[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78311-78315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30878]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket : EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713; FRL-9904-63-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited
Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of
Washington, dated November 25, 2013, for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma
maintenance areas for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). A
limited maintenance plan is used to meet Clean Air Act requirements for
formerly designated nonattainment areas with little risk of violating
the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(PM10 NAAQS) again. All three areas currently have monitored
PM10 levels that are roughly one-third of the
PM10 NAAQS, with steady declines in PM10 levels
since the areas were first identified as potentially violating the
PM10 NAAQS in 1987.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0713, 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 protected].
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-
2013-0713. 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 (206) 553-0256,
[email protected], 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. This Action
II. Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
B. Conformity under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
[[Page 78312]]
V. Review of the State's Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that the maintenance areas qualify
for the limited maintenance plan option?
B. Does the State have an approved attainment Emissions
Inventory?
C. Does the Limited Maintenance Plan Include an assurance of
continued operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality
monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for
contingency provisions?
E. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. This Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan
submitted by the State of Washington (Washington or the State), dated
November 25, 2013, for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10
maintenance areas, including approval of a monitoring system
modification for the area. If finalized, the EPA's approval of this
limited maintenance plan will satisfy the section 175A Clean Air Act
requirements for all three areas, including the portion of the Puyallup
Indian Reservation that falls within the Tacoma PM10
maintenance area.
II. Background
On August 7, 1987, the EPA identified portions of Kent, Seattle,
and Tacoma as ``Group I'' areas of concern for having a greater than
95% probability of violating the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS (52 FR
29383). On November 15, 1990, the Group I areas of Kent, Seattle, and
Tacoma were designated as nonattainment for PM10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Puget Sound Clean
Air Agency (PSCAA) worked with the communities to establish
PM10 pollution control strategies. Primary control
strategies for the three areas included a residential wood smoke
control program, a fugitive dust program, a prohibition on open
burning, and industrial emission controls. These control measures were
highly successful with monitoring data showing Kent, Seattle, and
Tacoma meeting the PM10 NAAQS since 1987, 1990, and 1989,
respectively, with continuing declines in PM10 levels ever
since.
The EPA fully approved the PM10 attainment plans for
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma on July 27, 1993, October 26, 1995, and
October 25, 1995, respectively (58 FR 40059, 60 FR 54812, and 60 FR
54599). The EPA then approved a 10-year maintenance plan redesignating
all three areas from nonattainment to attainment, making them
maintenance areas effective May 14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, published March
13, 2001). The purpose of the current limited maintenance plan is to
fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement, section 175A(b) of the
Clean Air Act, to ensure compliance through 2020.
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires that each State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision offer a reasonable opportunity for
notice and public hearing. The State provided notice and an opportunity
for public comment beginning September 27, 2013, and ending November 4,
2013. Under the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the State held a
public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on October 30, 2013 in the Mill Creek Room
of the Kent Commons, 525 Fourth Avenue N, Kent, Washington. Two sets of
comments were received. The first comment discussed the burning of coal
in Asia generally, and requested stronger action to address
international pollution. The second comment requested that Ecology
expand the Kent maintenance area boundary and consider more stringent
control measure in the future. The EPA reviewed both sets of comments
and determined that Ecology's responses were appropriate and adequate.
This SIP revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was
received by the EPA on November 29, 2013. The EPA evaluated Ecology's
submittal and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2).
IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas. See memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (limited
maintenance plan option memo). The limited maintenance plan option memo
contains a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air
quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the
standard ten years into the future. Thus, the EPA provided the
maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in
the memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these
areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation
conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
To qualify for the limited maintenance plan option the State must
demonstrate the area meets the criteria described below. First, the
area should have attained the PM10 NAAQS. Second, the most
recent five years of air quality data at all monitors in the area,
called the 24-hour average design value, should be at or below 98
[micro]g/m\3\. Third, the State should expect only limited growth in
on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive
dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test. Lastly, the memo identifies core provisions that must be
included in all limited maintenance plans. These provisions include an
attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation
of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency
provisions.
B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms
to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from
the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the
area.
While qualification for the limited maintenance plan option does
not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may
be demonstrated without submitting an emissions budget. Under the
limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the
PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity
purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas need not
be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions
analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to
the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget
test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that
the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.
[[Page 78313]]
V. Review of the State's Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that the maintenance areas qualify for
the limited maintenance plan option?
As discussed above, the limited maintenance plan option memo
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify. First, the area
should be attaining the PM10 NAAQS. Monitoring data shows
that all three areas attained the PM10 NAAQS by 1990, with
declining levels of PM10 ever since. The EPA formally
redesignated the areas from nonattainment to attainment, making them
maintenance areas effective May 14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, published March
13, 2001).
Second, the average design value for the past five years of
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The critical
design value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The design values for Kent,
Seattle, and Tacoma based on 24-hour PM10 monitoring data
from 2003 through 2007 are 57 3 [mu]g/m\3\, 68 4 [mu]g/m\3\, and 72 9 [mu]g/m\3\. As discussed
later in this proposal, in these three areas PM10 levels can
be estimated with a high degree of accuracy using fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) concentrations. In 2007, the EPA approved the
State's request to shift from PM10 specific monitoring in
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma to rely on the more stringent and
environmentally relevant PM2.5 NAAQS monitoring effort.
PM10 design values estimated using PM2.5
concentration levels from 2008 to 2012 are 46 3 [mu]g/
m\3\, 50 5 [mu]g/m\3\, and 58 8 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. The EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by the
State and finds that all three areas meet the design value criteria of
98 [micro]g/m\3\ outlined in the limited maintenance plan option memo.
Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test described in Attachment B of the limited maintenance plan
option memo. The State submitted an analysis showing that growth in on-
road mobile PM10 emissions sources was minimal and would not
threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the limited
maintenance plan policy. Using the EPA's methodology, the State
calculated total growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10
emissions over the ten-year period for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma of 1.5
[micro]g/m\3\, 2.7 [micro]g/m\3\, and 2.9 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively.
This calculation is derived using Attachment B of the EPA's limited
maintenance plan memo, where the projected percentage increase in
vehicle miles traveled over the next ten years (VMTpi) is
multipled by the on-road mobile portion of the attainment year
inventory (DVmv), including both primary and secondary
PM10 emissions and re-entrained road dust. The EPA reviewed
the calculations in the State's limited maintenance plan submittal and
concurs with the determination that all three areas meet the motor
vehicle regional emissions analysis test. This test is met when
(VMTpi x DVmv) plus the design value for the most
recent five years of quality assured data is below the limited
maintenance plan threshold of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. The results for Kent,
Seattle, and Tacoma were 61.5 [micro]g/m\3\, 74.7 [micro]g/m\3\, and
83.9 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively. Please see Appendix A of the State's
submission for the full analysis.
Lastly, the limited maintenance plan option memo requires all
controls relied on to demonstrate attainment remain in place for the
areas to qualify. The EPA confirmed that the underlying control
measures for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma remain in place, thus qualifying
for the limited maintenance plan option.
As described above, the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance areas
meet the qualification criteria set forth in the limited maintenance
plan option memo. Under the limited maintenance plan option, the State
will be expected to determine on an annual basis that the criteria are
still being met. If the State determines that the limited maintenance
plan criteria are not being met, it should take action to reduce
PM10 concentrations enough to requalify. One possible
approach the State could take is to implement contingency measures.
Section V. I. provides a description of contingency provisions
submitted as part of the limited maintenance plan submittal. To ensure
this requirement is met, the State commits to reporting to the EPA on
continued qualification for the limited maintenance plan option in the
annual monitoring network report.
B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory?
Pursuant to the limited maintenance plan option memo, the State's
submission should include an emissions inventory which can be used to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability
requirements of the limited maintenance plan option.
The limited maintenance plan submittal includes an emissions
inventory based on the State's draft 2011 Triennial Emissions
Inventory. This inventory is prepared as part of the 2011 National
Emissions Inventory under the EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73 FR
76539, December 17, 2008). The information was supplemented with annual
2011 industrial emissions reported to PSCAA and Ecology. The 2011 base
years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available and
is consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the
limited maintenance plan option (i.e., having no violations of the
PM10 NAAQS). The emissions inventory focused on seven
significant source categories chosen based on a review of the original
maintenance plan. The 2011 emission categories are shown along with
source categories from the original maintenance plan in parentheses.
These categories are: On-road mobile (gasoline exhaust); port and
marine, on-road mobile (diesel exhaust); port and marine (ships);
locomotives, including fugitive dust (locomotives); residential wood
combustion (wood burning); paved road dust, unpaved road dust (road
dust); and industrial (allowable industrial). Other source categories,
including outdoor burning, construction dust, aircraft emissions,
wildfires, cigarette smoke, commercial charbroiling, and secondary
particulate matter, are insignificant. The EPA reviewed and is
proposing to approve the emissions inventory and methodology. The
emissions inventory data supports the State's conclusion that the
existing control measures in place will continue to protect and
maintain the PM10 NAAQS.
C. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of continued
operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
PM10 monitoring was established in the Kent, Seattle,
and Tacoma areas between 1985 and 1987, with many changes to the
monitoring technology and requirements since. Beginning in 1999, the
State collocated PM2.5 monitors with the existing
PM10 Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors to establish
correlation data and confirm that PM10 levels could be
accurately predicted using PM2.5 concentrations for the
areas. Due to the high level of correlation between the
PM2.5 and PM10 monitors, the State requested
discontinuing the PM10 specific monitors as part of the 2007
annual network monitoring report under 40 CFR part 58. The EPA approved
this request in a letter dated November 16, 2007, included in the
docket for this action.
[[Page 78314]]
A full description of the correlation data and the estimation model
is included in the limited maintenance plan submittal. The EPA is
proposing to approve this monitoring system modification, using
PM2.5 monitoring data to estimate PM10
concentrations, under 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the second 10-year
maintenance plan period. This estimation method is a reproducible
approach to representing air quality in all three maintenance areas,
and all three areas continue to meet the applicable Appendix D
requirements evaluated as part of the annual network approval process.
As detailed in the limited maintenance plan, the State will calculate
the PM10 design value estimate annually from
PM2.5 monitoring data through 2020 to confirm the area
continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. The State also makes a
commitment to continue operation of PM2.5 monitoring in the
three maintenance areas through the 2020, the end of the maintenance
period, to determine PM10 levels. In the unlikely event that
after exceptional events are taken into account, the calculated design
value for PM10 exceeds the limited maintenance plan
threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\, the State will re-establish PM10
monitoring.
D. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for contingency
provisions?
Clean Air Act section 175A states that a maintenance plan must
include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt
correction of any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after
redesignation of the area to attainment. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's
Regulation I--Article 13.07(b) provides for prohibition of the use of
uncertified woodstoves for the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air Act
requirements for contingency measures. The EPA approved Article
13.07(b) as a contingency measure for all three areas on March 13, 2001
(66 FR 14492). Regulation I--Article 13.07(b) remains in effect today
and the entire Article 13 was re-approved by the EPA on May 29, 2013
(78 FR 32131).
E. Has the State met conformity requirements?
(1) Transportation Conformity
Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would
result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
(a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
(b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
(c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
(d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
(e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
(f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
(g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
Upon approval of the limited maintenance plan for the Kent,
Seattle, and Tacoma areas, the three PM10 maintenance areas
are exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet
project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation
conformity criteria mentioned above.
(2) General Conformity
For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement
can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and
documented by the state agency primarily responsible for the applicable
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions
budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
The decision about whether to include specific allocations of
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state air
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than those used
in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to
specified levels. The State has not chosen to include specific
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the
provisions of general conformity.
VI. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan
submitted by the State of Washington, dated November 25, 2013, for the
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 maintenance areas, including
approval of a monitoring system modification for the area. If
finalized, the EPA's approval of this limited maintenance plan will
satisfy the section 175A Clean Air Act requirements for all three
areas, including the portion of the Puyallup Indian Reservation that
falls within the Tacoma PM10 maintenance area.
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
[[Page 78315]]
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to 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).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, except for 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 and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter
dated October 18, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for
consultation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 12, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-30878 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P