```

[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, 
hunt.jeff@epa.gov.

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
```