# 40 CFR Part 52

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-15260

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** June 23, 1994

## Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WA3-1-5479a; FRL-4997-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
conditionally approves the State implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Washington for the purpose of bringing about
attainment of the National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted
by the State to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements for
an approvable moderate nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Seattle,
Washington due on November 15, 1991.
DATES: This final rule will be effective on August 22, 1994, unless
adverse or critical comments are received by July 25, 1994. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, EPA, Air Programs Branch (AT-082), 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Copies of
material submitted to EPA may be examined during normal business hours
at the following locations: EPA, Air Programs Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue
(AT-082), Seattle, Washington 98101, and the State of Washington
Department of Ecology, 4450 Third Ave. SE., Lacey, Washington 98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Lauderdale, Air Programs Branch
(AT-082), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-
6511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Seattle, Washington, area was designated nonattainment for PM-
10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of
the Clean Air Act, by operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991) (official
designation codified at 40 CFR 81.348). The air quality planning
requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act.2 The EPA has
issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how
EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted under title I
of the Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM-10
nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing
its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer
to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the
interpretations of title I advanced in thisproposal and the supporting
rationale. In this rulemaking action on the Washington moderate PM-10
SIP for the Seattle nonattainment area, EPA applies its
interpretations, taking into consideration the specific factual issues
presented. Additional information supporting EPA's action on this
particular area is available for inspection at the address indicated
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
\2\Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, subpart 1 and
subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
(those areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)(B)) were
required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by
November 15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act.

Some provisions are due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such
States also were to submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993,
which become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon
a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (see
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544).

II. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). Section 110(k)(4) of
the Act authorizes EPA to approve a plan revision based on a commitment
by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain,
but not later than one year after the date of approval of the plan
revision. EPA would then assess the approvability of the submittal
after the State fulfilled its commitment. However, if the State fails
to comply with its commitment, section 110(k)(4) provides that a
conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval. The conditional
approval would become a disapproval upon notification of the State by
letter. EPA would subsequently publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing such action. If the conditional approval is
converted to a disapproval, the sanctions clock under section 179(a) of
the Act and the Federal implementation plan clock under section
110(c)(1) of the Act will begin.
In this action, EPA is granting conditional approval of the plan
revisions submitted to EPA for Seattle, Washington, on November 5,
1990, December 27, 1990, November 15, 1991, and May 11, 1994 (hereafter
generally referred to as a single submittal). EPA conditionally
approves the submittal because it meets many of the applicable
requirements of the Act and contains a commitment from the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures on or before January 1, 1995, to
address remaining applicable requirements of the Act. EPA approves the
exclusion from precursor controls as described in part II. 5 below. In
addition, EPA approves certain control measures contained in the
Seattle plan submittals which generally strengthen the plan.

Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete
and therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1992). The EPA
attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of
receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by
operation of law if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six
months after receipt of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan provisions
for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of section
110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State of Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) held a joint public hearing
to receive public comment on the original Seattle implementation plan
on December 8, 1988. WDOE adopted the implementation plan for the area
on November 3, 1990 and the plan was submitted to EPA on November 5,
1990. The plan was subsequently revised on December 27, 1990, November
15, 1991, and May 11, 1994. WDOE held appropriate public hearings prior
to submittal of each of the SIP revisions to entertain public comment.
The SIP submittal was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness in
accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. A letter dated February 13, 1992, was forwarded to the WDOE
indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be
taken in the review process.
2. PM-10 Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. Because the submission of the emissions inventory
is a necessary adjunct to an area's attainment demonstration (or
demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain) the emissions
inventory must be received with the demonstration (see 57 FR 13539).
WDOE submitted an emissions inventory of estimated actual emissions
for the base year of 1986 and the attainment year of 1991. The annual
and 24-hour emission inventories identified four major source
categories contributing to particulate matter concentrations in the
valley. These are, in descending order of greatest contribution,
vehicle resuspended dust (48%); industrial stack emissions (30%), motor
vehicle emissions (9%) and industrial fugitive emissions (7%).
Residential wood combustion is a relatively smaller source of PM-10
within the nonattainment area boundaries. However, the plan does
include control measures for residential wood combustion because there
is a large population of woodstoves and fireplaces adjacent to the
nonattainment area, and throughout the metropolitan area. WDOE has
determined all other sources to be insignificant within the
nonattainment area.
The emissions inventory estimating actual emissions generally
appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a sufficient
basis for determining the technical adequacy of the attainment
demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of section
172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act.4 An important attainment year
emission inventory issue, relating to the attainment demonstration, and
other requirements, is the use of actual instead of allowable emission
estimates for projecting attainment. This issue will be discussed in
detail under the demonstration section of this document. For further
information the reader is referred to the Technical Support Document
(TSD) corresponding with this action, which is available at the EPA
address indicated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
The Seattle emission inventory identified industrial fugitive
emissions and resuspended road dust as the significant contributors of
fugitive dust emissions. PSAPCA's fugitive dust regulation (Regulation
I, section 9.15) was designed to reduce fugitive dust from commercial
and industrial activities and also to reduce dust emissions from paved
and unpaved roads and parking lots.
PSAPCA requires ``Best Available Control Technology (BACT)'' under
section 9.15 for all fugitive emissions from all incinerators, boilers,
manufacturing equipment and air pollution control equipment. The
Seattle attainment plan lists and documents emission reductions from
several major facilities that were required to add PM-10 controls as
the result of PSAPCA's application of section 9.15. EPA accepts the
emission reductions claimed from this control measure as reasonable.
Since it is generally impractical to source test fugitive emission
sources, a SIP must rely on calculated emission estimates, and control
efficiency estimates, to arrive at emission reduction estimates.
PSAPCA applies the same section 9.15 BACT provisions to dust
emissions from both private and public paved and unpaved roads. In
addition, all private roadways adjoining paved public roads and all
commercial properties with access points abutting paved public roads in
the Seattle nonattainment area are required to implement BACT to
stabilize vehicular entrances and exits. The control measure
appropriately prioritized preventing material deposition over
mitigating measures after deposition. The plan uses an overall emission
reduction credit of 37% from resuspended road dust. EPA accepts this
estimate as reasonable.
Another source of PM-10 pollution is residential wood combustion.
PSAPCA initiated a voluntary woodsmoke curtailment program throughout
its four county jurisdictional area, including Seattle, in the winter
of 1987-88. The program changed to mandatory curtailment beginning with
the 1988-89 heating season, pursuant to WAC 173-433 and the PSAPCA
Regulation I, Article 13. The curtailment program is a two stage plan.
At Stage I, which is imposed when ambient PM-10 levels reach 75
g/m3, the use of uncertified stoves and fireplaces are
banned. At Stage II, imposed when PM-10 levels reach 105 g/
m3, all wood heating (fireplaces, certified and uncertified
woodstoves) is prohibited. The program exempts homes with no other
source of heat. WDOE and PSAPCA regulations contain additional
controls, including the prohibition of all fuels except dry, seasoned
wood in woodheating devices. Plume opacity for woodheating devices is
limited to 20%, with brief allowances for fire starting and stoking.
PSAPCA serves as the primary enforcement agency for the curtailment and
opacity portions of the control program. Both PSAPCA and WDOE
administer public education programs targeted at residential wood
burning. Throughout the State, WDOE also enforces a ban on the sale of
uncertified woodstoves.
The strength and depth of the legislated woodsmoke program, and the
size and historical effectiveness of the agencies involved,
demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the Seattle area is achieving a
sufficient compliance rate to justify the 70% emission reduction
credit. In addition, Ecology expects the implementation of part of the
King County Board of Health (KCBH) Regulation 70 (Title 16 of the Code
of the King County Board of Health) to further reduce daily woodstove
emissions; this will assist in maintaining the standard through 1994.
The KCBH requirement that uncertified woodstoves be removed on sale of
a home is estimated to reduce background particulates and result in a
36 kg/day reduction in the nonattainment area. EPA accepts this
estimate as reasonable and notes that Ecology did not seek credit for
several other control measures contained in the King County regulation
which could reasonably be expected to result in additional PM-10
emission reductions. A more detailed analysis of the Washington
woodsmoke curtailment plan and other residential wood combustion
measures is contained in the TSD.
The attainment plan contains a control measure directed at
prescribed burning even though the emission inventory for the
nonattainment area does not indicate prescribed burning as a major
source. The 1991 Clean Air Washington Act added additional restrictions
to general outdoor and prescribed burning in the Seattle nonattainment
area. In response to the new provision of the Act, PSAPCA banned all
outdoor burning in the Federal Aid Urban Area (much larger than the
nonattainment area) effective September 1, 1992. This strengthened
PSAPCA's previous regulation restricting open burning by expanding the
area covered. The November 15, 1991, submittal contains a 24 kg/day
emission credit that reduces the background concentrations for the
Seattle nonattainment area. EPA considers the estimation reasonable and
approves the reduction credit.
Ecology proposed in the November 15, 1991, submittal an emission
reduction credit of 85 kg/day for implementation of a Washington State
law requiring major employers to reduce single occupant vehicle
commuting by 15 percent by January 1, 1995. Inthe April 1992
supplement, Ecology revised the emission estimate to 14 kg/day based on
more recent data.
EPA approves the 14 kg/day credit for the control measure as a
reasonable estimate of the impact of the law. This technical conclusion
is based on the information provided in the April 1992 ``Supplement
Addendum.'' EPA has information that the law is being implemented in
the Seattle nonattainment area. Ecology submitted RWC 70.94, 521-551,
authorizing a Transportation Demand Management program, on November 13,
1992 as part of a carbon monoxide SIP revision. EPA approves the
measure as part of the Seattle PM-10 attainment plan.
Ecology began implementing a new program on July 1, 1993, to
inspect diesel fueled vehicles. The program includes a simple pass/fail
opacity test. The November 15, 1991, SIP submittal estimates an
emission reduction of 47 kg/day from implementation of the program. In
the April 1992 supplement, based on more recent data, the estimate was
revised to 50 kg/day. EPA approves the 50 kg/day emission reduction
credit as reasonable. The measure was submitted as a ``contingency
measure'' in the November 15, 1991, SIP revision. The measure is more
appropriately a control measure because it is relied on to maintain air
quality below the standards through 1994. The April 1992 supplement
from Ecology agrees with this view. The regulation was submitted with a
1992 carbon monoxide SIP revision and EPA proposes to approve those
portions of the regulation which apply to the diesel inspection and
maintenance program.
The November 15, 1991, SIP submittal contained emission reduction
credits from the implementation of the Federal requirement reducing
sulfur content in diesel fuel. The credit taken by Ecology is the same
as the credit estimated by EPA, 7.5%. This credit translates to
emission reductions of 19 kg/day. EPA accepts this credit as a
reasonable estimate of emission reductions from the implementation of
the Federal requirement. As with the diesel I/M program, the control
measure was originally submitted as a ``contingency measure,'' when the
measure is really an additional control measure necessary to maintain
the standards through 1994. Since the measure is federally required,
Ecology does not need to include another legally enforceable regulation
in the SIP.
The stack emissions in the Seattle nonattainment area were being
controlled prior to the development of the PM-10 plan to a degree
PSAPCA and Ecology consider reasonably available control technology.
PSAPCA did review and modify several regulations to generally
strengthen control of stack sources but did not request any additional
emission reduction credit. In 1988, additional wording was added to
PSAPCA regulations to emphasize operation and maintenance of control
equipment and several emission standards were strengthened. Control
equipment for stack sources in the Seattle area include traditional
electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, etc. There are 10 stack sources
in the Seattle area that were included in the emission inventory. The
sources ranged in size from 119 tons per year (controlled) to two tons
per year (controlled). The plan requests no emission reduction credit
from any additional control of stack emissions. EPA accepts this
determination.
Where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to the PM-10
problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable (and
would not constitute RACM) to require the implementation of potentially
available control measures. 57 FR 13540. Further, EPA has indicated
that for some sources in areas which demonstrate attainment, RACM does
not require the implementation of otherwise available control measures
that are not ``reasonably'' available because their implementation
would not expedite attainment (See 57 FR 13543). In the Seattle
situation, EPA believes the significant sources, as well as several
less significant sources, of PM-10 in the area have been reasonably
controlled. Thus, EPA believes it would be unreasonable to require
other de minimis sources of PM-10 in the area to implement potentially
available control measures or technology. Further, EPA believes
implementation of such additional controls in this area would not
expedite attainment.
A more detailed discussion of the individual source contributions,
their associated control measures and an explanation as to why certain
available control measures were not implemented, can be found in the
TSD. EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated
documentation and concludes that it adequately justifies the control
measures to be implemented. As addressed in more detail in part II.4.
below, not all of the emission reductions necessary to assure
expeditious attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS have been converted to
enforceable emission limitations. Thus, EPA is approving all control
measures for their general SIP strengthening effect. The only exception
is that EPA conditionally approves the emission estimates used for the
stack sources. Ecology will submit to EPA by January 1, 1995, legally
enforceable emission limits for the significant stack sources in
Seattle. This conditional approval is discussed further in the section
below.
4. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994, (see section 189(a)(1)(B) of the
Act). The General Preamble sets out EPA's guidance on the use of
modeling for moderate area attainment demonstrations (57 FR 13539).
Alternatively, if the State does not submit a demonstration of
attainment, the State must show that attainment by December 31, 1994 is
impracticable (section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii).
PSAPCA in conjunction with WDOE conducted an attainment
demonstration in the Seattle, Washington, nonattainment area. The
dispersion modeling conducted employed WYNDvalley in combination with
RAM. WYNDvalley is a non-guideline dispersion model that the EPA
Regional Meteorologist approved for use in Seattle due to very low wind
speeds occurring during periods of historical exceedances. RAM, which
is a guideline model, was used to model emissions from stack sources,
while WYNDvalley was used for all other sources. Outputs from both
models were then combined for each grid cell to yield a cumulative
impact estimate.
PSAPCA employed this combination of models because RAM is believed
to more accurately represent dispersion patterns at the greater release
heights of the valley's industrial stacks, though its predictions of
ambient concentrations are less reliable during periods of air
stagnation. WYNDvalley, on the other hand, was designed for use in
stagnant conditions, but fails to predict the impact of those emissions
that may rise above the height of the inversion layer. Receptor
modeling was not used in the attainment demonstration.
A major problem with the attainment demonstration is the attainment
year emission inventory used for point (stack) sources. The inventory
was based on actual emission estimates. EPA's Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised, July 1986) generally requires use of allowable
emissions in inventories for the purposes of modeling attainment of the
NAAQS (see also section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act). The requirement takes
into consideration possible increases from existing sources allowed by
their permits, registrations, or other regulatory mechanisms. Ecology
and PSAPCA, based on comments from EPA, were not able to demonstrate
that all point source emissions in the nonattainment area would be
unable to increase significantly above actual levels. Consequently,
there is no objective assurance, or legally enforceable mechanism in
place, to restrict a point source from emitting above the estimated
actual rate, should the source have the physical capacity. Therefore,
the current SIP cannot assure that the NAAQS will be protected in the
Seattle nonattainment area. Although Seattle has accumulated five years
of data with no exceedances of the NAAQS, there are no legal limits in
place to prevent future increases from a few industrial facilities that
could consequently threaten attainment of the NAAQS. Ecology submitted
on May 11, 1994, a request for conditional approval of the Seattle
nonattainment plan based on a commitment to reconcile the actual/
allowable issue. Ecology's commitment is based on PSAPCA's schedule to
issue regulatory orders to appropriate point sources within the
nonattainment area that will restrict emissions at or below the
``actual'' emission estimates used in the attainment demonstration.
The November 15, 1991, SIP revision contained a three year
maintenance demonstration that was based on an outdated emission
inventory. After EPA notified Ecology of this error, supplemental
information was submitted on April 29, 1992. The April 1992,
``Supplemental Addendum'', although not a formal SIP revision, provides
a replacement three year maintenance demonstration, which includes the
expected growth in emissions from 1991 to 1994, and describes the
control measures that Ecology expects will offset the increased
emissions.
Technical analysis provided in both the November 1991, and April
1992, submittals utilized proportional modeling to perform the air
quality modeling to demonstrate maintenance to the year 1994. In the
Seattle situation, Ecology used dispersion modeling for the attainment
demonstration and proportional modeling for the maintenance
demonstration. While recognizing that dispersion modeling would have
been the preferred method to provide evidence that the PM-10 standards
would be maintained for a three year period after attainment, EPA
accepts the proportional modeling demonstration of maintenance. The
Region considered actual monitoring data for the projected attainment
year (1991) and the two subsequent years (1992 and 1993). Neither the
24 hour nor annual PM-10 standard were exceeded in any of those three
years. In addition, the standards were not exceeded in 1989 or 1990. In
1988 one exceedance was recorded at one of the three monitoring sites
in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect
that the proportional modeling is adequate to predict the three year
maintenance demonstration in the Seattle situation.
The existence of five years of daily PM-10 monitoring values
without any 24 hour or annual exceedances, through and beyond the
attainment plans 1991 attainment year, provides particularly convincing
evidence that both the attainment and the three year maintenance
modeling were reasonably accurate.
The technical modeling analysis described above confirmed that
attainment can be demonstrated in Seattle and could be maintained in
future years using actual emission estimates. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-
hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or
less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50
g/m3, and the standard is attained when the expected
annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50
g/m3 (id.). The demonstration predicted that the 24-hour
design concentration in the attainment year of 1991 will be below 150
g/m3, thus demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS. The highest 24-hour value in 1993 was 126 g/m3 .
Ambient data show that the area exceeded the annual standard only one
year, for the calendar year 1985 (54 g/m3). The value for
the 1991 annual average was 37 g/m3. Since no annual
NAAQS exceedances have been noted with the current emissions inventory
and since the inventory was modeled using appropriate dispersion
modeling to show attainment of the 24-hour NAAQS, no violations of the
annual NAAQS are likely. Nevertheless, WDOE prepared and submitted a
proportional modeling analysis which demonstrated that the annual
standard was, indeed, attained in 1991 and will be maintained until at
least 1994. Therefore, EPA believes that WDOE has adequately
demonstrated that the annual standard will be attained in the Seattle
nonattainment area, using actual emission estimates.
EPA conditionally approves the Seattle demonstration based on a
commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures on or
before January 1, 1995, that will convert certain actual source
emission to enforceable allowable emission limitations. The control
strategy used to achieve these design concentrations is summarized in
the section titled ``RACM (including RACT).'' For a more detailed
description of the attainment demonstration and the control strategy
used, see the TSD.
5. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10, also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance
addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e) (see 57 FR
13539-13540 and 13541-13542).
In 1985 a limited receptor modeling study was conducted in the
Seattle nonattainment area. The study had several technical problems
and was not used in the attainment/ maintenance demonstration. However,
the study did contain adequate information to determine the likelihood
of precursor problems in the area. The results of this study indicated
that sulfates contributed roughly 10 percent of the mass measured on
the PM-10 samples collected in the Seattle nonattainment area. Nitrate
impacts were much less. Consequently, EPA believes that stationary
sources of precursors provide an insignificant contribution to the
Seattle, Washington, ambient PM-10 concentration and EPA grants the
area an exclusion from PM-10 precursor control requirements authorized
under section 189(e) of the act. Note that while EPA is making a
general finding for this area, this finding is based on the current
character of the area including, for example, the existing mix of
sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth
could change the significance of precursors in the area. EPA intends to
issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in the
significance of precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three (3) years until the area is redesignated
attainment and which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1),
toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act).
Reasonable further progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by part D or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable
NAAQS by the applicable date.
In implementing RFP for this initial moderate area, EPA has
reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area
to determine whether annual incremental reductions, different from
those provided in the SIP, should be required in order to ensure
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section
171(1)). The State of Washington's PM-10 SIP for Seattle demonstrates
attainment in 1991 and maintenance through 1994, and therefore would
normally satisfy the initial quantitative milestone requirement (see 57
FR 13539). However, as mentioned previously, Ecology and PSAPCA based
attainment and maintenance demonstrations on actual emission estimates
instead of the required allowable rates. The State has committed to
adopt the necessary enforceable allowable emission limits by January 1,
1995. Accordingly, as with other requirements discussed elsewhere in
this document, EPA is conditionally approving the submittal relative to
the RFP and initial milestone requirements.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
WDOE and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556).
EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP revisions
were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with attachments) from
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al.
(see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain
a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures and
other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C)).
WDOE's control measures and regulations for control of Particulate
Matter, which are contained in the SIP, are addressed above under the
section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control measures apply
to the types of activities identified in that discussion including, for
example, fugitive emissions from point sources; vehicle resuspended
road dust; and residential wood combustion. The SIP provides that the
affected activities will be controlled throughout the entire
nonattainment area.
Consistent with the attainment demonstration described above, the
SIP requires that all the applicable SIP provisions must be implemented
by December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C). In addition to the
applicable control measures, this includes the applicable record-
keeping requirements which are addressed in the supporting technical
information.
The TSD contains further information on enforceability requirements
including enforceable emission limitations; a description of the rules
contained in the SIP and the source types subject to them; test methods
and compliance schedules; malfunction provisions; excess emission
provisions; correctly cited references of incorporated methods/rules;
and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The local air pollution
control agency, PSAPCA, has the primary responsibility for implementing
the measures in the plan. PSAPCA has many compliance inspectors and, as
discussed further in the TSD, EPA considers PSAPCA's staffing level
adequate to assure that the Seattle attainment plan is fully
implemented. As a necessary adjunct of its enforcement program, PSAPCA
also has broad powers to adopt rules and regulations, issue orders,
require access to records and information, and receive and disburse
funds. WDOE has adequate authority to implement and enforce the plan in
the event PSAPCA fails to make a good faith effort to implement the
regulations.
The residential wood combustion program, fugitive dust control
measures, the diesel inspection program, the transportation demand
management program, and the land clearing fire ban are enforceable.
Discussion and justification of EPA's reasoning can be found in the
control measure section of this document and the TSD.
However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, the use of actual
emission estimates rather than the significantly higher emission limits
allowed in the current PSAPCA regulations is unacceptable. EPA only
could enforce the allowable emissions that are currently contained in
the PSAPCA regulations. There are no mechanisms for EPA to enforce the
emission estimates used in the attainment demonstration because they
are well below the legal limits allowed in the PSAPCA regulations.
A discussion regarding the use of actual instead of allowable
emissions contained in the demonstration portion of this proposed
action provides background for the enforceability decision. The Region
recommends conditional approval of the Seattle attainment plan based on
the commitment contained in the May 11, 1994, submittal which will make
the emissions from point sources enforceable at or below the actual
emission levels used to demonstrate attainment and maintenance. EPA
will need additional technical documentation from Ecology if the
emission levels in the regulatory orders are greater than those used in
the attainment and three year maintenance demonstrations.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures (see generally 57 FR 13543-13544). These measures
must be submitted by November 15, 1993, for the initial moderate
nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other
available measures that are not part of the area's control strategy.
These measures must take effect without further action by the State or
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP
or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline.
The Seattle, Washington, plan contains several control measures
which Ecology originally considered contingency measures (November 15,
1991 SIP submittal). In a section referring to contingency measures,
Ecology describes, and ascribes emission reduction estimates to
measures to demonstrate maintenance through 1994. However, these
measures are being relied on to demonstrate maintenance and therefore
cannot be approved as meeting the contingency measure requirements of
section 172. Since the action proposed in this Federal Register
document is related to elements of the SIP due on November 15, 1991,
EPA will not otherwise address the contingency measure requirement at
this time.

III. Implications of This Action

EPA conditionally approves the plan revisions submitted to EPA for
the Seattle, Washington, nonattainment area on November 5, 1990;
December 27, 1990; November 15, 1991; and May 11, 1994. EPA approves
the control measures contained in the plan submissions because they
strengthen the plan by further limiting PM-10 emissions in the area.
EPA also grants an exclusion from precursor control requirements as
described in part II. 5 of this document. EPA will assess the
approvability of these submittals after the State fulfills its
commitment. If the State fails to comply with its commitment, the
conditional approval will become a disapproval.
As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas are due at dates after the November 15, 1991,
deadline. EPA will determine the adequacy of any such submittals as
appropriate and take action at a later date.

IV. Administrative Review

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2224), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of
these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for two years. The
EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and
Table 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver until
such time as it rules on EPA's request. This request continues in
effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order
12291 on September 30, 1993.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 22, 1994. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(2).
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. This action will be effective August 22, 1994,
unless adverse comments are received by July 25, 1994. If the EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule (please see short informational notice
published, simultaneously, in the proposal section of this Federal
Register).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. , 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: May 27, 1994.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart WW--Washington

2. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (47) to read
as follows:

Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(47) On November 5, 1990, December 27, 1990, November 15, 1991 and
May 11, 1994 the Director of WDOE submitted to EPA SIP revisions for
the purpose of bringing about attainment of the National ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The
implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy certain
Federal Clean Air Act requirements for an approvable moderate
nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Seattle, Washington.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letters dated November 5, 1990, December 27, 1990, November 13,
1991 and May 2, 1994, from WDOE to EPA submitting the revisions to the
SIP for the State of Washington.
(B) Revisions to the Washington SIP for the purpose of bringing
about attainment of the National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10):
(1) A Plan for Attaining and Maintaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for PM-10 in the Seattle Duwamish Valley, September
1989, adopted November 3, 1990;
(2) Resolution No. 639 (amendments to the PM-10 attainment and
maintenance strategy), adopted December 8, 1988;
(3) State Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter in the Seattle
Duwamish Valley, Supplement, dated November 199l, adopted November 14,
1991; and
(4) State Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter in the Seattle
Duwamish Valley, Supplement, dated January 1, 1994, adopted May 4,
1994.
[FR Doc. 94-15260 Filed 6-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-15260. Public record. Not legal advice.