Federal Register, Volume 66 Issue 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)

[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