[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68822-68826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23635]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0174, FRL-10014-77-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted 
by the State of Washington on June 2, 2019, through the Washington 
Department of Ecology. The proposed revision, applicable in Clark, 
King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane Counties, Washington, removes the 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, which was previously approved 
into the SIP for use as a component of the State's plans to address on-
road sources in nonattainment areas. The SIP revision also includes a 
demonstration that the requested revision to the vehicle model year 
coverage will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or with any other 
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The I/M 
program will be moved from the active portion of the SIP to the 
contingency portion of the applicable SIP for each area. The EPA 
evaluated whether this SIP revision would interfere with the 
requirements of the CAA. The EPA is proposing to determine that 
Washington's June 2, 2019 SIP revision is consistent with the 
applicable portions of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2020-0174, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Pepple, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-1778, or 
[email protected].

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

I. Background

    Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies 
used to attain and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA for the 
criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide). The SIP contains such elements as 
air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, attainment 
demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. Section 110 of the CAA 
requires each state to periodically revise its SIP. As a result, the 
SIP is a living compilation of regulatory and non-regulatory elements 
that are updated to address federal requirements and changing air 
quality issues in the state.
    The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) implements and 
enforces the Washington SIP through rules set out in the Washington 
Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 173-422 WAC, which details 
Washington's I/M program, applies in parts of Clark, King, Pierce, 
Snohomish, and Spokane Counties. The Department of Ecology included an 
I/M program in nonattainment SIPs in the 1980s for CO, as required by 
the Clean Air Act

[[Page 68823]]

Amendments of 1977.\1\ The I/M program was later included in SIPs for 
ozone and PM10 in the 1990s.2 3 4 5 These 
nonattainment SIPs accomplished their purpose, as these areas were all 
redesignated to attainment with approved maintenance plans. Currently 
there are no nonattainment areas in the state of Washington. Ecology 
has requested that EPA, in acting upon this SIP submission, remove 
these I/M program requirements from the above-referenced portions of 
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ecology began an I/M program in King, Pierce, and Snohomish 
Counties (the Seattle-Tacoma area). In 1985 the program was extended 
to the Vancouver portion of the Portland nonattainment area (Clark 
County), and the Spokane area (Spokane County).
    \2\ Ozone is not directly emitted from mobile sources. These 
sources emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), which can react in the presence of sunlight to 
form ozone.
    \3\ Ecology submitted ozone nonattainment SIPs for the Puget 
Sound area (King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties) and the Vancouver 
portion (Clark County) of the Portland-Vancouver nonattainment area 
that listed I/M as a control measure.
    \4\ PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers and 
smaller in diameter.
    \5\ Ecology submitted PM10 nonattainment SIPs for the 
Seattle-Kent-Tacoma area (King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties) that 
listed I/M as a control measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State Legislature adopted a modification to the Washington 
Emission Check I/M program in 2005, which established an end date for 
the state program of December 31, 2019. This same legislative action 
also adopted California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program starting 
with model year 2009, and exempted both 2009 and newer vehicles as well 
as vehicles over 25 years old from I/M requirements. On June 2, 2019 
Ecology submitted a SIP to the EPA moving the I/M program to the 
contingency portion of each relevant SIP.
    In this submission, Ecology opted to move the I/M program to the 
contingency measure portion of the applicable SIP for all five 
counties. Clark, King, and Pierce Counties are beyond the 20-year 
maintenance period for CO. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked,\6\ but 
the counties of Clark, King, and Pierce would be beyond the 20-year 
maintenance period had the NAAQS remained in place. Of the five 
impacted counties, only the King-Pierce-Snohomish PM10 area 
and the Spokane carbon monoxide (CO) area are not beyond the 20-year 
maintenance period required by the CAA. Ecology is moving the I/M 
program to the contingency measure portion of each SIP for all areas in 
the state that had implemented I/M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 69 FR 23951; April 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 175A and 40 CFR 51.372 of the I/M regulations, 
areas that have been redesignated to attainment may move control 
measures from the active portion of their SIP to the contingency 
measures portion of their maintenance plans if they can demonstrate 
that such a SIP revision would not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS, per section 110(l) of the CAA. Some of these 
counties were redesignated to attainment more than 20 years ago for 
some of the pollutants at issue (e.g., Clark, King, and Pierce for CO 
and 1-hour ozone). The state is opting to retain I/M as a contingency 
measure for all counties and for all the applicable NAAQS.
    Contingency measures, in this case, are the list of measures that 
Ecology will consider if a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the future 
in one of these maintenance areas. In the event of a future violation, 
Ecology commits to work with the local clean air agency to determine 
the cause of the violation. If mobile source emissions are indicated 
and an I/M program could address the violation, Ecology commits to work 
with the state legislature to acquire the authority to adopt and 
implement the I/M program.

II. Applicable Authorities for Moving the I/M Program to a Contingency 
Measure in the Washington SIP

    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that each revision to a SIP 
submitted by a State under the Act shall be adopted by the State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not 
approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The I/M 
regulations (40 CFR 51.372(c)) provide that I/M can be moved to the 
contingency portion of the SIP.
    A State's obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is considered 
as ``any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.'' A 
demonstration is necessary to show that this revision will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those 
for CO, ozone, or any other requirement of the Act.
    Three areas in Washington state were formerly designated as CO 
nonattainment areas. Both the Spokane CO Nonattainment area (Spokane 
County) and the Puget Sound CO nonattainment area (King, Pierce, and 
portions of Snohomish Counties) were classified as ``Moderate'' with a 
design value over 12.7 ppm. The Vancouver CO nonattainment area was 
classified as a Moderate' area with a design value less than 12.7 ppm. 
Based on these nonattainment designations, classifications and the area 
populations, a basic I/M program was required in the Vancouver area, 
while enhanced I/M programs were required in the Puget Sound and 
Spokane CO nonattainment areas. The EPA redesignated the Puget Sound 
area to attainment for the CO standard in a final action effective 
November 11, 1996 (61 FR 53323, October 11, 1996). The Vancouver area 
was redesignated to attainment in a final action effective October 21, 
1996 (61 FR 54560, October 21, 1996). Finally, the Spokane area was 
redesignated to attainment in a final action effective August 29, 2005 
(70 FR 37269, June 29, 2005). All three of these areas submitted the 
required second 10-year maintenance plans, with Spokane and Vancouver 
converting to Limited Maintenance Plans. The EPA approved these 
maintenance plans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Vancouver: 73 FR 36439, June 27, 2008; Spokane: 81 FR 45419, 
July 14, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four counties in Washington were designated as nonattainment for 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS: King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, making up 
the Seattle-Tacoma area, and Clark County, part of the Portland-
Vancouver area. These counties in Washington were already implementing 
I/M due to earlier CO requirements. The EPA redesignated the Seattle-
Tacoma area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in a final 
action effective November 25, 1996 (61 FR 50438, September 26, 1996). 
The EPA approved the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Seattle-
Tacoma before revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS.\8\ Regarding Clark 
County, the only county in Washington that was part of the Portland-
Vancouver 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA redesignated 
the area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in a final action 
effective June 18, 1997 (62 FR 27204, May 19, 1997). The 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS was revoked before a second 10-year maintenance plan was 
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 69 FR 47365, August 5, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, the ``Seattle-Kent-Tacoma 
area,'' were formerly designated nonattainment for the PM10 
NAAQS. Designation as nonattainment for particulate matter does not 
trigger I/M requirements. However, in the development of the 
PM10 nonattainment SIP, Ecology included reference to the 
existing I/M program as a measure to reduce other CO and ozone 
precursors. The EPA redesignated the Seattle-Kent-Tacoma area to 
attainment for the PM10

[[Page 68824]]

standard in a final action effective May 14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, March 
13, 2001).

III. Evaluation of Submission

A. Vehicle Emission Trends in Washington State

    The June 2, 2019, Washington SIP submittal seeking removal of the 
I/M Program from the active portion of the SIP includes an evaluation 
of projected changes in mobile source emissions in the future. The 
analysis focuses on the emissions of: CO, NOX and VOC (both 
of which are precursors to the 1-hour ozone), and PM2.5.\9\ 
Ecology used the EPA's MOVES2014a model to assess emissions for years 
2005, 2010, 2015, 2019, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ PM10 was not analyzed due to on-road sources 
contributing a small percentage to the overall PM10 
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble, shows the percent difference in the 
mobile source emissions reductions between calendar year 2019, the last 
year of I/M implementation, with 2020, the first year without I/M. The 
I/M program in 2019 applied to vehicle model years 1994 through 2008. 
The assumptions in Table 1 account for increases in vehicle miles of 
travel in each county. The assessments in Table 1 correspond to the 
seasons in which the former nonattainment area had established motor 
vehicle emissions budgets.
    Assessed wintertime CO emissions continue to decrease in King, 
Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane Counties. These reductions are the 
result of fleet turnover, and the implementation of more stringent 
engine standards in the newer vehicles. There is a projected 0.4% 
increase in wintertime CO emissions from Clark County in calendar year 
2020.
    Projected summertime CO emissions demonstrate a similar pattern, 
with all counties except for Clark demonstrating continued reductions. 
Clark County is projected to experience a 2.5% increase in CO emissions 
in calendar year 2020. Clark County experiences a slight increase in 
both winter and summer CO emissions with removal of the I/M program. 
This seems to be the result of a combination of the growth rate in 
Clark County, combined with a generally older vehicle fleet. As these 
older vehicles are replaced with new vehicles, the emissions reductions 
are projected to resume, but at a slightly slower rate than with an I/M 
program.
    Ozone, a criteria pollutant, is formed in photochemical reactions 
in the atmosphere involving NOX and VOCs. Ecology projected 
differences in ozone precursor emissions for 2019 and 2020. All 
assessed counties are projected to continue to experience reductions in 
NOX. Most counties are also projected to experience 
reductions in VOCs as well. The exception is Clark County, which is 
projected to experience a 0.3% increase in VOC emissions in calendar 
year 2020. As explained earlier, this temporary increase is due to the 
combination of the growth rate in Clark County and a slightly older 
vehicle population.
    Ecology also calculated winter PM2.5 impacts for Pierce 
County. An I/M program is not required by the CAA for PM areas. In 
fact, the MOVES model calculates no benefit to PM concentrations from 
an I/M program. The PM2.5 benefits represented in Table 1 
are due to fleet turnover and continued implementation of new engine 
and fuel standards.

         Table 1--Percent Difference in On-Road Emissions Between 2019 (With I/M) and 2020 (Without I/M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      County
            Pollutant            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Clark           King           Pierce         Snohomish        Spokane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter CO.......................             0.4            -1.6            -1.8            -1.6            -1.6
Summer CO.......................             2.5            -0.3            -0.5            -0.4               -
Summer NOX......................            -4.7            -7.5            -6.9            -7.1               -
Summer VOC......................             0.3            -2.0            -1.7            -1.7               -
Winter PM2.5....................               -               -            -6.2               -               -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology also estimated long-term emission reductions in these 
counties. The MOVES modeling looked at an outlying year of 2040. 
Despite increased vehicle miles traveled in each county, emissions 
continue to decrease after removal of the I/M program.

                 Table 2--Percent Difference in On-Road VMT and Emissions Between 2000 and 2040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      County
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Clark           King           Pierce         Snohomish        Spokane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Daily VMT...............             126              17              38              36              45
Winter CO emissions.............             -88             -91             -91             -91             -91
Summer CO emissions.............             -86             -91             -91             -90               -
Summer NOX emissions............             -90             -95             -95             -94               -
Summer VOC emissions............             -85             -90             -88             -88               -
Winter PM2.5 emissions..........               -               -  ..............               -               -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, emissions in the five Washington Counties are generally 
projected to decrease even if the I/M program is discontinued. 
Emissions of CO and VOC are projected to increase in Clark County in 
2020; however, the overall downward trend of emissions continues after 
2020. This continued decrease in emissions, despite increases in VMT, 
are the result of fleet turnover, with old vehicles being replaced with 
new vehicles that meet more stringent engine standards. In addition, 
because the I/M program was applying to a decreasing population of 
vehicles in the five counties \10\ emissions reductions associated with 
the program also were expected to decrease. In sum, emissions

[[Page 68825]]

are anticipated to continue decreasing into the future as the fleet 
turns over, despite projected increases in vehicle miles of travel in 
these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Vehicle model years 2009 and newer were exempted from the 
I/M program, as well as vehicles 25 years old and older.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed the on-road modeling performed by the Washington 
Department of Ecology. These emissions trends agree with EPA 
projections of on-road emissions. This emission trends analysis shows 
that emission decreases are expected even if the proposed SIP revision 
is approved. It thus demonstrates generally that any change in 
emissions associated with the removal of the I/M program are relatively 
minor compared to the emission reductions associated with the turnover 
of older, higher emitting vehicles for newer, lower-emitting vehicles.

B. Monitoring Values and Event Data

    All areas in the state of Washington are either designated as 
attainment/unclassifiable, unclassifiable, or attainment for the 
NAAQS.\11\ Areas are designated as attainment/unclassifiable when the 
design value shows it is below the NAAQS for the criteria pollutant in 
question. Areas are designated unclassifiable when there is 
insufficient data for either an attainment/unclassifiable or a 
nonattainment classification. Areas designated attainment have been 
redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan. At this 
time, there are no nonattainment areas in Washington. Designations are 
based on design values, which are calculated from monitoring data. The 
Washington Department of Ecology meets all monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 
averaging time, and form, please visit https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. For a review of current and historical 
designations in the State of Washington by criteria pollutant, 
please visit https://www.epa.gov/green-book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology addressed air quality design values for CO, NO2, 
and ozone in the five I/M counties as part of this submittal. The 2017 
design values included in this submittal were based on 2015-2017 data, 
which represent the latest available data when the SIP was developed 
and submitted. Design values for CO and NO2 were well below 
the NAAQS. It should be noted that some monitors have been discontinued 
due to consistent low concentrations as compared to the NAAQS.
    Ozone design values for Clark (63 ppb) and Spokane (62 ppb) 
Counties were below the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb. However, the 
3-year design value for the Enumclaw monitor in King County had a 
design value of 76 ppb, which is above the NAAQS. This design value is 
the result of wildfire impacts in addition to typical emissions in King 
County. Here, ``typical emissions'' refers to usual anthropogenic 
emissions produced by mobile sources, area sources, and point sources 
on a representative seasonal day.

C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that ``. . . The 
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision 
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress (as defined in [CAA section 171]) or 
any other applicable requirement of [the CAA].'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 
Section 110(l) applies to all requirements of the CAA and to all areas 
of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable or 
maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. EPA 
interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, 
including those for which SIP submissions have not been made. EPA 
considers the impact of the SIP revision on emissions and/or ambient 
concentrations of any pollutant. Additionally, a state may substitute 
equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan 
to ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus 
preserve status quo air quality.
    All areas within the state of Washington are designated attainment 
for all NAAQS. These areas are attaining with current on-road emission 
levels. On-road emissions will continue to decrease as older vehicles 
are replaced with newer, lower-emitting vehicles. Continued emissions 
decreases are projected to occur despite population growth due to 
engine and fuel standards. These same controls will continue the 
downward trend in on-road emissions even if this SIP revision is 
approved.
    The emission trends analysis for King County also shows that on-
road emissions generally will continue to decrease even if the proposed 
SIP revision is approved. In addition, Ecology provided a detailed 
analysis of the causes for the high values at the Enumclaw monitor in 
King County. As illustrated by Ecology, the Enumclaw monitor was 
significantly impacted by wildfire smoke in 2017. The 4th highest ozone 
value at the Enumclaw monitor in 2017 was 94 ppb. In comparison, the 
4th highest value in 2018 at the same monitor was 77 ppb. There was 
significantly less wildfire smoke in 2018 compared to 2017. The 4th 
highest value in 2019 was 55 ppb. The higher values in Enumclaw were a 
result of wildfire smoke related impacts and unrelated to any 
anthropogenic sources of emissions (mobile, area, or stationary) that 
occur on a typical day.
    Based on our evaluation of the analysis submitted by the state of 
Washington, the EPA proposes to conclude that the removal of the I/M 
program will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference in the 
Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c) the submittal moving the I/M 
program located at WAC 173-422 from the actively implemented portion of 
the Washington SIP to the contingency measure portion of the SIP. The 
EPA believes Ecology's demonstration of continued attainment meets 
Section 110(l) requirements. The EPA is requesting comments on the 
proposed approval.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to remove, in a final EPA 
rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to 
remove the current incorporation by reference of WAC Chapter 173-422 as 
identified in Section I of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the 
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of 
this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 
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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);

[[Page 68826]]

     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 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 requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because it does not involve technical standards; 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 as specifically noted further down in this paragraph 
and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an 
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those 
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on 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 August 9, 2019.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 20, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-23635 Filed 10-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P