97 ug/m3, well below the level of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
    There have been no exceedences of the annual PM-10 standard since 
1988.

5. What Is the Background Information for This Action?

    All three areas were designated as moderate PM-10 nonattainment 
areas upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (November 
15, 1990) and the boundaries were specified in the Federal Register of 
March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101).
    Title I, section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act as explained in detail in 
the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) hereafter 
referred to as the General Preamble), allows the Governor of a State to 
request the redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. 
On August 23, 1999, the

[[Page 14494]]

State submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation request for the 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM-10 nonattainment areas.

6. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review of the Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan?

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

7. How Does the State Show That the Areas Have Attained the PM-10 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard?

    Demonstrating that an area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS involves 
submittal of ambient air quality data from an ambient air monitoring 
network representing peak PM-10 concentrations, which should be stored 
in the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The area has 
attained the 24-hour standard when the average number of expected 
exceedances per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a 
three year period. (40 CFR 50.6) To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be 
collected in accordance with federal requirements (40 CFR part 58, 
including appendices).
Kent
    Kent has one ambient air quality monitoring station located near 
the intersection of James Street and Central Avenue. This site is 
located in the highest density development and measures maximum PM-10 
levels in the area. The site has monitored PM-10 beginning in 1988 to 
the present. There have been no recorded exceedences of either the 
annual or 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the area.
    The area has attained both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
Seattle
    The Seattle PM-10 nonattainment area has three PM-10 monitoring 
sites. The site at 4752 E. Marginal Way S. measures the highest PM-10 
concentrations in the area. It is located just south of the largest PM-
10 sources in the area. The last recorded exceedences of the 24-hour 
standard were measured in 1988 (there were two exceedences) with the 
highest concentration being 178 ug/m3.
    There is no recorded violation of the annual PM-10 NAAQS in 
Seattle.
    The area has attained both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
Tacoma
    The Tacoma PM-10 nonattainment area has three PM-10 monitoring 
sites. The site at Fire Station #12 measures the highest PM-10 
concentrations in the area. The last recorded exceedence of the 24-hour 
standard was measured in 1990 with a concentration of 186 ug/m3.
    There is no recorded violation of the annual PM-10 NAAQS in Tacoma.
    The area has attained both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.

8. Do the Nonattainment Areas Have Fully Approved Nonattainment SIPs?

    Yes. Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment 
areas were required to submit a SIP by November 15, 1991, which 
implemented reasonably available control measures (RACM) by December 
10, 1993, and demonstrated attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 
31, 1994. The SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 
110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the 
area.
Kent
    On July 27, 1993 (58 FR 40059) EPA approved the Kent PM-10 
nonattainment area SIP.
Seattle
    On June 23, 1994, EPA conditionally approved the PM-10 SIP for 
Seattle. See 59 FR 32370. This conditional approval was contingent upon 
the State providing a demonstration of attainment using allowable 
emissions from permitted industrial sources. In order to provide this 
demonstration, the PSCCA established emission limits for sources under 
its jurisdiction. These limits were established and the State provided 
EPA documentation of these limits and a revised attainment 
demonstration on May 11, 1995. There are no sources in the Seattle area 
for which the Department of Ecology has primary regulatory authority. 
On October 26, 1995, EPA fully approved the nonattainment area SIP for 
Seattle. See 60 FR 54812.
Tacoma
    On October 12, 1994, (59 FR 51506) EPA conditionally approved the 
PM-10 nonattainment SIP for Tacoma. This conditional approval was based 
on the lack of enforceable emission limits on the industrial sources in 
the Tacoma PM-10 nonattainment area (i.e., the SIP failed to provide 
for RACM including reasonably available control technology (RACT), an 
adequate demonstration of attainment based on allowable emissions, and 
quantative milestones and reasonable further progress).
    Upon receiving further submissions from the Department of Ecology, 
on October 25, 1995, EPA fully approved the PM-10 nonattainment SIP for 
Tacoma. See 60 FR 54599.

9. Are the Improvements in Air Quality Which Warrant This Redesignation 
Permanent and Enforceable?

    Yes. The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement 
in air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In 
making this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality 
improvements are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. 
This showing should consider emission rates, production capacities, and 
other related information. The analysis should assume that sources are 
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence 
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.
    As discussed above, PSCAA is the local agency that regulates 
emissions from most sources in the three nonattainment areas. The 
maintenance plan was prepared by PSCAA and submitted to the Washington 
Department of Ecology. Air pollution rules and regulations promulgated 
by the PSCAA apply to all areas within their four county jurisdiction 
of King, Snohomish, Kitsap, and Pierce counties. The Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma nonattainment areas are all located within the PSCAA 
jurisdiction. The control measures and emission reduction programs 
implemented by PSCAA and discussed in this notice likewise apply to all 
three nonattainment areas.
    PSCAA demonstrated that the air quality improvements are the result 
of

[[Page 14495]]

permanent enforceable emission reductions and not a result of either 
economic trends or meteorology. The first demonstration is based on 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in each nonattainment area as compared to 
the region-wide trends. Between 1986 and 1994 VMT increased in the 
nonattainment areas from 32 to 43 percent depending on the area. This 
compares with the regional increase of 43 percent. Therefore, though 
there was an increase in VMT, air quality continued to improve. See the 
Technical Support Document accompanying this notice for additional 
detail.
    An analysis of meteorological conditions over the time period of 
the measured high PM-10 levels of the late 1980's, shows that 
conditions were consistent with conditions in the early 90's. Dr. 
Halstead Harrison, Professor of Meteorology at the University of 
Washington, presented this analysis to the PSCAA September 12, 1994. 
His analysis showed that light scattering properties of the atmosphere 
improved by about two thirds and that this improvement was attributable 
to reduced emissions, while at the same time meteorology contributed 
approximately 2 percent of this improvement.
    Therefore, the conclusion is that neither economic trends nor 
meteorology significantly contributed to the improvement in measured 
air quality. PSCAA continues their showing with a discussion of their 
regulatory programs for residential wood smoke, fugitive dust, 
industrial source controls, open burning, and programs applicable to 
diesel exhaust. These are briefly discussed below.
    Wood Smoke Program: The PSCAA and the State of Washington initiated 
a wood smoke program in 1987 with revisions to State Law banning the 
sale of uncertified wood stoves, establishing opacity limitations, 
prohibiting the burning of certain fuels, and establishing a 
curtailment program. Revisions to the program have been made at various 
times to incorporate mandatory curtailment provisions, enforcement 
capabilities, more stringent opacity limitations, and reduced trigger 
points for burn bans. Two studies were conducted to estimate emission 
reductions from the program. Dr. Harrison, from the University of 
Washington, estimates emission reductions of 25 to 35 percent on days 
when a curtailment is in effect. A Lawerence Livermore National 
Laboratory study estimates reductions on the order of 37%. EPA has 
previously determined the PSCAA program to be RACM by approval of the 
nonattainment area SIP for each area. For Kent see 58 FR 40059 (July 
27, 1993), for Seattle see 59 FR 32370 (June 23, 1994) and 60 FR 54812 
(October 26, 1995) and for Tacoma see 59 FR 51506 (October 12, 1994) 
and 60 FR 54599 (October 25, 1995).
    Kent is the only area of the three for which residential wood smoke 
emissions are significant. In Kent, projected 2010 residential wood 
smoke emissions will account for approximately 66% of total area PM-10 
emissions.
    Fugitive Dust: PSCAA adopted regulations that require open fugitive 
dust sources, including dust from unpaved roads, staging areas, and 
parking lots to employ best available control technology (BACT). 
Implementation of these requirements has resulted in numerous (over 
500) notices of violation throughout the PSCAA jurisdiction. EPA has 
previously determined in the approval of the nonattainment area plan 
that these fugitive dust regulations represented RACM. For Kent see 58 
FR 40059 (July 27, 1993), for Seattle see 59 FR 32370 (June 23, 1994) 
and 60 FR 54812 (October 26, 1995) and for Tacoma see 59 FR 51506 
(October 12, 1994) and 60 FR 54599 (October 25, 1995).
    Fugitive dust is an insignificant source of particulate matter in 
all three nonattainment areas as presented in both the 1994 and 
projected 2010 emission inventory.
    Industrial Source Controls: Industrial sources contribute 
significantly to emissions in the Seattle and Tacoma nonattainment 
areas and insignificantly in the Kent area. Significant reductions in 
emissions have been achieved through the retirement and shutdown of 
processes and sources in these two areas. Emission credits have been 
confiscated from trading banks. Emission limitations have been 
established for all permitted sources in the Seattle and Tacoma areas. 
The State of Washington has issued regulatory orders, which contain 
enforceable emission limitations, to the sources in the Seattle and 
Tacoma area that remain under their regulatory jurisdiction. EPA has 
previously approved these emission limits as representing RACT for the 
industrial sources in the approval of the nonattainment area SIPs. For 
Kent see 58 FR 40059 (July 27, 1993), for Seattle see 59 FR 32370 (June 
23, 1994) and 60 FR 54812 (October 26, 1995) and for Tacoma see 59 FR 
51506 (October 12, 1994) and 60 FR 54599 (October 25, 1995).
    Diesel Programs: Emission reductions have occurred as a result of 
Federal motor vehicle emission control programs. These reductions are 
the result of reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel from 0.5 
percent to 0.05 percent by weight as of October 1, 1993. In addition, 
EPA recently promulgated rules limiting the amount of sulfur in 
gasoline. See 65 FR 6697 (February 10, 2000). While sulfur and sulfur 
dioxide are not particulate when emitted into the atmosphere, sulfur 
dioxide is a precursor to the formation of secondary aerosol. Secondary 
aerosol is particulate matter formed through chemical reactions in the 
atmosphere from emissions of precursor gases. Thus, a reduction in 
sulfur in gasoline and resulting sulfur dioxide emissions will reduce 
particulate loading in the atmosphere from secondary aerosol.
    The State of Washington also requires that heavy duty vehicles 
registered in the Puget Sound region pass a ``snap idle'' test in which 
exhaust opacity is measured while the vehicle is subjected to heavy 
acceleration. Vehicles which fail the test must be repaired and pass 
the test before they can be registered for operation.
    These emission reductions are not considered in the demonstration 
of maintenance in the maintenance plans for these areas.
    Open Burning: Open burning is not a significant source of 
particulate matter in the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma nonattainment 
areas. In 1991, the Washington Clean Air Act was amended to prohibit 
land clearing and yard debris waste fires within either PM-10 or carbon 
monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas. The area of this ban was expanded in 
1995 to include the newly defined urban growth areas. The ban will 
continue after the areas are redesignated to attainment.

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

    Yes. The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum directs states to meet 
all of the applicable section 110 and part D planning requirements for 
redesignation purposes. Thus, EPA interprets the Act to require state 
adoption and EPA approval of the applicable programs under section 110 
and part D that were due prior to the submittal of a redesignation 
request, before EPA may approve a redesignation request. How the State 
has met these requirements is discussed in detail below.

11. How Does the State Meet Section 110 Requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for 
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but

[[Page 14496]]

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

12. How Does the State Meet Part D Requirements?

    Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all areas 
which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of the NAAQS. 
The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific 
to each pollutant. All PM-10 nonattainment areas must meet the 
applicable general provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific PM-10 
provisions in subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter 
Nonattainment Areas.'' The following paragraphs discuss these 
requirements as they apply to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma areas.

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

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

14. How Does the State Meet Subpart 4 Requirements?

    The Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma areas are classified as moderate 
nonattainment areas. Therefore, part D, subpart 4, section 189(a) 
requirements apply. The requirements which came due prior to the 
submission of the request to redesignate the areas must be fully 
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment.
    These requirements are discussed below:
(a) Provisions to assure that RACM shall be implemented by December 10, 
1993;
(b) Either a demonstration that the plan will provide for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 1994, or a 
demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable;
(c) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years and 
which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment 
by December 31, 1994; and
(d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which 
exceed the NAAQS in the area.

    As previously stated, EPA approved the PM-10 SIPs for these areas. 
Each SIP met the initial requirements of the 1990 amendments for 
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas (for Kent on July 27, 1993, (58 FR 
40059), for Seattle on October 26, 1995, (60 FR 54812) and for Tacoma 
October 25, 1995 (60 FR 54599)). Other provisions were due at a later 
date.
    States with initial PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to 
submit a permit program for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992. States 
also were to submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993, which 
become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a 
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to 
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See 
sections 172(c)(9) and 189(a) and 57 FR 13543-13544.
    The State has presented an adequate demonstration that it has met 
the requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. 
EPA approved Washington State's NSR regulations effective June 2, 1995. 
Contingency measures as required by the Act, specify measures that are 
to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress 
or fails to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by 
the applicable attainment date. All three areas have attained the 
national primary ambient air quality standard by the applicable 
attainment date. Therefore, contingency measures no longer are required 
under section 172(c)(9) of the Act. Contingency measures are also 
required for maintenance plans under section 172A(d). The State of 
Washington has provided in their maintenance plan for the Kent, Settle, 
and Tacoma, a contingency measure to meet this requirement. The 
contingency measure in the maintenance plan is discussed below.

15. Has the State Submitted a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan for the 
Kent, Seattle and Tacoma PM-10 Areas?

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

[[Page 14497]]

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

    The State should develop an attainment year emissions inventory to 
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS. Where the State has made an adequate demonstration 
that air quality has improved as a result of the SIP, the attainment 
inventory will generally be an inventory of actual emissions at the 
time the area attained the standard. This inventory should be 
consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission inventories for 
nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the 
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data 
showing attainment.
    For the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance plan, updated, 
gridded based year (1994) and future year (2010) emission inventories 
were compiled to show emission levels consistent with attainment and 
continued maintenance of the PM-10 standard. The inventory of allowable 
emissions contained in the plan provides an adequate basis for 
approving the plan.
    The State has developed an adequate attainment emissions inventory 
for 1994 that identifies the levels of emissions of PM-10 in the area 
that are consistent with the federally approved demonstration of 
attainment of the NAAQS contained in the original nonattainment area 
SIPs.

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

    A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by 
either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors 
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling 
to show that the future anticipated mix of sources and emission rates 
will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, PM-10 areas 
were required to submit modeled attainment demonstrations to show that 
proposed reductions in emissions will be sufficient to attain the 
applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the maintenance demonstration should 
be based upon the same level of modeling.
    For Tacoma and Kent, the attainment demonstration in the original 
nonattainment area SIP was based on proportional rollback modeling in 
which future air quality is assumed to be directly proportional to the 
area-wide decrease in emissions. In the case of Seattle, the attainment 
demonstration in the original nonattainment area SIP was based on a 
combination of Regional Air Model (RAM) and WYNDvalley dispersion 
modeling. In the maintenance plan, the demonstration of maintenance for 
all three areas is based on proportional rollback modeling in which 
future projected air quality is assumed to be directly proportional to 
the area-wide increase (or decrease) in emissions.
    After careful review and analysis of the attainment demonstration 
and after conducting additional analysis of the specific situation for 
each area, EPA has determined that the plan is adequate to maintain the 
PM-10 standards through 2010 in Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma. See the 
Technical Support Document accompanying this notice for further detail.

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

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

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

    Section 175A of the Act also requires that a maintenance plan 
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any 
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. These 
contingency measures are distinguished from those generally required 
for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9) which are discussed 
above. However, if the contingency measures in a nonattainment SIP have 
not been implemented at the time the area is redesignated to attainment 
and the contingency measures included a requirement that they be 
implemented prior to redesignation, then they can be carried over into 
the area's maintenance plan.
    The contingency measure contained in the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 
maintenance plan would address residential woodsmoke emissions should a 
violation of the PM-10 NAAQS be recorded. Under this measure (RCW 
70.94.477(2) and section 13.07 of PSCAA Regulation I), PSCAA will ban 
the use of uncertified wood burning devices in the maintenance area.

20. How Does This Action Affect Transportation Conformity?

    Under section 176(c) of the Act, transportation plans, programs, 
and projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or 
approved under the Federal Transit Act, must conform to the applicable 
SIPs. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to the 
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from implementation of that 
transportation plan are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 
emission level established in the SIP for the maintenance year and 
other analysis years.
    In this maintenance plan, procedures for estimating motor vehicle 
emissions are well documented. The maintenance plan includes a motor 
vehicle emissions budget which can be used in conformity determinations 
for PM-10 on future Transportation Improvement Programs and Regional 
Transportation Plans.

21. What Is the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for the Kent, Seattle, 
and Tacoma Areas?

    Transportation conformity determinations must be consistent with 
the motor vehicle emissions budgets for Kent, Seattle and Tacoma of 
105, 383, and 209 kilogram of PM-10 per day, respectively. These mobile 
source emissions represent a combination of vehicle exhaust, tire wear, 
and road dust. The maintenance plan does distinguish between motor 
vehicle exhaust emissions and road dust emissions.

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

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

III. Final Action

    EPA approves the PM-10 maintenance plan for the Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma, Washington PM-10 nonattainment areas and redesignates the areas 
from nonattainment to attainment for PM-10.

[[Page 14498]]

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13045

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

C. Executive Order 13084

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

D. Executive Order 13132

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

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under Section 110 and 
Subchapter I, Part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Additionally, redesignation of an area to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on 
small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a 
geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on 
sources. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in

[[Page 14499]]

estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This 
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local 
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective May 14, 2001 unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by April 12, 2001.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 14, 2001. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for 
the State of Washington was approved by the Director of the Office 
of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.


    Dated: December 11, 2000.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.


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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart WW--Washington

    2. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(81) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (81) On August 23, 1999, the Washington State Department of Ecology 
requested the redesignation of Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM-10 
nonattainment areas to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard for particulate matter. EPA approves the State's PM-10 
maintenance plan for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma and request for 
redesignation to attainment.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.94.477(2), dated 1995.
    (B) RCW 70.94.457, dated 1995.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) August 23, 1999, letter from Washington State Department of 
Ecology to EPA Region 10 submitting the PM-10 maintenance plan for 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma nonattainment areas of Washington.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec. 81.348  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 81.348, the table entitled ``Washington--PM-10'' is 
amended by revising the three entries for King County--``The portion of 
the City of Seattle'', King County--``The City of Kent'', and Pierce 
County--``Tacoma metropolitan area'' to read as follows.
* * * * *

                                                                    Washington--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                                             Classification
           Designated area           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date                         Type                         Date                         Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King County:
    The portion of the City of        May 14, 2001...............  Attainment.................
     Seattle bounded on the east by
     I-5/East Duwamish Greenbelt, on
     the south by 104th street, on
     the west by the West Duwamish
     Greenbelt north to Fairmont
     Avenue, S.W., north on Fairmont
     Avenue to Elliot Bay, and
     Dearborn Street to I-5.
    The City of Kent and a portion    May 14, 2001...............  Attainment.................
     of the Green River valley
     bounded on the east and west by
     the 100 foot contour, on the
     north by South 212th Street,
     and on the south by Highway 516.
Pierce County:

[[Page 14500]]

 
    Tacoma metropolitan area bounded  May 14, 2001...............  Attainment.................
     on the north by Marine View
     Drive from Commencement Bay
     east to the 100 foot contour,
     southeast along the 100 foot
     contour to 64th Avenue east,
     south along 64th Avenue east as
     extended to I-5, I-5 west to
     the 100 foot contour near
     Pacific Avenue, and north along
     the 100 foot contour to
     Commencement Bay.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-6082 Filed 3-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P