[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73525-73538]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28150]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket #: EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0808; FRL-9919-88-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Redesignation to Attainment for the Tacoma-Pierce County
Nonattainment Area and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate to attainment the entire Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment
area (hereafter ``the Tacoma area'' or ``the area'') for the 2006 24-
hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). The EPA is also proposing to approve as a
revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP), the
associated maintenance plan that provides for continued compliance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2026 motor vehicle emissions budgets
included in Washington's maintenance plan for PM2.5 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX). In the course of proposing to approve
redesignation of the Tacoma area, the EPA addresses a number of
additional issues, including the effects of a January 4, 2013 decision
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit or Court) to remand to the EPA two final rules
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0808, by any of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics
(AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    C. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0808. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Requirements
    A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
    B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
    C. How have tribal governments been involved in this process?
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
    A. Background
    B. Proposal on This Issue
V. The EPA's Analysis of Washington's Submittal
    A. Redesignation Request
    B. Maintenance Plan
    C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
established on July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). The EPA
promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a three-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard). In the same rulemaking action, the EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR
61144), the EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\,
but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the
three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour

concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard or daily
standard). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA published
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became
effective on December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, the EPA
designated the Tacoma area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 58774 and 40 CFR 81.348).
    On September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53772), the EPA determined that the
Tacoma area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c), in effect at that time, the requirements
for the Tacoma area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to the attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS are suspended until such time as: The area is redesignated to
attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or the EPA
determines that the area has again violated the standard, at which time
such plans are required to be submitted. On September 19, 2013 (78 FR
57503), the EPA finalized a subsequent determination of attainment
considering the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013
decision to remand the implementation rule containing the provisions of
40 CFR 51.1004(c) on the area. Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (2013). A full description of the EPA's rationale for
the determination of attainment is contained in the proposal for that
action (78 FR 42095, July 18, 2013).
    A determination of attainment does not relieve a state from
submitting, and the EPA from approving, certain planning SIP revisions
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, Washington
submitted a 2008 baseline emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of PM2.5
including nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
to meet the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 172(c) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Also included in Washington's submittal were SIP strengthening rules to
implement the recommendations of the Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air
Task Force, an advisory committee of community leaders, citizen
representatives, public health advocates, and other affected parties,
formed to develop PM2.5 reduction strategies. These SIP
strengthening rules were focused on controlling PM2.5
emissions from residential wood combustion, which at that time
comprised 74% of direct PM2.5 emissions on winter days when
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS exceedances are most likely. The EPA
approved the 2008 baseline emissions inventory and SIP strengthening
rules on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131). On November 3, 2014, Ecology
submitted a request to redesignate the Tacoma area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
submittal included a maintenance plan as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment of the standard over the next 10 years.
    The EPA is also taking into account the recent decision in NRDC v.
EPA, in which the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final
rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428.

II. The EPA's Requirements

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The EPA determines that
the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the EPA has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5)
the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to
the area under section 110 and part D.
    The EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992)(the ``General Preamble''), and has provided further guidance on
processing redesignation requests in the following documents: (1)
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter the ``1992 Calcagni
Memorandum''); (2) ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted
in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
and (3) ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994.

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after an area is
redesignated to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following
the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency
measures, with a schedule for implementation, as the EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5
violations.
    The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance
plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.

C. How have tribal governments been involved in this process?

    Consistent with the EPA's tribal policy, the EPA offered
government-to-government consultation to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
regarding the action in this notice because part of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation is located in the Tacoma area. The Puyallup Indian
Reservation is divided into tribal trust land and non-trust land. Under
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773,
Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington
authority over activities on non-trust lands within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. As shown in figure

3 of the EPA's technical support document designating the Tacoma area
(then known as the Wapato Hills-Puyallup River Valley Nonattainment
Area) to nonattainment, the vast proportion of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation within the Tacoma area is under Washington's jurisdiction.
The EPA, working in consultation and coordination with the Puyallup
Tribe, has CAA authority over the small parcels of tribal trust lands
in the Tacoma area. Air quality management on tribal trust lands is
addressed pursuant to 40 CFR part 49, which includes the Federal
Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in
Idaho, Oregon and Washington (70 FR 18074, April 8, 2005, the Federal
Air Rules for Reservations) and the Review of New Sources and
Modifications in Indian Country (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011).
    Under a cooperative agreement between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), all emissions
inventories, motor vehicle emission budgets, and technical analyses
demonstrating current and future attainment included in the State's
maintenance plan cover the entire Tacoma area, including both trust and
non-trust land. As a member of the PSCAA Advisory Council, the Puyallup
Indian Tribe is engaged in all decisions affecting the Tacoma area. As
discussed later in this proposal, Ecology and PSCAA chose a
conservative estimation methodology for calculating future year
emissions budgets, not taking credit for any wood stove curtailment
activities on tribal trust land. Therefore, any current or future
emission reductions attributable to implementation of the Federal Air
Rules for Reservations are supplemental and additional to emission
reductions calculated for the area. As shown in Table 7 below,
PM2.5 levels at the Puyallup tribal monitor are consistently
low. For these reasons, and based on discussions with the Puyallup
Tribe of Indians, the EPA is proposing to redesignate to attainment all
tribal trust land within the Tacoma area.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    The EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to
the redesignation of the Tacoma area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to find that the Tacoma
area meets the requirements for redesignation of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The EPA
is thus proposing to change the legal designation of the entire Tacoma
area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the Tacoma area as a revision to the
Washington SIP, including motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The approval of the maintenance
plans is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of the Tacoma area
to attainment. Washington's maintenance plan is designed to ensure
continued attainment for 10 years after redesignation.
    The EPA previously determined that the Tacoma area attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 53772), and the EPA is
proposing to find that the area continues to attain the standard.
Furthermore, the EPA previously approved under section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA, the 2008 comprehensive emissions inventory for the Tacoma area as
part of Washington's SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013). The EPA's analysis of the proposed actions
is provided in section V of today's proposed rulemaking action.

IV. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4

A. Background

    As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d
428, the D.C. Circuit remanded to the EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine
Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule''). The Court found that the EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA
(subpart 1), rather than the particulate-matter-specific provisions of
subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4).
    Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, states had worked towards
meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
accordance with the EPA regulations and guidance derived from subpart 1
of Part D of Title I of the CAA. The EPA took this history into account
by setting a new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be
required of moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the Court's
decision regarding the applicability of subpart 4. On June 2, 2014, the
EPA issued the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification
and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, Jun. 2, 2014) which identifies the
classification under subpart 4 for areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards. The
EPA's final rulemaking also sets deadlines for states to submit
attainment-related and new source review (NSR) SIP elements required
for these areas pursuant to subpart 4, and identifies the EPA guidance
that is currently available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The final
rule specifies December 31, 2014, as the deadline for the states to
submit any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be
needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment
NSR requirements in subpart 4. Therefore, for Washington, any
additional attainment-related SIP-elements that may be needed for the
Tacoma area to meet the requirements of subpart 4 were not due at the
time that Washington submitted the November 3, 2014 redesignation
request.

B. Proposal on This Issue

    In this portion of the proposed redesignation, the EPA addresses
the effect of the NRDC v. EPA ruling and the PM2.5 Subpart 4
Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule on the proposed
redesignation. As explained below, the EPA is proposing to determine
that the Court's decision does not prevent the EPA from redesignating
the Tacoma area to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decision,
redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and the EPA's
longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding
redesignation. The EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation
that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a
complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is
attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. Second, the EPA shows that, even applying the
subpart 4 requirements to the Tacoma area redesignation request and
disregarding the provisions of the remanded 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule, the State's request for redesignation of this area
still qualifies for approval. The EPA's discussion also takes into
account the effect of the Court's ruling and the PM2.5
Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule on the area's
maintenance plan, which the EPA views as approvable when subpart 4
requirements are considered.

1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation
Request
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's ruling rejected the EPA's reasons for implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to the EPA, so that it could
address implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart
4 of Part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating Washington's redesignation request for the area, to the
extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated nonattainment, the EPA believes that
those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus the EPA is not required to consider
subpart 4 requirements with respect to the Tacoma area redesignation.
Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, the EPA has
interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that
the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' and which must be
approved in order for the EPA to redesignate an area include only those
which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See 1992 Calcagni memorandum. See also ``State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation
to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,''
Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air
and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final
Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7,
1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-
27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir.
2004) (upholding the EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation and expressly rejecting that the meaning of
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\1\ In
this case, at the time that Washington submitted its redesignation
request, requirements under subpart 4 were not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Tacoma area
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time
Washington submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the
EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In
South Coast, the Court found that the EPA was not permitted to
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and
held that the EPA was required under the statute to implement the
standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well.
Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon
redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were
submitted to the EPA for areas under subpart 1, the EPA applied its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable
requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those
actions, the EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 requirements to
be ``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area
should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
    The EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA Section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
the EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements
that came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after a state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for the EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance
with the 18-month deadline Congress set for the EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require the EPA
to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on
those submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking
that would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-
month timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and the EPA's June 2,
2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and
Deadline Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that
come due after the redesignation request is submitted. Washington
submitted its redesignation request on November 3, 2014, which is prior
to the deadline by which the Tacoma area is required to meet the
attainment plan and other requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
    To evaluate Washington's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 for which the
deadline to comply has not yet come, would be to give retroactive
effect to such requirements and contravene the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v.

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\2\ where it upheld the District
Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive the EPA's determination
that the St. Louis area did not meet its attainment deadline. In that
case, petitioners urged the Court to make the EPA's nonattainment
determination effective as of the date that the statute required,
rather than the later date on which the EPA actually made the
determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that applying it
``would likely impose large costs on States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans . . . even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, it
would be unreasonable to penalize the State of Washington by rejecting
its redesignation request for an area that is already attaining the
2006 PM2.5 standard and that met all applicable requirements
known to be in effect at the time of the request. For the EPA now to
reject the redesignation request solely because the State did not
expressly address subpart 4 requirements which have not yet come due
would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the Court in Sierra Club
v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite
different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to
give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing
denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and Washington's Redesignation Request
    Even if the EPA interpreted the NRDC decision to mean that subpart
4 requirements were due and in effect when Washington submitted its
redesignation request, the EPA proposes to determine that the Tacoma
area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As explained
below, the EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Tacoma
area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements,
substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of
redesignating the area to attainment.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Tacoma area, the EPA notes
that the section 172(c) general air quality planning requirements for
areas designated as nonattainment are also applicable. Subpart 4
contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for
PM10 \3\ nonattainment areas, and consistent with the
decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply
to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As noted, the General Preamble
sets forth the EPA's longstanding general guidance that interprets the
1990 amendments to the CAA, and provides recommendations to states for
meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas (57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992). In the General Preamble, the EPA discussed
the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and
pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed
by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10 requirements''
(57 FR 13538). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things,
provisions for attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, consistent
with the EPA's PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification
and Deadline Rule, we classified the Tacoma area as a ``moderate''
PM2.5 nonattainment area. As the EPA explained in its June
2, 2014 final rule, section 188 of the CAA provides that all designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are initially classified by
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and remain
moderate nonattainment areas unless and until the EPA reclassifies the
area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area (79 FR 31567). Accordingly,
the EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of
subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the
following requirements: (1) An approved permit program for construction
of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions
for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones
demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, the EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does
not itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional
requirements for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\4\
In any event, in the context of redesignation, the EPA has long relied
on the interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source
review program is not considered an applicable requirement for
redesignation, provided the area can maintain the standard with a
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program after
redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' See
also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7,
1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\5\ when the EPA evaluates a redesignation request under
either subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the
PM2.5 standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment
planning requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, the EPA
has for many years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not
applicable for areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble,
the EPA stated that the requirements for RFP will not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a
minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has
already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point (57 FR
13564). The General Preamble also explained in discussing contingency
measures that the section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements
no longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for these
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that,
``The requirements for reasonable further

progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining
the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the decision in NRDC
v. EPA to mean that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart
4 should be imposed retroactively \6\ or prior to December 31, 2014
and, thus, were due prior to Washington's redesignation request, those
requirements do not apply to an area that is attaining the 2006
PM2.5 standard for the purpose of evaluating a pending
request to redesignate the area to attainment. The EPA has consistently
enunciated this interpretation of applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty
years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of the EPA's authority to
interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as to
impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club
v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, the EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit the attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that the EPA
determines are attaining the standard. The EPA's prior ``Clean Data
Policy'' rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by
the requirements of subpart 4, explain the EPA's reasoning. They
describe the effects of a determination of attainment on the
attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4. See
``Determination of Attainment for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,''
(75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso Junction proposed
PM10 redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643-47 October 30, 2006). In short, the EPA has also long
concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP planning
requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so long as
those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.
    In this notice the EPA proposes to determine that the area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Under its
longstanding interpretation, the EPA is also proposing to determine
that the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of
subparts 1 and 4. Thus, the EPA is proposing to conclude that the
requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B),
a RACM determination under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c),
a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request.
3. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
    With regard to the redesignation of the Tacoma area, in evaluating
the effect of the Court's remand of the EPA's implementation rule,
which included presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors, the EPA in this proposal is also
considering the impact of the decision on the maintenance plan required
under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, the EPA notes
that the area has attained the 2006 PM2.5 standard and that
the State has shown that attainment of that standard is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    The EPA proposes to determine that Washington's maintenance plan,
in addition to direct PM2.5 controls, shows continued
maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the
PM2.5 precursors. The EPA believes that the only additional
consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results
from the NRDC decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC
and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As
explained below, based upon documentation provided by the State and
supporting information, the EPA believes that the maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area need not include any additional control measures for
VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the
standard.
    First, VOC emission levels in this area have historically been
well-controlled under SIP requirements related to the former Seattle-
Tacoma Puget Sound ozone nonattainment area. These requirements remain
in place today and the area remain in attainment with more stringent
ozone standards promulgated by the EPA in 1997 and 2008. Second, total
ammonia emissions throughout the Tacoma area are very low, estimated to
be 374 tons per year in 2011. See Table 6 below. This amount of ammonia
emissions appears especially small in comparison to the total amounts
of SO2, NOX, and direct PM2.5
emissions from sources in the area. Third, as described below, VOC and
ammonia emissions are expected to decline over the maintenance period,
due primarily to fleet turnover with cleaner vehicles, and will
therefore not interfere with or undermine the maintenance
demonstration.
    Washington's maintenance plan shows that emissions of direct
PM2.5, and NOX are projected to decrease over the
maintenance period by 100 tons per year (tpy) and 8,105 tpy,
respectively, while SO2 emissions are estimated to increase
slightly by 5 tpy. See Tables 1-4 below. Note that Ecology chose to use
conservative 10-year maximum values for estimating future (2017, 2026)
point source emissions but used actual emissions for the 2011 base
year, so the estimated 5 tpy increase in SO2 emissions is
likely a conservative overestimate and is not expected to impact
maintenance of the standard. In addition, emissions inventories show
that VOC and ammonia emissions are projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy
and 49 tpy, respectively between 2011 and 2026. See Tables 5 and 6
below. Given that the Tacoma area is already attaining the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of emissions from
sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions inventories would
be consistent with continued attainment. Indeed, projected emissions
reductions indicate that the area should continue to attain the NAAQS
following the control strategies that Washington has already elected to
pursue. For these reasons, the EPA believes that local emissions of all
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will not
increase to the extent that they will cause monitored PM2.5
levels to violate the 2006 PM2.5 standard during the
maintenance period.

 Table 1--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma
                                                      Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Annual direct PM2.5 (tpy)
                         Sector                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2011          2017          2026       Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           240           364           347           107
Residential Wood Combustion.............................         1,182         1,174         1,193            11
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust).................           528           556           649           121
On-road.................................................           359           229           150          -209
Nonroad.................................................           276           193           143          -133
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         2,585         2,518         2,485          -100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector for the Tacoma Area in
                                            Pounds per Winter Weekday
                    [Seasonal inventory most relevant to elevated particulate matter levels]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Winter weekday direct PM2.5 (lbs/day)
                         Sector                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2011          2017          2026       Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................         1,313         1,995         1,903           590
Residential Wood Combustion.............................        25,520        25,355        25,787           267
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust).................         3,048         3,149         3,842           794
On-road.................................................         2,497         1,642         1,149        -1,348
Nonroad.................................................         1,384           956           697          -687
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        33,761        33,099        33,379          -382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 3--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Annual SO2 (tpy)
                         Sector                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2011          2017          2026       Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           360           720           720           360
Residential Wood Combustion.............................            19            20            22             3
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust).................            56            60            66            10
On-road.................................................            44            40            37            -7
Nonroad.................................................           754           301           392          -362
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         1,234         1,143         1,239             5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 4--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 NOX Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Annual NOX (tpy)
                         Sector                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2011          2017          2026       Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................         1,180         1,399         1,396           216
Residential Wood Combustion.............................           132           135           141             9
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust).................           311           335           368            57
On-road.................................................        10,697         6,377         3,458        -7,239
Nonroad.................................................         3,511         2,794         2,363        -1,148
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        15,833        11,041         7,728        -8,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 5--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 VOC Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Annual VOC (tpy)
                         Sector                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2011          2017          2026       Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           454         1,315         1,409           955
Residential Wood Combustion.............................         1,521         1,468         1,442           -79
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust).................         4,218         4,448         4,964           746
On-road.................................................         5,058         3,114         1,938        -3,120
Nonroad.................................................         1,462         1,157         1,206          -256
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        12,711        11,502        10,957        -1,754
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 6--Comparison of 2011, 2017, and 2026 Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tacoma Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Annual ammonia (tpy)
                         Sector                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2011          2017          2026       Net change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            48            48            48             0
Residential Wood Combustion.............................            70            69            72             2
Other Nonpoint Sources (including dust).................            71            75            82            11
On-road.................................................           184           142           123           -61
Nonroad.................................................             0             0             0             0
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           374           336           325           -49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude that
the Tacoma area should be redesignated, taking into consideration
projections of future direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emissions. After consideration of the DC Circuit's NRDC
decision, and for the reasons set forth in this notice, the EPA
proposes to approve Washington's maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the Tacoma area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.

V. The EPA's Analysis of Washington's Submittal

    The EPA is proposing to redesignate the Tacoma area to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve into the
Washington SIP the associated maintenance plan. The EPA's proposed
approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan is based
upon the EPA's determination that the area continues to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other redesignation
criteria have been met for the area. The following is a description of
how Washington's November 3, 2014 submittal satisfies the requirements
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    On September 4, 2012, the EPA published a final rulemaking that the
Tacoma area attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for
the period of 2009-2011 (77 FR 53772). On September 19, 2013, the EPA
published another final rulemaking, in order to approve motor vehicle
emission budgets, with the determination that the area continued to
attain the standard based upon quality-assured and certified ambient
air quality monitoring data for the period of 2010-2012 (78 FR 57503).
The basis and effect of these determinations of attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were discussed in the notices of the proposed
(77 FR 39657 and 78 FR 42905) and final (77 FR 53772 and 78 FR 57503)
rulemakings.
    The EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality PM2.5
monitoring data in the Tacoma area, consistent with the requirements at
40 CFR part 50, and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS),
quality assured, quality-controlled, and state certified data for the
monitoring periods 2011-2013 and preliminary data for 2014. The air
quality data show that the Tacoma area continues to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The area's 24-hour PM2.5 design
values \7\ are provided in Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section (1)(c).
    \8\ The Tacoma--South L Street monitor, the original violating
monitor for designation as nonattainment, is the only Federal
Reference Method (FRM) monitor. Other state or tribal nonregulatory
monitoring information for the Tacoma area is provided for
informational purposes only.

                                     Table 7--Tacoma Area Design Values \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Monitor                 2007-2009       2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacoma_South L Street...........              46              38              35              28              32
Tacoma Tideflats-Alexander                    27              22              22              21              24
 Avenue.........................
Puyallup_128th Street (South                  27              22              22              21              23
 Hill)..........................
Puyallup_66th Avenue (Puyallup                NA              21              21              21              23
 Tribe).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's review of the monitoring data for 2011-2013 supports the
previous determinations that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the area continues to attain the
standard. Preliminary 2014 data, as shown in Figure 9 of Washington's
submittal, is also consistent with attainment. With respect to the
maintenance plan, Washington has committed to continue monitoring
ambient PM2.5 concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. Thus, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Tacoma area
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Tacoma area must be
fully approved under section 110(k) and all the requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) and
part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for nonattainment areas)
must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the following:
     Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
     Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
     Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration);
     Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review permit programs;
     Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
     Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. However, section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification in that state. The EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, the
EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, the EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2)
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The Tacoma area will still be subject to
these requirements after it is redesignated. The EPA concludes that the
section 110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that
section 110(a)(2) elements not linked to the area's nonattainment
status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach
is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement.
See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also, the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR
at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).
    The EPA has reviewed the Washington SIP and has concluded that it
meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. The
EPA has previously approved provisions of Washington's SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2) requirements (77 FR 30902, May 24, 2012 and 79 FR
42683, July 23, 2014), including proposed approval of provisions
addressing PM2.5 (79 FR 62368, October 17, 2014). These
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked
to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Tacoma area.
Therefore, the EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of the State's PM2.5
redesignation request.
b. Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 Applicable SIP Requirements
    Subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All
areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS were designated under this subpart of the CAA,
and the requirements applicable to them are contained in sections 172
and 176. The EPA's analysis of the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of Subpart 4 of part D of Title I is discussed earlier in
this notice.
    The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I discusses the
evaluation of these requirements in the context of the EPA's
consideration of a redesignation request. The General Preamble sets
forth the EPA's view of applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining the
standard (See 57 FR 13498).
    As mentioned previously, on September 4, 2012, the EPA made a
determination that the Tacoma area had attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 53772). This determination of attainment
was based upon quality assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for the period of 2009-2011 showing that the area had
attained the standard. In a separate rulemaking action, dated September
19, 2013, the EPA made another determination of attainment for the
Tacoma area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2010-
2012 monitoring period, in order to approve motor vehicle emission
budgets (78 FR 57503).
    As previously explained, upon determination by the EPA that the
area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirement for Washington to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning
requirements related to the attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS were suspended until the area is redesignated to
attainment for the standard or the EPA determines that the area has
again violated the standard, at which time such suspended planning
requirements are required to be submitted. Thus, because attainment has
been reached for the area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and the area continues to attain the standard, no additional measures
are needed to

provide for attainment. Therefore, the requirements of section
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) are no longer considered
to be applicable for purposes of redesignation of the area.
    However, determinations of attainment do not relieve states from
submitting and the EPA from approving certain planning requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 28, 2012, Washington
submitted a 2008 baseline emissions inventory for direct
PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of PM2.5
including NOX, SO2,VOCs, and ammonia to meet the
comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in
Washington's submittal were SIP strengthening rules to implement the
recommendations of the Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air Task Force, an
advisory committee of community leaders, citizen representatives,
public health advocates, and other affected parties, formed to develop
PM2.5 reduction strategies. These SIP strengthening rules
were permanent and enforceable measures focused on controlling
PM2.5 emissions from residential wood combustion, which in
2008 comprised 74% of direct PM2.5 emissions on winter days
when 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS exceedances are most likely. The
EPA approved the 2008 baseline emissions inventory and SIP
strengthening rules on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131).
    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA has
determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation
\9\, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that
a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D New Source Review (NSR). A more detailed rationale for this view
is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The PSD program in Washington, including tribal land, is
regulated under a Federal Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted previously, we
believe the Washington SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
that are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
    As a result of the EPA's determination of attainment of the area
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS the only remaining
requirement under section 172 to be considered for the PM2.5
standard is the comprehensive emissions inventory required under
section 172(c)(3). Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission of
a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions.
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, this emissions inventory
should address not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also
emissions of all precursors with the potential to participate in
PM2.5 formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC,
and ammonia. As previously discussed, the EPA determined that
Washington met the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement in a final rulemaking on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131).
    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' In
conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tacoma area to
attainment status, Washington submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation, through 2026. Washington is requesting that
the EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA
section 175A. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the Tacoma area
will ensure that the SIP for Washington meets the requirements of the
CAA regarding maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The EPA's analysis of the maintenance plan is provided in section V.B.
of this rulemaking action.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded or approved under
title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
which the EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. The
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under CAA section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation,
and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
this interpretation) and Tampa, Florida discussion (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995).
    Thus, for purposes of redesignating the Tacoma area to attainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is proposing to
determine that Washington has met all the applicable SIP requirements
under part D of Title I of the CAA.
c. The Tacoma Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
    For purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has fully approved all applicable
requirements of Washington's SIP for the Tacoma area in accordance with
section 110(k) of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    In many parts of the nation, PM2.5 nonattainment is
often a result of secondary formation of precursors into particulate
matter from point or mobile sources. As shown in Tables 3 through 6,
most of these precursor emissions are projected to decline
significantly due to federal engine and fuel requirements for cars,
trucks, ships, trains, and nonroad equipment. These estimated precursor
reductions will aid in continued attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the Tacoma area, like some other areas
in the Pacific Northwest, is somewhat unique for a large urban area in
that elevated 24-hour particulate matter levels are heavily dominated
by direct PM2.5 emissions from local residential wood
combustion. As shown previously in Table 2, residential wood combustion
currently accounts for 76% of direct PM2.5 emissions on a
typical winter day, the season most relevant to PM2.5
exceedances. Other sources of direct PM2.5 are much smaller,
including 7% for onroad vehicles, 6% for dust, 4% for major point
sources, and 4% for nonroad vehicles and engines. As discussed in
Washington's SIP submission, elevated PM2.5 levels are
particularly acute during wintertime meteorological inversion events
when a shallow pool of cold air is trapped at

ground level, allowing little to no mixing with the upper atmosphere.
On these days, monitored 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations
increase as do emissions from residential wood combustion.
    In response to these episodic inversion events, Washington
established a mandatory wood stove (solid fuel burning device)
curtailment program dating back to the late 1980s and early 1990s to
address coarse particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment. The
curtailment program rapidly brought most wood smoke dominated
PM10 areas, including Tacoma, into attainment by the mid-
1990s (see 60 FR 54599, October 25, 1995). The curtailment program was
so successful that Washington had no PM2.5 nonattainment
areas when the EPA established the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65
[mu]g/m\3\ in 1997. It was not until 2006, when the EPA tightened the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ that Washington again
experienced wood smoke dominated nonattainment problems. In response,
Washington enacted a series of statutory and regulatory changes in
2007, 2008, and 2012 to update the curtailment program. The EPA most
recently approved the updates to the curtailment program enforced by
the local Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) on May 29, 2013 (78 FR
32131) and to the statewide Ecology curtailment regulations on May 9,
2014 (79 FR 26628).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Puyallup Tribe of Indians operates the curtailment
program on tribal trust lands within the Tacoma area. Technical
assistance and management of the Tacoma airshed is coordinated under
a cooperative agreement. See Cooperative Agreement between the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Regarding Implementation of the Puyallup Tribe Air Quality Program
included in the docket for this action. The Puyallup Tribe of
Indians also participates in the PSCAA Advisory Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For an area at risk of nonattainment like Tacoma, when forecasted
meteorological conditions are predicted to cause PM2.5
levels to reach or exceed 30 [mu]g/m\3\, measured on a twenty-four hour
average, PSCAA or Ecology can declare a first stage of impaired air
quality. Use of an uncertified solid fuel burning device is prohibited
during a first stage of impaired air quality, with limited
exceptions.\11\ PSCAA or Ecology can declare a second stage of impaired
air quality when: (1.) A first stage of impaired air quality has been
in force and has not been sufficient to reduce the increasing
PM2.5 trend; (2.) PM2.5 levels are monitored at
an ambient level of 25 [mu]g/m\3\ measured on a twenty-four hour
average; and (3.) forecasted meteorological conditions are not expected
to allow PM2.5 levels to decline below 25 [mu]g/m\3\ for a
period of 24 hours or more. PSCAA or Ecology can also proceed directly
to a second stage of impaired air quality without first calling a first
stage if conditions are particularly severe. See Revised Code of
Washington 70.94.473. Use of any solid fuel burning device, certified
or uncertified, is prohibited during the second stage of impaired air
quality, with limited exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ During both a first and second stage of impaired air
quality, the curtailment programs allow a limited exemption for
buildings with no adequate source of heat other than a solid fuel
burning device, if certain qualification criteria are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite challenging meteorological conditions in both 2011 and
2013, as discussed in the weight of evidence analysis contained in
Washington's redesignation request, the Tacoma area continues to remain
in attainment. Data analyses conducted by Washington that adjusts for
year-to-year meteorological variation shows that PM2.5
levels on the highest winter days have come down over 10 [mu]g/m\3\
since 2009. Based on our review of Washington's weight of evidence
analysis, the EPA is proposing to determine that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from Washington's curtailment program and other permanent and
enforceable reductions, such as federal air pollutant control
regulations.

B. Maintenance Plan

    On November 3, 2014, Ecology submitted a maintenance plan for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by section 175A of the
CAA. The maintenance plan includes all emissions inventories, motor
vehicle emission budgets, and technical analyses demonstrating current
and future attainment for the entire Tacoma area, including tribal
trust and non-trust lands. The EPA's analysis for proposing approval of
the maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    An attainment inventory is comprised of the emissions during the
time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
Ecology determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year for
the maintenance plan is 2011, one of the years in the period during
which the Tacoma area monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2011 inventory included in the maintenance
plan contains primary PM2.5 emissions (including
condensables), SO2, NOX, VOCs, and ammonia. In
its redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, Ecology described the methods used for
developing the inventory. The EPA reviewed the procedures used to
develop the 2011 attainment year inventory and found them to be
reasonable and approvable.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to
attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of
the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.'' The EPA has interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ``for a period of ten years following redesignation.''
Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used,
its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period
will not increase over the attainment year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum, pages 9-10.
    For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of
future growth and controls; however, the demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.
See also 66 FR 53099-53100 and 68 FR 25430-32. Ecology developed
projected inventories to show that the Tacoma area will remain in
attainment through the year 2026. See Tables 1 through 6. These
projected inventories, covering an interim year of 2017 and a
maintenance plan end year of 2026, show that future emissions of
NOX, VOCs, ammonia, and direct PM2.5 will remain
at or below the 2011 attainment-level emissions for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Sulfur dioxide levels are projected to increase
slightly (5 tpy) between 2011 and 2026; however, this projected
increase above the 2011 inventory is partially due to Washington's
conservative estimation methodology using historical 10-year maximum
emission levels in projecting the future point source inventory.
Considering the relatively minor influence of secondary formation in
the Tacoma airshed, the EPA does not believe the 5 tpy increase in
SO2 projected in the future year inventories would
significantly impact maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS should
these conservative estimates (i.e. likely overestimating future
emissions) prove correct.
    Similarly, Ecology uses a conservative estimation methodology
throughout the projected inventories, opting to forego taking credit
for future emission reductions that are not known with relative
certainty. For example, Washington did not incorporate into the 2017
and 2026 emissions inventories reductions that could come about from

the more stringent federal emissions standards in the proposed New
Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters (79 FR 6330,
February 3, 2014). Given the dominance of residential wood smoke in the
PM2.5 emissions inventory, finalization of this EPA rule
could have a large impact on reducing future emissions. Washington's
projections also do not incorporate PM2.5 reductions from
likely increased participation in PSCAA's voluntary change-out program
in anticipation of the ban on uncertified wood stoves in the Tacoma
area after September 2015. Lastly, because the wood stove curtailment
program is only in effect during a handful of days when inversion
conditions exist, these reductions are also not captured in the annual
or ``typical winter day'' inventories shown in Tables 1 and 2. The EPA
has reviewed the documentation provided by Washington for developing
the 2017 and 2026 emissions inventories for the Tacoma area. Based on
our review, the EPA is proposing to determine that the inventories are
reasonable and approvable. The EPA is also proposing to determine that
the projected emissions inventories show that the Tacoma area will
continue to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard during
the maintenance period.
3. Monitoring Network
    There are three PM2.5 monitors in the Tacoma area.
Washington's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue to
operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Ecology will consult with the EPA prior to making any necessary
changes to the PM2.5 monitoring network and will continue to
quality assure the monitoring data in accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Washington will acquire ambient monitoring and source emission data
to track attainment and maintenance. Washington will also track the
progress of the maintenance demonstration by periodically updating the
emissions inventory as required by the Annual Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements Rule (AERR), or as required by federal regulation during
the maintenance plan period. This includes developing annual
inventories for major point sources and a comprehensive periodic
inventory covering all source categories every three years. Tracking
will include the evaluation of annual and periodic evaluations for any
significant emission increases above the 2011 attainment year levels.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to prevent or promptly
correct a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that
occurs in the area after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as
the EPA deems necessary to ensure that Washington will promptly correct
a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in
the area after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the
events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a
contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be
adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by
which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Washington's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur. Washington's contingency measures
include a warning level response and an action level response. An
initial warning level response is triggered for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS when the 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentration for a single calendar year reaches 35.5
[mu]g/m\3\ or greater within the area. An action level response will be
prompted by any one of the following: (1) A two year average of the
98th percentile reaches 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater within the area; or
(2) a violation of the standard occurs in the area (i.e. a three-year
average of the 98th percentile reaches 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater).
    In order to select appropriate corrective measures for warning or
action level triggers, PSCAA will conduct a study to determine the
cause of exceeding the trigger levels and the control measures
necessary to mitigate the problem. The study will evaluate whether the
trend, if any, is likely to continue and if so, the control measures
necessary to reverse the trend taking into consideration ease and
timing for implementation as well as economic and social
considerations. Based on the results of the analysis, contingency
measures will be selected. However, if a new measure is already
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the federal or state
level at such time after the exceedance, and that measure or control is
determined to be sufficient to address the upward trend in air quality,
additional local measures may be unnecessary. PSCAA will submit to the
EPA an analysis to demonstrate the proposed measures are adequate to
return the area to attainment.
    Should a warning level response be triggered, measures that can be
implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place
within 18 months from the determination of a warning level event based
on quality assured data. Should an action level response be triggered,
implementation of necessary control measures will take place as
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 18 months after
PSCAA makes a determination, based on quality-assured ambient data,
that an action level trigger has been exceeded. Adoption of additional
control measures is subject to necessary administrative and legal
processes.
    Washington has identified the following potential contingency
measures for the maintenance plan.
     Measures to address emissions from residential wood
combustion (e.g. emissions from fireplaces under the existing authority
granted in Revised Code of Washington 70.94.477). Residential wood
combustion represents the largest emissions inventory source category
at 76% of direct PM2.5 emissions.
     Additional measures to address other PM2.5
sources identified in the emissions inventory such as onroad vehicles,
nonroad vehicles and engines, industrial sources, and dust. These
source categories represent 7%, 4%, 4%, and 6%, respectively, of the
current emissions inventory.
6. The EPA's Evaluation of VOC and Ammonia Precursors in Washington's
Maintenance Plan
    With regard to the redesignation of the Tacoma area in evaluating
the effect of the Court's remand of the EPA's 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, which included presumptions against consideration
of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, the EPA in this
proposed rulemaking action is also considering the impact of the
decision on the maintenance plan required under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, the EPA notes that the area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that Washington
has shown that attainment of the standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
    The EPA proposes to determine that the Washington maintenance plan
shows continued maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
by tracking the levels of direct PM2.5 and associated
precursors which brought about attainment of the standard in the

Tacoma area. The EPA, therefore, believes that the only additional
consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results
from the NRDC decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC
and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. Based
upon emission inventory documentation provided by Washington and
supporting information, the EPA believes that the maintenance plan for
the Tacoma area need not include any additional local control measures
for VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    First, VOC emission levels in the Tacoma area have historically
been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to ozone and other
pollutants. Second, total ammonia emissions throughout the Tacoma area
are low, especially in comparison to the total amounts of
SO2, NOX, and direct PM2.5 emissions
from sources in the area. Emissions inventories for 2017 and 2026 show
that VOC and ammonia emissions are projected to decrease by 1,754 tpy
and 49 tpy, respectively, between 2011 and 2026. See Tables 5 and 6.
Given that the Tacoma area is already attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of emissions from
sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions inventories would
be consistent with continued attainment. Thus, the EPA believes that
there is ample justification to conclude that the Tacoma area should be
redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of other
precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. After
consideration of the D.C. Circuit's NRDC decision, and for the reasons
set forth in this rulemaking action, the EPA proposes to approve
Washington's maintenance plan and request to redesignate the Tacoma
area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA,
and the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP)
conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing
that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit
systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.
    On November 3, 2014, Washington submitted a SIP revision that
contains the PM2.5 and NOX on-road mobile source
budgets. In a separate and concurrent process, the EPA is conducting a
process to find adequate the MVEBs which are associated with the
Washington maintenance plan for the Tacoma area. Concurrently with the
EPA's proposal to approve the SIP, a notice will be posted on the EPA's
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose of opening a 30-day public comment period
on the adequacy of the MVEBs in the maintenance plan for the Tacoma
area. That notice will inform the public of the availability of the
Washington SIP revision on Ecology's Web site. Interested members of
the public can access Washington's November 3, 2014 SIP revision on
line at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0808.
Following the EPA's public comment period, responses to any comments
received will be addressed. The EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and found
them consistent with the maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the
criteria for adequacy and approval. Additional information pertaining
to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the technical support
document (TSD) in this docket titled Adequacy Findings for the Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Tacoma, WA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area.

VI. Proposed Actions

    The EPA is proposing to redesignate the Tacoma area, including
tribal trust and non-trust lands, from nonattainment to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\12\ The EPA has evaluated the
technical analyses, emissions inventories, and motor vehicle emission
budgets covering the entire nonattainment area. We have determined that
the Tacoma area meets the criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. The EPA believes that the monitoring data demonstrate that the
Tacoma area is attaining and will continue to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the Tacoma area as a revision to the
Washington SIP because it meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
For transportation conformity purposes, the EPA is also proposing to
approve MVEBs for the Tacoma area. Final approval of the redesignation
request would change the official designation of the Tacoma area for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81, from
nonattainment to attainment, and would incorporate into the Washington
SIP the associated maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area for the next 10
years, until 2026. This proposed action was reached after offering
consultation to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The EPA did not receive
a request for consultation. The EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Control measures on tribal trust land will continue to be
regulated pursuant to 40 CFR part 49, which includes the Federal
Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations
in Idaho, Oregon and Washington (70 FR 18074, April 8, 2005) and
Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country (76 FR
38748, July 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except for as specifically noted below and is also not
approved to apply in any other area in Washington where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country where the SIP does not apply, the rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Washington's SIP is
approved to apply to non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of
the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area.
Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C.
1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873
Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated
September 8, 2014. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

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

    Dated: November 14, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-28150 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P