Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10, 47259-47264 [2013-18843]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
section 182(f) of the Act in relation to
the 2008 8-hour ozone standards. The
exemption would apply throughout the
entire State of Maine. EPA is also
proposing to approve Maine’s February
11, 2013 request for a limited ‘‘opt-out’’
or ‘‘restructuring’’ of the section 182(f)
OTR requirements pertaining to VOC
nonattainment NSR permitting,
currently applicable in Maine only by
virtue of Maine’s location in the OTR,
not by virtue of Maine having any areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008
8-hour ozone standards. In addition,
EPA is proposing to approve Maine’s
request for the SIP revisions described
earlier in this notice.
If EPA takes final action to approve
Maine’s requests, including the SIP
revisions described above, the following
consequences would result. First, any
NOX RACT requirements that would
otherwise have been necessary in Maine
in relation to the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard would now not be required.
However, any NOX and/or VOC
requirements earlier approved into
Maine’s SIP to implement regional haze
requirements or requirements relating to
prior, pre-2008, ozone standards, will
remain in Maine’s SIP. Second,
nonattainment NSR permitting
requirements for major new or modified
stationary sources of NOX in Maine
would no longer apply anywhere in the
State. Third, the nonattainment NSR
permitting requirements applicable to
major new and modified stationary
sources of VOC, which now apply
throughout the entire State of Maine,
would no longer apply in any area in
Maine. Fourth, for major new and
modified stationary sources of VOC and
NOX throughout the entire State of
Maine, the Maine SIP’s PSD permitting
requirements would apply in lieu of the
nonattainment NSR permitting
requirements. Finally, the requirements
applicable to sources holding existing
nonattainment NSR permits will remain
in effect.
As part of this action, EPA is
proposing to revise certain provisions in
Maine’s SIP. The SIP revisions would
affect specific parts of two chapters of
Maine’s nonattainment NSR permitting
regulations previously approved by EPA
into the SIP. The first is Chapter 113
entitled ‘‘Growth Offset Regulations’’
which contains emissions offsets
requirements for sources subject to
nonattainment NSR. The second is
Chapter 115 entitled ‘‘Emission License
Regulation’’ which includes generally
applicable requirements for sources that
must obtain an emissions license in
Maine. More specifically, EPA is
proposing to remove from Chapter 113
all references to the OTR as a basis for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
the applicability of VOC nonattainment
NSR permitting requirements. Those
references appear in section 1
(Applicability), section 2.C.1 (Ozone
Nonattainment Areas), section 2.C.2
(Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Location
of offsets), and section 3 (Exemptions).
EPA also is proposing to remove
references in Chapter 113 to the
permissible location of emissions offsets
for attainment areas (these provisions
for attainment areas are only relevant if
location in the OTR is a basis for
nonattainment NSR applicability).
These references appear in sections
2.C.3 (Ozone Nonattainment Areas) and
2.C.3.b. (Ozone Nonattainment Areas) of
Chapter 113, and will not be relevant if
the section 176A(a)(2) restructuring is
approved, because new or modified
major stationary sources of VOC located
in areas attaining the ozone standard
will no longer be required to obtain
offsets. In Chapter 115, EPA proposes to
remove the reference to the OTR in
Sections V.B.2 (Criteria for Granting a
License) and VI.B.2 (New sources and
modifications, Nonattainment areas).
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
state’s 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
state submissions, EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, these actions, merely
propose to approve Maine’s requests as
meeting Federal requirements and do
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having
significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47259
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Do not provide 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 the Maine
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 18, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2013–18831 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0088; FRL–9841–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Washington:
Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10
Limited Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is proposing to
approve a limited maintenance plan
submitted by the State of Washington on
July 1, 2013, for the Thurston County
maintenance area (Thurston County) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47260
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
10 micrometers (PM10). The EPA is also
proposing to approve both local and
state regulatory updates related to this
maintenance plan.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2013–0088, 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: R10Public_Comments@epa.gov
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–
0088. 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
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,
hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 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
V. Review of the State’s Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that
Thurston County qualifies 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 EPAApproved 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. Revisions to the Washington SIP
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. This Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
limited maintenance plan submitted by
the State of Washington (the State) on
July 1, 2013, for Thurston County,
including approval of a monitoring
system modification for the area. The
limited maintenance plan also includes
Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) regulatory changes
that strengthen the control measures
contained in the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) since our last approval on
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). In
addition to the state regulatory changes,
the EPA is proposing to approve
corresponding local regulations adopted
by the Olympic Region Clean Air
Agency (ORCAA) because they have
direct implementation authority in
Thurston County. Lastly, the EPA is
proposing to remove Chapter 173–433–
170 Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) Retail Sales Fee from the SIP
because this provision was not a control
measure relied on for attainment or a
required element of the SIP. The EPA
has determined that removal of this
provision will not interfere with
continued attainment and maintenance
of the standard. Similarly, the EPA is
proposing to remove Chapter 173–433–
200 WAC Regulatory Actions and
Penalties from the SIP incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 52.2470. The EPA
reviews and approves state submissions
to ensure they provide adequate
enforcement authority. However,
regulations describing agency
enforcement authority are not
incorporated into the SIP to avoid
potential conflict with the EPA’s
independent authorities. Likewise, the
EPA has reviewed and is proposing
approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 Penalties
as having adequate enforcement
authority, but will not incorporate this
section by reference into the SIP
codified in 40 CFR 52.2470.
II. Background
The EPA identified a portion of
Thurston County as a ‘‘Group I’’ area of
concern due to measured violations of
the newly promulgated 24-hour PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) on August 7, 1987 (52 FR
29383). Ecology and ORCAA worked
with the communities of Lacey,
Olympia, and Tumwater to develop a
plan for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.
The plan was focused on wood smoke
reduction and was submitted in
November 1988. On November 15, 1990,
the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments
under section 107(d)(4)(B), designated
the Thurston County Group I area as
nonattainment for PM10 by operation of
law. The EPA published a Federal
Register notice announcing all areas
designated nonattainment for PM10 on
March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). In order
to address the additional moderate area
requirements imposed by the 1990 CAA
Amendments, Ecology submitted a
supplement to the attainment plan in
November 1991. EPA took final action
to approve the entire plan on July 27,
1993 (58 FR 40056).
The control measures contained in the
Thurston County plan rapidly brought
the area into attainment by 1991 and
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
formed the foundation of the wood
smoke reduction program still in use
today. As PM10 levels in the area
steadily declined, the EPA redesignated
the Thurston County nonattainment
area to a maintenance area on October
4, 2000 (65 FR 59128). In addition to
approving Ecology’s redesignation
request for the area, the EPA also
approved a maintenance plan to ensure
continued compliance with the PM10
NAAQS for ten years. The purpose of
the current limited maintenance plan is
to fulfill the second 10-year planning
requirement of Clean Air Act section
175A (b) 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 SIP revision offer a
reasonable opportunity for notice and
public hearing. This must occur prior to
the revision being submitted by the
State to the EPA. The State provided
notice and an opportunity for public
comment beginning April 22, 2013, with
no comments received. Under the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the
State also offered an opportunity for a
public hearing; however no requests
were received. This SIP revision was
submitted by the Governor’s designee
and was received by the EPA on July 1,
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).
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 (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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 mg/m3. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47261
V. Review of the State’s Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that
Thurston County qualifies 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
NAAQS. Thurston County has been
attaining the NAAQS since 1991. EPA
formally redesignated the area from
nonattainment to attainment, making it
a maintenance area effective December
4, 2000 (65 FR 59128).
Second, the average design value for
the past five years of monitoring data
must be at or below the critical design
value of 98 mg/m3 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. Using the most recently
available Federal Reference Method
(FRM) monitoring data for the years
2001–2005, the State’s analysis
demonstrated that Thurston County’s
average design value was 60 mg/m3, well
below the 98 mg/m3 threshold. An FRM
monitor is one that has been approved
by the EPA under 40 CFR part 58 to
measure compliance with the NAAQS.
As discussed later in this proposal,
Ecology and ORCAA also calculated
average design values using more recent
non-FRM nephelometer data for the
period 2008 to 2012. This more recent
monitoring data shows that PM10 levels
continued to decline with an average
design value of 45 mg/m3. The EPA
reviewed the data provided by Ecology
and ORCAA and finds that Thurston
County meets the design value criteria
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.
Ecology 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, Ecology calculated
a regional emissions analysis margin of
safety of 62 mg/m3, easily meeting the
threshold of 98 mg/m3. The EPA
reviewed the calculations in the State’s
limited maintenance plan submittal and
concurs with this conclusion.
Lastly, the limited maintenance plan
option memo requires all controls relied
on to demonstrate attainment remain in
place for the area to qualify. The
controls on wood smoke reduction,
Chapter 173–433 WAC Solid Fuel
Burning Device Standards, were
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
47262
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
approved by the EPA into the SIP on
January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). As
discussed later in this proposal, Ecology
made updates to Chapter 173–433 WAC
strengthening the control measures
since the EPA’s last approval. The EPA
reviewed these changes and confirmed
that the underlying control measures
remain in place, thus qualifying for the
limited maintenance plan option.
As described above, Thurston County
meets 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 insure this requirement is
met, Ecology 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 approved
attainment plan 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.
Ecology’s Thurston County limited
maintenance plan submittal includes an
emissions inventory based on Ecology’s
2005 Triennial Emissions Inventory and
the 2008 National Emissions Inventory.
These base years represent the most
recent emissions inventory data
available and are 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 four significant source
categories chosen based on a review of
the original maintenance plan. These
source categories, in order of relative
impact, are wood burning, construction
dust, road dust, and vehicle exhaust and
tire wear. Since the Thurston County
area is primarily residential and
governmental, other source categories,
including industrial sources, are
insignificant. This data supports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Ecology’s conclusion that the control
measures contained in the original
attainment plan will continue to protect
and maintain the PM10 NAAQS.
C. Does the limited maintenance plan
include an assurance of continued
operation of an appropriate EPAApproved air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 58?
PM10 monitoring was established in
the Thurston County area in 1985, with
many changes to the monitoring
technology and requirements since.
Beginning in 1990, Ecology and ORCAA
collocated a nephelometer with the
existing PM10 FRM monitor. A
nephelometer is an instrument that is
widely used to calculate particulate
matter concentrations based on light
scatter measurements. While not an
EPA-approved FRM monitoring method,
Ecology and ORCAA found that the
nephelometer and the PM10 FRM
monitor were highly correlated. Because
of this high level of correlation between
the monitors, as part of the 2007 annual
network monitoring report under 40
CFR part 58, Ecology requested
replacing the FRM monitor with the
nephelometer so that resources could be
redirected to more pressing
environmental issues such as ensuring
that areas of concern in the State were
in compliance with the recently revised
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS,
which is defined as particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers.
The EPA approved this request on
November 16, 2007. A full description
of the correlation data is included in the
limited maintenance plan submittal.
The EPA is proposing to approve this
monitoring system modification, using
nephelometer data to represent PM10
concentrations, under 40 CFR 58.14(c)
for the second 10-year maintenance plan
period because this modification is a
reproducible approach to representing
air quality in the Thurston County
maintenance area, and the area
continues to meet all applicable
Appendix D requirements evaluated as
part of the annual network approval
process. As detailed in the limited
maintenance plan, ORCAA will
calculate the PM10 design value estimate
annually from nephelometer data
through 2020 to confirm the area
continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS.
ORCAA also makes a commitment to
continue operation of a nephelometer in
the Thurston County maintenance area
through the 2020, the end of the
maintenance period, to determine PM10
levels. In the unlikely event that after
exceptional events are discounted, the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
second highest PM10 concentration in a
calendar year based on nephelometer
monitoring exceeds the LMP threshold
of 98 mg/m3, Ecology, ORCAA, and EPA
will discuss reestablishment of FRM
monitoring as part of the annual
network monitoring report process.
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. The EPA is proposing
approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) into
the SIP. This regulation was passed in
conjunction with the 1997 maintenance
plan submission and prohibits the use
of uncertified woodstoves in the
Thurston County maintenance area for
the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air
Act requirements for contingency
measures. The EPA reviewed ORCAA
Rule 8.1.4(e) and determined that it
meets the contingency measure
requirements. The contingency measure
will be triggered if a violation of the
PM10 standard occurs at the Thurston
County maintenance area monitor based
on nephelometer and/or FRM
monitoring. A violation of the PM10
standard will be determined by the
procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix K—Interpretation of the
NAAQS for Particulate Matter.
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;
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(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 three 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 Thurston
County limited maintenance plan, the
area is 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. Revisions to the Washington SIP
As previously discussed, the EPA
approved the wood smoke control
measures contained in Chapter 173–433
WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device
Standards on January 15, 1993, based
on state regulatory provisions in effect
as of October 18, 1990 (58 FR 4578).
Ecology subsequently revised Chapter
173–433 WAC to strengthen the control
measures with changes such as adding
one of the nation’s most stringent state
woodstove certification standards and
by moving towards a two-stage burn ban
system to encourage adoption of the
cleaner burning woodstoves. These
changes to Chapter 173–433 WAC were
effective on April 20, 1991 and March
6, 1993, but were not submitted for
adoption into the SIP at that time. A
redline strikeout copy of the regulatory
changes along with the EPA’s analysis is
included in the docket for this action.
Based on our review, the EPA is
proposing to approve Ecology’s 1991
and 1993 regulatory updates. In
addition, Ecology requested that the
EPA remove from the approved SIP
Chapter 173–433–170 WAC Retail Sales
Fee (state effective January 3, 1989)
because this provision is not a control
measure or a required element of the
SIP. After reviewing the original
Thurston County attainment plan, the
EPA agrees that this provision was not
a control measure relied upon for
attainment and removal of Chapter 173–
433–170 from the SIP will not interfere
with continued attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. Similarly,
the EPA erred in including Chapter
173–433–200 WAC Regulatory Actions
and Penalties in the SIP incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 52.2470. The EPA
reviews and approves state submissions
to ensure they provide adequate
enforcement authority. However,
regulations describing agency
enforcement authority are not
incorporated into the SIP to avoid
potential conflict with the EPA’s
independent authorities. Therefore, we
will remove Chapter 173–433–200 WAC
from 40 CFR 52.2470.
47263
While the provisions of Chapter 173–
433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device
Standards apply statewide per Chapter
173–433–020 WAC, Ecology requested
that the EPA approve portions of
ORCAA Rule 8.1 Wood Heating and
ORCAA Rule 6.2 Outdoor Burning
because ORCAA has direct
implementation authority in Thurston
County. The EPA reviewed these
regulations to ensure they are as
stringent as the existing control
measures, with a full copy of the EPA’s
analysis included in the docket for this
action. It is important to note that the
ORCAA control measures, particularly
burn ban trigger levels, focus on the
more stringent and environmentally
relevant 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Ecology
and ORCAA provided an analysis of
PM10 and PM2.5 data collected by
collocated FRM monitors at the
Thurston County monitoring site.
ORCAA found that the two pollutants
were correlated and one could be
determined from the other with a high
degree of accuracy within the range of
observations. The 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS revised in 2006 has a protection
level of 35 mg/m3 compared to the 1987
PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 mg/m3.
Based on the monitoring data from
Thurston County, ORCAA found that in
the critical winter season the majority of
PM10 is PM2.5. The statistical
relationship between the two PM
parameters indicates PM2.5 levels would
need to exceed 139 mg/m3 before the
PM10 NAAQS is exceeded. The EPA
concurs that Thurston County would
violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS well
before it exceeded the PM10 NAAQS. By
setting burn ban trigger levels to protect
the 35 mg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
ORCAA is simultaneously protecting
the 150 mg/m3 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
Finally, ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) provides
a local clean air agency rule for
implementing the contingency measure
which would prohibit the use of
uncertified wood stoves. The EPA
reviewed the ORCAA regulations and
determined that they strengthen the SIP
and meet the CAA requirements. As
discussed above with respect to
enforcement authorities, the EPA
reviewed and proposes approval of
ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 Penalties but will not
incorporate this provision by reference
in 40 CFR 52.2470.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
State or local
effective date
Agency
Citation
Title
Ecology ..............
173–433–030 ................................................
Definitions .....................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
04/20/91
Submitted
07/01/13
47264
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES—Continued
Agency
Title
Emission performance standards .................
Opacity standards ........................................
Prohibited fuel types .....................................
Impaired air quality criteria ...........................
Curtailment ...................................................
No residential or land clearing burning ........
03/06/93
03/06/93
04/20/91
04/20/91
04/20/91
02/04/12
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
Curtailment ...................................................
Recreational Burning ....................................
Definitions .....................................................
General emission standards ........................
Prohibited fuel types .....................................
Curtailment ...................................................
Exceptions ....................................................
Penalties .......................................................
Sale and installation of uncertified
woodstoves.
Disposal of uncertified woodstoves ..............
03/18/11
03/18/11
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
05/22/10
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
05/22/10
07/01/13
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
ORCAA
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
ORCAA
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
173–433–100 ................................................
173–433–110 ................................................
173–433–120 ................................................
173–433–140 ................................................
173–433–150 ................................................
6.2.3 (only as it applies to the cities of
Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater).
6.2.6 ..............................................................
6.2.7 ..............................................................
8.1.1 ..............................................................
8.1.2 (b) and (c) ...........................................
8.1.3 ..............................................................
8.1.4 ..............................................................
8.1.5 ..............................................................
8.1.6 ..............................................................
8.1.7 ..............................................................
ORCAA ..............
8.1.8 ..............................................................
VII. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
second 10-year limited maintenance
plan for Thurston County submitted by
Washington State. The state’s submittal
also included a request to approve state
regulatory updates to the original
control measures included in Chapter
173–433 WAC as well as corresponding
local ORCAA regulations. The EPA is
proposing to approve these regulatory
changes as well as corrections to the
EPA’s January 1993 approval because
these changes strengthen the SIP.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VIII. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State or local
effective date
Citation
16:53 Aug 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to 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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013–18843 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510; FRL–9841–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new
or revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated,
the CAA requires states to submit a plan
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47259-47264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0088; FRL-9841-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a limited maintenance plan
submitted by the State of Washington on July 1, 2013, for the Thurston
County maintenance area (Thurston County) for particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
[[Page 47260]]
10 micrometers (PM10). The EPA is also proposing to approve
both local and state regulatory updates related to this maintenance
plan.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0088, 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: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov
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-
2013-0088. 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,
hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 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
V. Review of the State's Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that Thurston County qualifies 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. Revisions to the Washington SIP
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. This Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan
submitted by the State of Washington (the State) on July 1, 2013, for
Thurston County, including approval of a monitoring system modification
for the area. The limited maintenance plan also includes Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulatory changes that
strengthen the control measures contained in the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) since our last approval on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). In
addition to the state regulatory changes, the EPA is proposing to
approve corresponding local regulations adopted by the Olympic Region
Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) because they have direct implementation
authority in Thurston County. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to remove
Chapter 173-433-170 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Retail Sales
Fee from the SIP because this provision was not a control measure
relied on for attainment or a required element of the SIP. The EPA has
determined that removal of this provision will not interfere with
continued attainment and maintenance of the standard. Similarly, the
EPA is proposing to remove Chapter 173-433-200 WAC Regulatory Actions
and Penalties from the SIP incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470.
The EPA reviews and approves state submissions to ensure they provide
adequate enforcement authority. However, regulations describing agency
enforcement authority are not incorporated into the SIP to avoid
potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. Likewise,
the EPA has reviewed and is proposing approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.6
Penalties as having adequate enforcement authority, but will not
incorporate this section by reference into the SIP codified in 40 CFR
52.2470.
II. Background
The EPA identified a portion of Thurston County as a ``Group I''
area of concern due to measured violations of the newly promulgated 24-
hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on
August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383). Ecology and ORCAA worked with the
communities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater to develop a plan for
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. The plan was focused on wood
smoke reduction and was submitted in November 1988. On November 15,
1990, the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments under section 107(d)(4)(B),
designated the Thurston County Group I area as nonattainment for
PM10 by operation of law. The EPA published a Federal
Register notice announcing all areas designated nonattainment for
PM10 on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). In order to address
the additional moderate area requirements imposed by the 1990 CAA
Amendments, Ecology submitted a supplement to the attainment plan in
November 1991. EPA took final action to approve the entire plan on July
27, 1993 (58 FR 40056).
The control measures contained in the Thurston County plan rapidly
brought the area into attainment by 1991 and
[[Page 47261]]
formed the foundation of the wood smoke reduction program still in use
today. As PM10 levels in the area steadily declined, the EPA
redesignated the Thurston County nonattainment area to a maintenance
area on October 4, 2000 (65 FR 59128). In addition to approving
Ecology's redesignation request for the area, the EPA also approved a
maintenance plan to ensure continued compliance with the
PM10 NAAQS for ten years. The purpose of the current limited
maintenance plan is to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement
of Clean Air Act section 175A (b) 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 SIP
revision offer a reasonable opportunity for notice and public hearing.
This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by the State to
the EPA. The State provided notice and an opportunity for public
comment beginning April 22, 2013, with no comments received. Under the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the State also offered an opportunity
for a public hearing; however no requests were received. This SIP
revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was received by
the EPA on July 1, 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 (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
[mu]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.
V. Review of the State's Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that Thurston County qualifies 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 NAAQS. Thurston County has been attaining the
NAAQS since 1991. EPA formally redesignated the area from nonattainment
to attainment, making it a maintenance area effective December 4, 2000
(65 FR 59128).
Second, the average design value for the past five years of
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98
[mu]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. Using the most recently available
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitoring data for the years 2001-2005,
the State's analysis demonstrated that Thurston County's average design
value was 60 [mu]g/m\3\, well below the 98 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold. An FRM
monitor is one that has been approved by the EPA under 40 CFR part 58
to measure compliance with the NAAQS. As discussed later in this
proposal, Ecology and ORCAA also calculated average design values using
more recent non-FRM nephelometer data for the period 2008 to 2012. This
more recent monitoring data shows that PM10 levels continued
to decline with an average design value of 45 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA
reviewed the data provided by Ecology and ORCAA and finds that Thurston
County meets the design value criteria 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. Ecology 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, Ecology
calculated a regional emissions analysis margin of safety of 62 [mu]g/
m\3\, easily meeting the threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA reviewed
the calculations in the State's limited maintenance plan submittal and
concurs with this conclusion.
Lastly, the limited maintenance plan option memo requires all
controls relied on to demonstrate attainment remain in place for the
area to qualify. The controls on wood smoke reduction, Chapter 173-433
WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards, were
[[Page 47262]]
approved by the EPA into the SIP on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). As
discussed later in this proposal, Ecology made updates to Chapter 173-
433 WAC strengthening the control measures since the EPA's last
approval. The EPA reviewed these changes and confirmed that the
underlying control measures remain in place, thus qualifying for the
limited maintenance plan option.
As described above, Thurston County meets 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 insure this requirement is met,
Ecology 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
approved attainment plan 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.
Ecology's Thurston County limited maintenance plan submittal
includes an emissions inventory based on Ecology's 2005 Triennial
Emissions Inventory and the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. These
base years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available
and are 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 four
significant source categories chosen based on a review of the original
maintenance plan. These source categories, in order of relative impact,
are wood burning, construction dust, road dust, and vehicle exhaust and
tire wear. Since the Thurston County area is primarily residential and
governmental, other source categories, including industrial sources,
are insignificant. This data supports Ecology's conclusion that the
control measures contained in the original attainment plan 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 Thurston County
area in 1985, with many changes to the monitoring technology and
requirements since. Beginning in 1990, Ecology and ORCAA collocated a
nephelometer with the existing PM10 FRM monitor. A
nephelometer is an instrument that is widely used to calculate
particulate matter concentrations based on light scatter measurements.
While not an EPA-approved FRM monitoring method, Ecology and ORCAA
found that the nephelometer and the PM10 FRM monitor were
highly correlated. Because of this high level of correlation between
the monitors, as part of the 2007 annual network monitoring report
under 40 CFR part 58, Ecology requested replacing the FRM monitor with
the nephelometer so that resources could be redirected to more pressing
environmental issues such as ensuring that areas of concern in the
State were in compliance with the recently revised fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, which is defined as particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5
micrometers. The EPA approved this request on November 16, 2007. A full
description of the correlation data is included in the limited
maintenance plan submittal. The EPA is proposing to approve this
monitoring system modification, using nephelometer data to represent
PM10 concentrations, under 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the second
10-year maintenance plan period because this modification is a
reproducible approach to representing air quality in the Thurston
County maintenance area, and the area continues to meet all applicable
Appendix D requirements evaluated as part of the annual network
approval process. As detailed in the limited maintenance plan, ORCAA
will calculate the PM10 design value estimate annually from
nephelometer data through 2020 to confirm the area continues to meet
the PM10 NAAQS. ORCAA also makes a commitment to continue
operation of a nephelometer in the Thurston County maintenance area
through the 2020, the end of the maintenance period, to determine
PM10 levels. In the unlikely event that after exceptional
events are discounted, the second highest PM10 concentration
in a calendar year based on nephelometer monitoring exceeds the LMP
threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\, Ecology, ORCAA, and EPA will discuss
reestablishment of FRM monitoring as part of the annual network
monitoring report process.
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. The EPA is proposing approval
of ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) into the SIP. This regulation was passed in
conjunction with the 1997 maintenance plan submission and prohibits the
use of uncertified woodstoves in the Thurston County maintenance area
for the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air Act requirements for
contingency measures. The EPA reviewed ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) and
determined that it meets the contingency measure requirements. The
contingency measure will be triggered if a violation of the
PM10 standard occurs at the Thurston County maintenance area
monitor based on nephelometer and/or FRM monitoring. A violation of the
PM10 standard will be determined by the procedures outlined
in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix K--Interpretation of the NAAQS for
Particulate Matter.
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;
[[Page 47263]]
(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 three 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 Thurston County limited maintenance plan, the
area is 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. Revisions to the Washington SIP
As previously discussed, the EPA approved the wood smoke control
measures contained in Chapter 173-433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device
Standards on January 15, 1993, based on state regulatory provisions in
effect as of October 18, 1990 (58 FR 4578). Ecology subsequently
revised Chapter 173-433 WAC to strengthen the control measures with
changes such as adding one of the nation's most stringent state
woodstove certification standards and by moving towards a two-stage
burn ban system to encourage adoption of the cleaner burning
woodstoves. These changes to Chapter 173-433 WAC were effective on
April 20, 1991 and March 6, 1993, but were not submitted for adoption
into the SIP at that time. A redline strikeout copy of the regulatory
changes along with the EPA's analysis is included in the docket for
this action. Based on our review, the EPA is proposing to approve
Ecology's 1991 and 1993 regulatory updates. In addition, Ecology
requested that the EPA remove from the approved SIP Chapter 173-433-170
WAC Retail Sales Fee (state effective January 3, 1989) because this
provision is not a control measure or a required element of the SIP.
After reviewing the original Thurston County attainment plan, the EPA
agrees that this provision was not a control measure relied upon for
attainment and removal of Chapter 173-433-170 from the SIP will not
interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
Similarly, the EPA erred in including Chapter 173-433-200 WAC
Regulatory Actions and Penalties in the SIP incorporated by reference
in 40 CFR 52.2470. The EPA reviews and approves state submissions to
ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority. However,
regulations describing agency enforcement authority are not
incorporated into the SIP to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's
independent authorities. Therefore, we will remove Chapter 173-433-200
WAC from 40 CFR 52.2470.
While the provisions of Chapter 173-433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning
Device Standards apply statewide per Chapter 173-433-020 WAC, Ecology
requested that the EPA approve portions of ORCAA Rule 8.1 Wood Heating
and ORCAA Rule 6.2 Outdoor Burning because ORCAA has direct
implementation authority in Thurston County. The EPA reviewed these
regulations to ensure they are as stringent as the existing control
measures, with a full copy of the EPA's analysis included in the docket
for this action. It is important to note that the ORCAA control
measures, particularly burn ban trigger levels, focus on the more
stringent and environmentally relevant 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Ecology and ORCAA provided an analysis of PM10 and
PM2.5 data collected by collocated FRM monitors at the
Thurston County monitoring site. ORCAA found that the two pollutants
were correlated and one could be determined from the other with a high
degree of accuracy within the range of observations. The 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS revised in 2006 has a protection level of 35
[mu]g/m\3\ compared to the 1987 PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150
[mu]g/m\3\. Based on the monitoring data from Thurston County, ORCAA
found that in the critical winter season the majority of
PM10 is PM2.5. The statistical relationship
between the two PM parameters indicates PM2.5 levels would
need to exceed 139 [mu]g/m\3\ before the PM10 NAAQS is
exceeded. The EPA concurs that Thurston County would violate the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS well before it exceeded the PM10
NAAQS. By setting burn ban trigger levels to protect the 35 [mu]g/m\3\
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, ORCAA is simultaneously protecting the
150 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Finally, ORCAA Rule
8.1.4(e) provides a local clean air agency rule for implementing the
contingency measure which would prohibit the use of uncertified wood
stoves. The EPA reviewed the ORCAA regulations and determined that they
strengthen the SIP and meet the CAA requirements. As discussed above
with respect to enforcement authorities, the EPA reviewed and proposes
approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 Penalties but will not incorporate this
provision by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or local
Agency Citation Title effective date Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology........................ 173-433-030............ Definitions........... 04/20/91 07/01/13
[[Page 47264]]
Ecology........................ 173-433-100............ Emission performance 03/06/93 07/01/13
standards.
Ecology........................ 173-433-110............ Opacity standards..... 03/06/93 07/01/13
Ecology........................ 173-433-120............ Prohibited fuel types. 04/20/91 07/01/13
Ecology........................ 173-433-140............ Impaired air quality 04/20/91 07/01/13
criteria.
Ecology........................ 173-433-150............ Curtailment........... 04/20/91 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 6.2.3 (only as it No residential or land 02/04/12 07/01/13
applies to the cities clearing burning.
of Olympia, Lacey, and
Tumwater).
ORCAA.......................... 6.2.6.................. Curtailment........... 03/18/11 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 6.2.7.................. Recreational Burning.. 03/18/11 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.1.................. Definitions........... 05/22/10 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.2 (b) and (c)...... General emission 05/22/10 07/01/13
standards.
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.3.................. Prohibited fuel types. 05/22/10 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.4.................. Curtailment........... 05/22/10 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.5.................. Exceptions............ 05/22/10 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.6.................. Penalties............. 05/22/10 07/01/13
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.7.................. Sale and installation 05/22/10 07/01/13
of uncertified
woodstoves.
ORCAA.......................... 8.1.8.................. Disposal of 05/22/10 07/01/13
uncertified
woodstoves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year limited
maintenance plan for Thurston County submitted by Washington State. The
state's submittal also included a request to approve state regulatory
updates to the original control measures included in Chapter 173-433
WAC as well as corresponding local ORCAA regulations. The EPA is
proposing to approve these regulatory changes as well as corrections to
the EPA's January 1993 approval because these changes strengthen the
SIP.
VIII. 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 (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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-18843 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
