Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10, 49239-49244 [2014-19554]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49239-49244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19554]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713; FRL-9915-40-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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a limited maintenance plan submitted by 
the State of Washington on November 29, 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). The EPA first identified these areas in 1987 as 
potentially violating the 24-hour PM10 national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS). All three areas have been attaining the NAAQS 
since 1990, due to State Implementation Plan (SIP) measures such as a 
residential wood smoke control program, a prohibition on outdoor 
burning, and industrial controls. The areas were redesignated to 
attainment for the 24[hyphen]hour PM10 NAAQS effective May 
2001, when the EPA approved the first 10[hyphen]year maintenance plan. 
This limited maintenance plan covers the second 10-year maintenance 
period ending in May 2021. The EPA received one set of adverse comments 
focused primarily on proposed coal export terminals that may be built 
in the Pacific Northwest or possible expansion of coal export terminals 
in Canada that may impact the three maintenance areas in the future.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air Waste and Toxics, EPA 
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA requests that 
if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the 
docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206) 
553-0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials ``Act'' or ``CAA'' mean or refer to the 
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words ``EPA'', ``we'', ``us'' or our mean or refer to the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials ``SIP'' mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (iv) The words ``Washington'' and ``State'' mean the State of 
Washington.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    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 of Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma to establish PM10 pollution control strategies. 
Primary control strategies for the three areas included a residential 
wood smoke control 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 further declines in PM10 levels in 
subsequent years.
    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). The limited 
maintenance plan that the EPA is approving in this final rule was 
submitted to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement in section 
175A(b) of the Clean Air Act, to ensure compliance with the 
PM10 NAAQS through May 14, 2021. The EPA proposed approval 
of this limited maintenance plan on December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78311).

II. Response to Comments

    On March 10, 2014, the EPA received one set of comments opposing 
the EPA's proposed approval of the PM10 limited maintenance 
plan for Kent, Seattle and Tacoma. The comments primarily focus on the 
potential impact that three coal export terminals, proposed to be built 
in the Pacific Northwest, could have on PM10 concentrations 
in the maintenance areas. The commenter also raises the possibility of 
other similar impacts if there is an increase in locomotive traffic 
related to tar sands/oil shipments or expansion of Canadian coal export 
terminals. Lastly, the commenter questions the methodology used by the 
EPA, PSCAA, and Ecology in estimating emissions in the 2011 emissions 
inventory from current rail traffic to Canadian coal export terminals 
that may pass through the maintenance areas.
    These comments are similar to comments previously submitted on 
February 22, 2013, related to emissions impacts of locomotive coal 
transport in the emissions inventory for the Tacoma fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0712). The EPA responded to these comments in the May 29, 2013 
final rulemaking approving the inventory explaining that we found no 
trends of increased PM2.5 impacts from coal dust at the 
chemical speciation monitor using data as of 2011, or increases in 
ambient concentrations of PM2.5 generally, corresponding to 
the increased locomotive traffic from 2008 to 2011

[[Page 49240]]

cited by the commenter (78 FR 32131).\1\ The EPA also notes that the 
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for reviewing coal export 
proposals cited in the February 22, 2013 letter are ongoing. The EPA 
concluded that many of the issues raised by the commenter about the 
potential impacts of future projects were beyond the scope of the EPA's 
action on the Tacoma PM2.5 nonattainment area control 
measures and baseline emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Tacoma PMF Soil Results included in Docket No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the limited nature of this final action, we are only 
responding to those comments directly relevant to the Kent, Seattle, 
and Tacoma second 10-year maintenance plan for PM10. In 
reviewing the geographic distance and the likely rail routes, the EPA 
does not expect significant PM10 impacts to the Kent, 
Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance areas from the terminal proposals for 
Longview, Washington or Port of Morrow, Oregon cited by the commenter. 
Other potential future impacts, such as proposals for the Gateway 
Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington or the expansion of 
Canadian terminals, are not far enough along in their development that 
the scope or impact of their emissions can be estimated with any degree 
of certainty. For example, the commenter questions future impacts from 
empty rail cars returning through the maintenance areas if the Gateway 
Pacific Terminal is constructed or if rail traffic increases due to the 
expansion of Canadian terminals. However, it is not known whether empty 
rail cars would return through the maintenance area or whether the 
empty cars could use the more direct but mountainous route that 
bypasses the maintenance area entirely. Such future route decisions 
will depend on several rail system factors.
    Similarly, it is also unclear whether terminal operators would 
implement measures to address potential fugitive dust. As noted by the 
commenter, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 
Gateway Pacific proposal will not be complete for at least another year 
and it is uncertain if washing of rail cars or other measures to reduce 
fugitive dust would be implemented should that facility be built. Given 
the range of uncertainty surrounding the proposed terminals, including 
whether the terminals will be constructed, the location(s) of such 
terminals, and decisions of terminal and railway operators that would 
affect rail routes, locomotive emissions and fugitive dust emissions, 
the EPA believes the level of project-specific inquiry suggested by the 
commenter is beyond the scope of the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma second 
10-year maintenance plan for PM10.
    Accordingly, the EPA is responding to four parts of the March 10, 
2014 comments that are pertinent to the limited maintenance plan: 
Ensuring maintenance through the second 10-year maintenance period, the 
EPA's approval of a monitoring system modification for PM10, 
the proximity of monitors for determining compliance with the 
PM10 NAAQS, and the adequacy of the State's current 
emissions inventory for PM10.

A. Ensuring Maintenance Through the Second 10-Year Maintenance Period

    Comment: The commenter is concerned that proposed coal export 
terminals, such as the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry 
Point near Bellingham, Washington, could have dramatic impacts on the 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 maintenance areas if the 
terminals were to be approved and constructed as proposed. 
Specifically, the commenter is concerned that, if constructed, the 
proposed terminals could result in greater coal train traffic through 
the maintenance areas with corresponding increases in locomotive and 
fugitive coal dust emissions that could raise PM10 
concentrations in the area. The commenter also raises concern that the 
expansion of existing Canadian coal export terminals or increased 
shipments of tar sand and/or Bakken oil to refineries could cause 
similar increases in PM10. The commenter claims that because 
the PM10 limited maintenance plan for Kent, Seattle and 
Tacoma does not fully account for potential increases in locomotive and 
fugitive coal dust emissions should the proposed terminals be 
constructed, or existing facilities expanded, it does not ensure 
maintenance and therefore must be disapproved by the EPA. The commenter 
further states that the maintenance plan and contingency measures do 
not contain regulatory mechanisms to address potential increases in 
PM10 during the maintenance period.
    Response: Many of the proposed coal export terminals cited by the 
commenter are undergoing NEPA and/or SEPA review and it is not known 
whether the facilities will be constructed, and if they are 
constructed, the size and scope of operations that would be authorized. 
Nor is there certainty about other projects cited by the commenter, 
such as the expansion of Canadian export terminals or the potential 
future growth in the shipment of oil to refineries. In addition, as the 
commenter notes, there are several possible rail routes that could be 
used and it is not known whether locomotive traffic associated with 
coal or oil shipments would traverse or bypass the maintenance areas 
or, as may be the case, whether routes would constantly vary based on 
decisions by the rail operator.
    At this time, due to the speculative nature of the projects, 
neither PSCAA nor Ecology can reasonably evaluate the potential impact 
of the projects on future emissions growth in the maintenance areas. 
However, based on our experience to date with these areas, we believe 
the dramatic PM10 impacts forecasted by the commenter are 
likely overstated. A recent study entitled Diesel Particulate Matter 
Emission Factors and Air Quality Implications from In-Service Rail in 
Washington State, USA by Daniel A. Jaffe, et al. (``the Jaffe study'') 
measured a PM10 to PM2.5 ratio of 1.15 for coal 
trains.\2\ This means that the vast proportion (87%) of the total 
PM10 mass measured from coal trains in the Jaffe study was 
PM2.5, with only a minor fraction (13%) of particulate mass 
falling within the PM2.5 to PM10 range. As noted 
in the previous May 29, 2013 response to the commenter, the EPA found 
no trend of increased PM2.5 impacts from coal dust at the 
Tacoma chemical speciation monitor using data as of 2011, or increases 
in ambient concentrations of PM2.5 generally, corresponding 
to the increased locomotive traffic from 2008 to 2011 (78 FR 32131).\3\ 
Using the close relationship between PM10 and 
PM2.5 found in the Jaffe study, the EPA would expect that 
any dramatic rise in PM10 levels would have a corresponding 
rise in PM2.5 levels. Instead, after accounting for year-to-
year meteorological variations, the general PM2.5 trend 
appears to be declining despite increased coal export traffic between 
2008 and the present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Calculated from Figure 7, Jaffe, D. A., H. Greg, S. 
Malashanka, J. Putz, J. Thayer, J. L. Fry, B. Ayres, J. R. Pierce, 
Diesel particulate matter emission factors and air quality 
implications from in-service rail in Washington State, USA, 
Atmospheric Pollution Research 5, 344-351, 2014.
    \3\ See Tacoma PMF Soil Results included in Docket No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also reviewed Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Federal 
Equivalent Method (FEM) monitored PM10 and PM2.5 
levels at the nearby Beacon Hill monitoring site which is located 
approximately one mile from the rail lines that pass through 
Seattle.\4\ In recent years, 2011 to 2014, there have been no 
observations of PM10 at the

[[Page 49241]]

Beacon Hill FRM monitor above 35 [mu]g/m\3\, let alone the 
PM10 standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition, while the rail 
transport of coal is new to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance 
areas, rail traffic of coal nationally, including Powder River Basin 
(PRB) coal, is not. In considering the dramatic rise in future 
PM10 emissions predicted by the commenter, the EPA would 
expect to have recorded observations of similar dramatic 
PM10 impacts at monitors in other areas of the nation, 
especially the East and Midwest where heavy rail traffic of coal has 
been prevalent for decades. The EPA is not aware of any current 
monitors exhibiting such dramatic PM10 impacts from coal 
train dust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Beacon Hill monitoring included in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA, Ecology, and PSCAA are fully committed to ensuring 
maintenance through the second 10-year maintenance period. Contrary to 
the commenter's assertion, the qualification criteria for the limited 
maintenance plan option do provide a regulatory mechanism to address 
the commenter's primary concern that rapid and significant increases in 
locomotive and fugitive coal dust emissions could result in an 
exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS. Under the August 9, 2001 
limited maintenance plan guidance (Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, 
Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, titled 
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 
Nonattainment Areas''), as part of the qualification criteria, the EPA 
sets a 5-year average margin of safety threshold of 98 [mu]g/m\3\, well 
below the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. To continue 
qualifying for the limited maintenance plan option, a state is required 
to recalculate the 5-year average PM10 emissions annually to 
assure the averages for the areas continue to remain below the 98 
[mu]g/m\3\ margin of safety. Emission increases that result in an 
exceedance of the 98 [mu]g/m\3\ margin of safety require a state to 
take actions to reduce PM10 concentrations and provide one 
additional opportunity to requalify for the limited maintenance plan 
option. If efforts to reduce PM10 concentrations fail, or if 
they succeed but the area continues to experience increases in 
PM10 concentrations, the limited maintenance plan option 
will no longer be available and a state will be required to submit a 
full maintenance plan, including a maintenance demonstration and 
adequate contingency measures, within 18 months.
    The estimated 5-year average PM10 design values in the 
areas are: 463 [mu]g/m\3\ for Kent, 505 [mu]g/
m\3\ for Seattle, and 588 [mu]g/m\3\ for Tacoma (estimated 
using a PM2.5 correlation method discussed in more detail 
below). Even assuming a certain level of statistical error, all of 
these estimates are well below both the 98 [mu]g/m\3\ margin of safety 
and the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour NAAQS. In its limited maintenance plan 
submission, PSCAA committed to conduct an annual recalculation of the 
3-year and 5-year design value estimates. Any increases in future 
estimated design values provide PSCAA an opportunity to assess and 
address PM10 increases to continue qualifying for the 
limited maintenance plan option. Based on the data and trends for the 
Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance areas, the EPA believes that the 
limited maintenance plan is protective of the PM10 NAAQS. If 
the projects cited by the commenter are built and cause a corresponding 
increase in PM10 concentrations such that the margin of 
safety is exceeded, the limited maintenance plan requires appropriate 
consequences that would address the increase in PM10 
concentrations and/or revoke the area's ability to qualify for a 
limited maintenance plan and require a full maintenance plan within 18 
months.
    Lastly, based on our review of the data and emission sources, a 
violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard would happen well 
before a potential violation of the 24-hour PM10 
standard.\5\ The PM10 to PM2.5 correlation 
analysis provided in the limited maintenance plan shows that 
PM2.5 levels would need to reach 122 [mu]g/m\3\ for Kent, 
113 [mu]g/m\3\ for Seattle, and 114 [mu]g/m\3\ for Tacoma before a 
violation of the 24-hour PM10 standard is likely. Even 
factoring in the commenter's doubts about the accuracy of the 
correlation analysis discussed below, these estimates provide a 
significant margin of safety considering the 24-hour PM2.5 
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. As shown in the Jaffe study, and based on 
our knowledge of sources in these maintenance areas, PM10 
and PM2.5 emissions are closely intertwined. Any effort to 
address PM2.5 nonattainment would have the co-benefit of 
reducing PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See page 26 of the SIP submittal and the discussion on 
PM10/PM2.5 correlation in the section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering all the factors described above, the EPA has 
determined that a limited maintenance plan that relies on the 98 [mu]g/
m\3\ margin of safety threshold for PM10 is both reasonable 
and protective in ensuring continued maintenance, even as the mix of 
emission sources may change over time.

B. The EPA's Approval of a Monitoring System Modification for PM10

    Comment: The commenter raises concern that monitoring which relies 
on current PM2.5 monitors and historical PM10 and 
PM2.5 correlation data does not accurately capture the 
effects of changing PM10 emissions over time from sources 
such as fugitive coal dust or other particulate matter from increased 
locomotive traffic. The commenter also questions the accuracy of the 
PM10 and PM2.5 correlation analysis, noting 
specific data points where the monitored observation greatly exceeded 
the statistical modeling estimate.
    Response: As described in the EPA's December 26, 2013 Federal 
Register publication, the EPA proposed approval of a monitoring system 
modification under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3) which states that any state or 
local air monitor station (SLAM) may be discontinued for any pollutant, 
provided the monitor has not measured violations of the applicable 
NAAQS in the previous five years, and the approved SIP provides for a 
specific, reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the 
affected county in the absence of actual monitoring data. See 78 FR 
78311. In the case of the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance areas, 
the EPA proposed using existing PM2.5 monitors and 
correlated PM10 and PM2.5 data to estimate 
PM10 emissions. The EPA agrees with the commenter that 
PM10 and PM2.5 correlations do vary over time and 
location as the mix of emission sources change. However, for the 
reasons described below, the EPA has determined that the monitoring 
system modification proposed under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3) is both 
technically sound and protective of human health and the environment 
with respect to the PM10 NAAQS.
    Ecology, as part of the approved monitoring network plan, maintains 
collocated PM10 and PM2.5 FRM and FEM monitors at 
the nearby Beacon Hill site in Seattle.\6\ This monitoring site 
provides the EPA access to ongoing collocated PM10 and 
PM2.5 data, similar to the historical data calculated for 
the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance areas. Following the same 
methodology used by PSCAA and Ecology, the EPA calculated Beacon Hill 
PM10 to PM2.5 ratios for the winter period using 
2003-2006 data (0.99) and 2011-2013 data (1.37). PSCAA and Ecology's 
calculated PM10 to PM2.5 ratios for Kent (1.22), 
Seattle (1.26), and Tacoma (1.29) all fall with the range of the Beacon 
Hill data for the winter period calculated by the

[[Page 49242]]

EPA. In the summer period, the EPA also calculated Beacon Hill 
PM10 to PM2.5 ratios for 2003-2006 data (1.57) 
and 2011-2013 data (1.70). The historical summer PM10 to 
PM2.5 ratios calculated by PSCAA and Ecology for Kent 
(2.07), Seattle (1.83), and Tacoma (2.44) are all greater than the 
PM10 to PM2.5 ratio calculated by the EPA for 
Beacon Hill (i.e., the PSCAA and Ecology PM10 to 
PM2.5 ratios likely err on the side of overestimating 
PM10 relative to the results calculated by the EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 2012 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Report and October 25, 
2012 Network Approval Letter, included in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information above is relevant because the Jaffe study found 
that the vast proportion (87%) of the total PM10 mass 
measured from coal trains was PM2.5. Over time, if rail 
traffic of coal becomes a more dominant factor in the emissions mix as 
suggested by the commenter, the PM10 to PM2.5 
ratio will be driven closer to the 1.15 ratio found in the Jaffe 
study.\7\ Thus, the PM10 to PM2.5 ratios used for 
Kent (2.07), Seattle (1.83), and Tacoma (2.44) will likely err on the 
side of overestimating PM10 levels and are inherently more 
protective than the ratio measured in the recent Jaffe study for coal 
train emissions. It is also important to note that the nephelometers 
used by PSCAA in all three maintenance areas measure light scatter at 
one second intervals and do not exclude the PM2.5-10 
particle range. Therefore, the commenter's concern about a sudden burst 
of coal dust in the PM2.5-10 particle range would indeed be 
measured by the instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Calculated from Figure 7, Jaffe, D. A., H. Greg, S. 
Malashanka, J. Putz, J. Thayer, J. L. Fry, B. Ayres, J. R. Pierce, 
Diesel particulate matter emission factors and air quality 
implications from in-service rail in Washington State, USA, 
Atmospheric Pollution Research 5, 344-351, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter questions the accuracy of the 
PM10 and PM2.5 correlation analysis, noting 
specific data points where the monitored observation exceeded the 
statistical modeling estimate. The EPA raises two points in response to 
this comment. First, the exact statistical fit of each data point is 
less important than ensuring there is no bias in the models. In this 
case, the EPA is satisfied that the slopes calculated by PSCAA are 
representative of the data (i.e. for the outlier data points identified 
by the commenter where the models underestimate actual PM10 
emissions, the EPA can find an equal balance of data points where the 
models overestimate actual PM10 emissions). Second, concern 
over the statistical fit of the models might be greater but for the 
fact that all of the data points collected over the entire eight years 
of collocated monitoring, including the outliers identified by the 
commenter, were all well below the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS and also below 
the 98 [mu]g/m\3\ margin of safety. Considering the form of the 
PM10 NAAQS, which allows a certain degree of outliers, the 
EPA believes it is highly unlikely that use of the statistical 
correlation would result in undetected violations of the 
PM10 NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The twenty-four-hour average concentration of 
PM10 in the ambient air must not exceed 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 
more than one time per year, on a three-year average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recognizes the importance of FRM and FEM monitoring. The 
limited maintenance plan includes a trigger to reestablish FRM or FEM 
PM10 monitoring should PM10 levels reach the 98 
[mu]g/m\3\ margin of safety threshold. Reestablishing the FRM and FEM 
above the margin of safety means that violations of the PM10 
NAAQS and triggers for contingency measures would be assessed using 
PM10 monitoring data collected by an FRM or FEM. However, 
the EPA also recognizes that federal, state, and local monitoring 
resources are finite. Agency resources to reestablish FRM or FEM 
PM10 monitoring, as requested by the commenter, would likely 
be at the expense of PM2.5 monitoring or other important 
monitoring needs. Considering the far more pressing and likely greater 
risks posed by PM2.5 as described above, the EPA is 
approving the monitoring system modification under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3).

C. The Proximity of Monitors for Determining Compliance With the PM10 
NAAQS

    Comment: The commenter broadly asserts that the monitoring system 
modification proposed by the EPA violates 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D 
for comparing an area's air pollution levels to the NAAQS, as discussed 
above. Included in the commenter's discussion are concerns that, the 
``EPA offers no evidence that the placement of the monitors is 
appropriate for monitoring the trains'' and ``[t]he Kent monitor is a 
neighborhood scale site to be representative of the Kent Valley Area, 
not coal trains.''
    Response: Many of the issues raised by the commenter, such as the 
request for trackside microscale monitoring, are discretionary state or 
local agency choices rather than a failure on the part of Washington to 
meet 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D requirements. Appendix D to Part 58--
Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring describes 
how data from FRM, FEM, and approved regional method (ARM) monitors 
will be used for comparing an area's air pollution levels to the NAAQS. 
Section 4.6 of the Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for SLAMS Sites 
contains the specific requirements for PM10. As discussed in 
section 4.6(b), the EPA determined that the most important spatial 
scales to effectively characterize the emissions of PM10 
from both mobile and stationary sources are the middle scales and 
neighborhood scales. Section 4.6(b)(c) describes the use of 
neighborhood scale monitors for compliance with the NAAQS.
    The Kent monitor, although designated as a neighborhood scale 
monitor, is almost immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks, less 
than 0.2 miles according to the scale in Figure 2.1 of the State's 
submittal. The Seattle and Tacoma monitors are similarly located near 
railroad corridors reflecting the industrial nature of the previous 
PM10 nonattainment areas. While the Seattle and Tacoma 
monitors are likely too far away to detect immediate fence line 
microscale impacts from rail traffic, they meet the middle scale 
criteria described in section 4.6(b)(3). Under section 4.6(b)(3) the 
EPA determined that much of the short-term public exposure to 
PM10 is on the middle scale and on the neighborhood scale.
    The EPA regulations state that the middle scale and neighborhood 
scale monitors are most important for determining compliance with the 
NAAQS. This is not to dismiss the impact to environmental justice or 
other sensitive populations from microscale impacts. The Jaffe study 
found that, ``[f]or the one month of measurements at the Seattle site, 
the average PM2.5 concentration was 6.8 [mu]g/m\3\ higher 
near the rail lines compared to the average from several background 
locations.'' Multiplying this 6.8 [mu]g/m\3\ increase in 
PM2.5 levels times the PM10 to PM2.5 
ratio for coal trains found in the Jaffe study (the highest ratio of 
all the train types analyzed, and therefore the most conservative ratio 
to use here) yields an estimated PM10 level of 7.82 [mu]g/
m\3\ at the immediate fence line. Even factoring in increased 
locomotive growth at this conservative level, the extra increment 
necessary to violate the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ PM10 NAAQS is 
unlikely, given our understanding of current PM10 design 
values of 46  3 [mu]g/m\3\ for Kent, 50  5 
[mu]g/m\3\ for Seattle, and 58  8 [mu]g/m\3\ for Tacoma.

D. The Adequacy of the State's Current Emissions Inventory for PM10

    Comment: Setting aside the broader issue of future growth in 
emissions, the commenter criticizes the methodology used by the State 
to estimate the 2011 emissions inventory, particularly

[[Page 49243]]

emissions of fugitive dust from coal trains.
    Response: In responding to previous emissions inventory concerns 
submitted by the commenter regarding the 2008 baseline emission 
inventory for the Tacoma PM2.5 nonattainment area, the EPA 
stated:

    As noted in the proposal for this action, the EPA referred to 
the August 2005 ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations'' 
(hereafter ``emissions inventory guidance'' or ``guidance''), to 
assess the adequacy of Washington's submission. The guidance covers 
several elements related to this comment. First, the mobile source 
section in the guidance contains no discussion or requirement for 
calculating fugitive dust from locomotive payloads. Instead, 
fugitive dust emissions from all source categories are discussed in 
section 5.4 of the guidance addressing nonpoint sources. The 
guidance states, ``[n]onpoint sources are generally described as 
those sources that are too small, numerous, or difficult to be 
inventoried individually. Potential nonpoint sources of emissions 
are given in Table 5.4-1 and potential crustal (dust) sources of PM 
emissions are in Table 5.4-2. These tables are presented as guides 
to assist State, local and Tribal agencies in focusing their 
nonpoint source emission inventory efforts.'' The guidance goes on 
to state, ``[t]he State, local and Tribal agencies may want to 
concentrate their efforts on the most significant source 
categories.'' The guidance acknowledges that States cannot 
individually inventory all nonpoint source emissions, but should use 
the best available data to inform which nonpoint source categories 
to focus on in creating a comprehensive and accurate inventory of 
actual emissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013.

    For the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 maintenance 
areas, PSCAA and Ecology requested the EPA's assistance in estimating 
possible fugitive coal dust emissions from rail transport in the 2011 
emissions inventory included in the State's submittal. The EPA 
suggested using a paper entitled A Study of Fugitive Coal Dust 
Emissions in Canada, November 2001, by Douglas L. Cope and Kamal K. 
Bhattacharyya (``the Cope study''). The EPA neither endorses nor 
rejects the findings of the Cope study, but merely acknowledges it was 
one of the only recent studies the EPA could find at that time on this 
topic prior to publication of the recent Jaffe study. Using these 
emission factors, the State calculated a modest contribution to overall 
PM10 emissions from rail transport of coal including both 
diesel emissions and an estimate of potential fugitive dust (Seattle = 
5%, Tacoma = 2%, and Kent = 6%, respectively, of overall 
PM10 emissions from both diesel emissions and fugitive 
dust).
    As a general response to the commenter's concern about the fugitive 
dust emissions methodology, the EPA notes that the Cope study and the 
Jaffe study contain emission factors for both PM10 and 
PM2.5. To the extent that the methodology used by the State 
significantly underestimates PM10 emissions, as suggested by 
the commenter, the EPA would expect to see similar increases in 
PM2.5, particularly for the Kent monitor which is 
immediately adjacent to a rail line. For example, the commenter 
includes AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) modeling conducted for the 
Port of Morrow, Oregon terminal proposal to suggest that the State 
underestimated PM10 from fugitive dust and rail emissions in 
the 2011 emissions inventory. The modeling submitted was for 
PM2.5, with the commenter arguing that AERMOD ``does not 
distinguish between PM10 and PM2.5 in terms of 
modeled impacts.'' In assessing the predictive accuracy of any model, 
it is important to measure against actual monitoring data. In this 
case, figures 4.1.1, 4.1.4, and 4.1.7 of the limited maintenance plan 
and the nearby Beacon Hill monitoring data show no dramatic increases 
of PM2.5 in 2011 or the present. Therefore, the State's 
conclusion that PM10 emissions in 2011 from rail transport 
of coal constitute a minor proportion of the overall PM10 
emissions inventory is consistent with all currently available 
monitoring data for both PM10 and PM2.5.
    The commenter also questioned the accuracy of the State's 2011 
baseline emissions inventory for using an 85% control factor in 
calculating estimated fugitive dust emissions applying the Cope study 
methodology. The EPA recalculated the 2011 fugitive dust estimates for 
PM10 using the State methodology as well as a scenario 
assuming no control, included in the docket for this action. The 
difference between the methodology used by the State and the 
uncontrolled scenario calculated by the EPA was approximately 17 tons 
of cumulative impact for all three maintenance areas, representing 1.2% 
of the total PM10 inventory. To be clear, the EPA is not 
opining on the validity of the Cope study, the 85% control factor, or 
any other analysis or conclusions that may or may not result from the 
ongoing NEPA and SEPA evaluation process. The EPA is simply stating 
that the generally modest PM10 impacts from fugitive dust 
calculated in the 2011 emissions inventory for this limited maintenance 
plan appear to be consistent with our calculations and with current 
monitoring data, and may in fact overestimate these impacts.
    Lastly, the commenter questions the State's use of the Cope study 
in calculating the 2011 emissions inventory because the Cope study does 
not factor in the fugitive dust impact of empty rail cars returning 
through the maintenance areas. More recent studies from Australia, 
included in the docket for this action, suggest that the Cope study 
might overestimate fugitive dust PM10 impacts from coal, 
finding no statistically significant difference between coal trains 
(both loaded and empty) and any other type of freight train. 
Specifically, the Australian studies found ``that other contaminants 
such as diesel may be of more concern than coal dust. This conclusion 
is further supported by the fact that effect sizes were similar for 
freight, loaded and unloaded coal trains, all of which are pulled by 
diesel locomotives.'' \10\ Considering the study results and current 
particulate matter monitoring data, the EPA concludes that the 
relatively modest contributions calculated in the State's 2011 
emissions inventory represent a good faith effort to quantify fugitive 
dust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See page 3, Re-analysis of ARTC Data on Particulate 
Emissions from Coal Trains, included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the limited maintenance plan submitted by the 
State of Washington on November 29, 2013, for the Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma PM10 maintenance areas, including approval of a 
monitoring system modification for the areas. The EPA's approval of 
this limited maintenance plan satisfies 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.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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:

[[Page 49244]]

     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 requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; 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 the 
rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on tribal 
governments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the requirements of 
section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. 
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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 20, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: August 7, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. Section 52.2470 is amended in paragraph (e) by adding a new entry in 
Table 2--ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS entitled 
``Particulate Matter (PM10) 2nd 10-Year Limited Maintenance 
Plan'' at the end of the section with the heading ``Attainment and 
Maintenance Planning--Particulate Matter''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Attainment and Maintenance Planning--Particulate Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Particulate Matter (PM10) 2nd 10-  Kent, Seattle, and         11/29/13  8/20/14 [Insert      ...................
 Year Limited Maintenance Plan.     Tacoma.                              Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-19554 Filed 8-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P