Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 49239 

Argos) exceeding 1,500 pounds curb 

weight, not including trailers. 

Dated: July 30, 2014. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19740 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–EJ–P 

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-hour PM10

NAAQS effective May 2001, when the 

EPA approved the first 10-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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
49240 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Tacoma PMF Soil Results included in 

Docket No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0712. 

2Calculated 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. 

3See Tacoma PMF Soil Results included in 

Docket No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0712. 

4See Beacon Hill monitoring included in the 

docket for this action. 

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. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 49241 

5See page 26 of the SIP submittal and the 

discussion on PM10/PM2.5 correlation in the section 

below. 

6 2012 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Report 

and October 25, 2012 Network Approval Letter, 

included in the docket for this action. 

Beacon Hill FRM monitor above 35 mg/ 

m3, let alone the PM10 standard of 150 

mg/m3. 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. 

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 mg/m3, well below the 

150 mg/m3 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 mg/m3

margin of safety. Emission increases that 

result in an exceedance of the 98 mg/m3

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: 46±3 mg/ 

m3 for Kent, 50±5 mg/m3 for Seattle, and 

58±8 mg/m3 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 mg/m3 margin of safety and the 150 

mg/m3 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 mg/m3 for Kent, 113 

mg/m3 for Seattle, and 114 mg/m3 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 mg/m3. 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 cobenefit of reducing PM10. 

In considering all the factors 

described above, the EPA has 

determined that a limited maintenance 

plan that relies on the 98 mg/m3 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
49242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7Calculated 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. 

8The twenty-four-hour average concentration of 

PM10 in the ambient air must not exceed 150 mg/ 

m3 more than one time per year, on a three-year 

average. 

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). 

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. 

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 mg/m3

NAAQS and also below the 98 mg/m3

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

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 mg/m3 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 PollutantSpecific 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 mg/m3 higher near 

the rail lines compared to the average 

from several background locations.’’ 

Multiplying this 6.8 mg/m3 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 mg/m3 at 

the immediate fence line. Even factoring 

in increased locomotive growth at this 

conservative level, the extra increment 

necessary to violate the 150 mg/m3 PM10

NAAQS is unlikely, given our 

understanding of current PM10 design 

values of 46 ± 3 mg/m3 for Kent, 50 ± 5 

mg/m3 for Seattle, and 58 ± 8 mg/m3 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 49243 

9 78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013. 

10See page 3, Re-analysis of ARTC Data on 

Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains, included in 

the docket for this action. 

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

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. 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
49244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart WW—Washington 

■ 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: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Particulate Matter 

*******

Particulate Matter (PM10) 2nd 

10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan.

Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma .... 11/29/13 8/20/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–19554 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES