[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33632-33636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0290; FRL-9946-95-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Spokane Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the limited maintenance plan submitted on May 11, 2016, by the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), in cooperation with the
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) for the Spokane carbon
monoxide (CO) maintenance area (Spokane area or area). The Spokane area
includes the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Millwood, and
surrounding urban areas in Spokane County, Washington. This plan
addresses the second 10-year maintenance period for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for CO, as revised in
1985. The Spokane area has had no exceedances of the CO NAAQS since
1997 and monitored CO levels in the area continue to decline steadily.
The EPA is also proposing approval of an alternative CO monitoring
strategy for the Spokane area which was submitted as part of the
limited maintenance plan.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0290 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. 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 at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. This Action
II. Background
III. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for CO Areas
A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
IV. Review of the State's Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that the monitoring data meets the
LMP Option criteria?
B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions
inventory?
C. What are the control measures for this area?
D. 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?
[[Page 33633]]
E. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for
contingency provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. This Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan for CO
submitted by the State of Washington (Washington or the State), on May
11, 2016, for the Spokane area. A limited maintenance plan is a means
of meeting Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for formerly designated
nonattainment areas that meet certain qualification criteria. The EPA
is proposing to determine that Washington's submittal meets the limited
maintenance plan criteria as described below.
II. Background
Under section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, the Spokane area was
designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990
Amendments (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On June 29, 2005, the EPA
redesignated the area to attainment for the CO NAAQS and approved
Washington's first maintenance plan designed to ensure compliance with
the standard through the year 2015 (70 FR 37269). To meet section
175A(b) of the CAA, Washington submitted a second 10-year CO
maintenance plan for the Spokane area that will apply until 2025.
III. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for CO Areas
A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
The EPA's requirements for a limited maintenance plan (LMP) are
outlined in an October 6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph Paisie titled,
''Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas'' (CO LMP Option). To qualify for the LMP Option, the design
value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters (two years
of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below 7.65 parts
per million (ppm). The CO LMP Option memo states the ``EPA believes
that the continued applicability of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any control measures already in the
SIP, and Federal measures (such as the Federal motor vehicle control
program) should provide adequate assurance of maintenance for these
areas.'' The EPA has determined that the CO LMP Option is also
available to all states for second 10-year maintenance plans,
regardless of the original nonattainment classification.
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 CO LMP 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 CO 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.
Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are
treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would
result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
(a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
(b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
(c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
(d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
(e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
(f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
(g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
In approving the 2nd 10-year limited maintenance plan, the Spokane
maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional
emissions analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as
well as the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
IV. Review of the State's Submittal
A. Has the State demonstrated that the monitoring data meets the LMP
Option criteria?
The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour
average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a concentration of
9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in the Spokane
area occurred in 1996, and CO levels have steadily declined ever since.
For areas using the CO LMP Option, the maintenance plan
demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied when the second
highest 8-hour CO concentration (design value) is at or below 7.65 ppm
(85 percent of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The 8-hour CO
design value for the Spokane area is 2.3 ppm based on 2013-2014 data,
the most recent quality-assured and quality-controlled data available.
Therefore, Washington has demonstrated that the monitoring data for the
Spokane area meets the CO LMP Option criteria.
B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory?
The maintenance plan must contain an attainment year emissions
inventory to identify a level of CO emissions that is sufficient to
attain the CO NAAQS. The May 11, 2016 SIP submittal contains a CO
emissions inventory for the Spokane area using a base year of 2011,
matching the most recent data available in the EPA's National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), which was
[[Page 33634]]
then projected out to 2014 based on population growth. This inventory
was then supplemented with more recent information for point sources
and onroad motor vehicles. Onroad mobile emissions were calculated
using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) model.
Historically, exceedances of the CO NAAQS in the Spokane area have
occurred during the winter months, when cooler temperatures contribute
to incomplete combustion from motor vehicles. Therefore, consistent
with the EPA's guidance, the emissions inventory is in a ``typical
winter day'' format. Onroad mobile sources represent 69.4% of the
typical winter day CO emissions, followed by 17.9% from area sources
(primarily residential wood combustion), 12.3% from nonroad mobile
sources, and 0.5% from point sources. With respect to calculating
emissions inventories for the LMP, point sources were defined as any
stationary source with CO emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons
per year.
Emissions Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO emissions
Main source category pounds per
winter day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources........................................... 1,418
Onroad Mobile Sources................................... 213,760
Non-road Mobile Sources................................. 37,221
Area Sources............................................ 54,303
---------------
Total................................................. 306,702
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the control measures for this area?
The first 10-year maintenance plan approved by the EPA for the
Spokane area relied on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control
Program establishing emission standards for new motor vehicles (40 CFR
part 86), a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and
an administrative order and amendment for the Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Corporation Mead Works facility. The EPA's 2005 approval of
the first 10-year maintenance plan anticipated that more stringent
Federal automobile standards and the removal of older, less efficient
cars over time would result in an overall decline in CO emissions
despite expected increases in vehicle miles traveled in the area (70 FR
37269, June 29, 2005, at page 37271). Consistent with the EPA's CO LMP
Option memo, Washington concluded that continued applicability of the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, any control
measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures (such as the Federal
motor vehicle control program) will provide adequate assurance of
maintenance for the Spokane area. Based on our review of the 2011
attainment emissions inventory, showing dramatic emissions reductions
as a result of the Federal motor vehicle control program, it is highly
unlikely CO emissions in the Spokane area will violate the NAAQS. We
also note that Washington's most recent updates to the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permitting program were approved by the EPA
on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23721).
Lastly, Washington is requesting no changes to the control measures
contained in the SIP, except for one minor revision. As discussed in
Washington's submittal, the first 10-year maintenance plan included
administrative order number DE 01 AQIS-3285, and amendment #1 of that
order, for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's
aluminum reduction plant located in Mead, Washington, north of the City
of Spokane. During the EPA's action on the first 10-year plan it was
not known at that time whether the then closed facility or some portion
of it would reopen, so the EPA retained the existing administrative
order and amendment in the SIP to ensure that the facility could not
contribute to an exceedance of the CO NAAQS if it reopened at some
point in the future. On April 11, 2013, NMC Mead, LLC, the new owners
of the facility, notified the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA)
that the facility, ``. . . has permanently shut down and is in the
process of dismantling all equipment permitted under Air Operating
Permit No. AOP-19-Renewal Permit #1. NMC Mead will not be renewing this
Air Operating Permit, and is requesting that this permit be revoked
effective March 31, 2013.'' On April 26, 2013, SRCAA voided the Air
Operating Permit and all associated orders stating that, ``[i]f NMC
Mead, LLC ever wants to operate any of the emission units at the
facility again in the future, a new Notice of Construction (NOC) permit
must be approved by the SRCAA prior to the installation and/or
operation of the equipment.'' See Appendix D of Washington's
submission. Because any potential, future NOC permit will be subject to
the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program to ensure compliance
with all NAAQS, Washington requested that the EPA remove the voided
administrative order No. DE 01 AQIS-3285 and amendment #1 from the SIP
codified in 40 CFR 52.2470(d) EPA-Approved State Source-Specific
Requirements. The EPA is proposing to grant this request because the
EPA has confirmed the facility is shutdown and dismantled.
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?
The EPA's CO LMP Option memo states, ``[t]o verify the attainment
status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan
should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate,
EPA approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.'' Washington's most recent EPA-approved annual air quality
monitoring network plan is included in the docket for this action.
Under this plan, Washington currently operates a Federal Equivalent
Method (FEM) CO monitor at 3rd and Washington in downtown Spokane. Due
to the low and continually declining levels of CO monitored at this
site over the past two decades since the last exceedance of the NAAQS,
Washington requested the EPA's approval of an alternative monitoring
strategy for verifying maintenance of the CO NAAQS similar to other
altenative approaches used in CO areas in the nation (see 80 FR 17331,
April 1, 2015, Great Falls, Montana; 80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015,
Billings, Montana; and 73 FR 36439, June 27, 2008, Vancouver,
Washington, for a few recent examples).
Washington's proposed alternative monitoring strategy generally
mirrors the approach recently approved for the Grants Pass CO area on
July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44864). Washington proposes that total CO
emissions will be calculated, as detailed below, every three years in
conjunction with the Statewide Emissions Inventory development process,
which populates the EPA NEI. Under the proposed alternative monitoring
strategy, SRCAA, in cooperation with Ecology, commits to reviewing
future year 2017, 2020 and 2023 CO estimates for the three primary
source categories (onroad mobile, nonroad mobile, and residential wood
combustion (area sources)) which comprise 97% of CO emissions in the
Spokane area. The aggregate total of these three source categories
would then be compared to the corresponding 2002 level, which
represents the emissions at the time EPA redesignated the area to
attainment and approved the first 10-year maintenance plan. The 2002
emission level corresponds to a design
[[Page 33635]]
value of 5.2 ppm, well below the CO NAAQS of 9.0 ppm and the LMP
qualification threshold of 7.65 ppm, giving adequate buffer to
reestablish monitoring before any potential violation of the NAAQS and
resulting contingency measures.
Because the calculated amounts of both the onroad and nonroad
mobile CO emissions can change depending on the version of the EPA
model required for use at that time (currently MOVES2014), SRCAA and
Ecology commit to recalculating 2002 emission estimates for these two
source categories using national default settings at the county-wide
level with the most current EPA-mandated model, in order to ensure
consistency in comparing future year inventories to 2002 levels. For
the remaining source category, residential wood combustion, SRCAA and
Ecology will compare future year inventories, calculated using the most
up to date activity level, emission factor, and population data
available, in accordance with the EPA's NEI guidance, to the annual
2002 county-wide inventories approved in the first 10-year maintenance
plan (19,937 tons per year). If a future year aggregate total of the
three source categories calculated for 2017, 2020, or 2023 exceeds the
corresponding aggregate total of 2002 emissions, Ecology must
reestablish monitoring in the area. In order to verify continued
attainment in the area, continued qualification for the CO LMP Option,
and provisions for triggering contingency measures should the area
violate the CO NAAQS in the future, this review will be submitted
annually by Ecology to the EPA as part of the monitoring network report
for compliance under 40 CFR part 58.\1\ Washington's annual network
monitoring reports are available to the public at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/UIPages/Home.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA notes that emission inventory development for the
NEI is done on a triennial basis, so reporting during off years
between the 2017, 2020, and 2023 inventory cycles will likely refer
back to the most recent inventory data available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's request was made under 40 CFR 58.14(c) which allows
approval of requests to discontinue ambient monitors ``on a case-by-
case basis if discontinuance does not compromise data collection needed
for implementation of a NAAQS and if the requirements of appendix D to
40 CFR part 58, if any, continue to be met.'' The EPA proposes to find
that the alternative monitoring strategy meets the criteria of 40 CFR
58.14(c) for the Spokane area. Given the long history of low CO
concentrations in the Spokane area, and the commitment to reestablish
monitoring should NEI data show the potential for increasing CO
emissions, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's request to
discontinue the Spokane CO monitor and use the alternative monitoring
strategy in its place.
D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for contingency
provisions?
CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation
of the area to attainment. Washington's submittal makes no changes to
the contingency provisions approved as part of the first 10-year
maintenance plan (70 FR 37269, June 29, 2005, at page 37271). The EPA
is proposing to determine that the existing contingency measure
provisions from the first 10-year maintenance plan continue to satisfy
the requirement under CAA section 175A.
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the LMP submitted by the State of
Washington, on May 11, 2016, for the Spokane CO area. We are proposing
to approve the request to remove the associated order and amendment for
the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum
reduction plant located in Mead, Washington from incorporation by
reference in the Washington SIP because the facility has been shut
down, dismantled, and the operating permit has been revoked. We are
also proposing to approve the State's alternative CO monitoring
strategy for the Spokane area. If finalized, the EPA's approval of this
LMP will satisfy the CAA section 175A requirements for the second 10-
year period in the Spokane CO area.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to revise the incorporation by reference contained in 40 CFR
52.2470(d) EPA-Approved State Source-Specific Requirements to remove
the associated order and amendment for the former Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant located in Mead,
Washington, as described above in Section V. Proposed Action. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submittals, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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 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).
This SIP revision is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land in Washington or any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas, the rule does not have tribal
[[Page 33636]]
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, consistent with EPA policy,
the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Spokane Tribe in a
letter dated September 11, 2015. The EPA did not receive a request for
consultation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 13, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-12529 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P