Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 47259 

section 182(f) of the Act in relation to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standards. The 

exemption would apply throughout the 

entire State of Maine. EPA is also 

proposing to approve Maine’s February 

11, 2013 request for a limited ‘‘opt-out’’ 

or ‘‘restructuring’’ of the section 182(f) 

OTR requirements pertaining to VOC 

nonattainment NSR permitting, 

currently applicable in Maine only by 

virtue of Maine’s location in the OTR, 

not by virtue of Maine having any areas 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 

8-hour ozone standards. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to approve Maine’s 

request for the SIP revisions described 

earlier in this notice. 

If EPA takes final action to approve 

Maine’s requests, including the SIP 

revisions described above, the following 

consequences would result. First, any 

NOX RACT requirements that would 

otherwise have been necessary in Maine 

in relation to the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard would now not be required. 

However, any NOX and/or VOC 

requirements earlier approved into 

Maine’s SIP to implement regional haze 

requirements or requirements relating to 

prior, pre-2008, ozone standards, will 

remain in Maine’s SIP. Second, 

nonattainment NSR permitting 

requirements for major new or modified 

stationary sources of NOX in Maine 

would no longer apply anywhere in the 

State. Third, the nonattainment NSR 

permitting requirements applicable to 

major new and modified stationary 

sources of VOC, which now apply 

throughout the entire State of Maine, 

would no longer apply in any area in 

Maine. Fourth, for major new and 

modified stationary sources of VOC and 

NOX throughout the entire State of 

Maine, the Maine SIP’s PSD permitting 

requirements would apply in lieu of the 

nonattainment NSR permitting 

requirements. Finally, the requirements 

applicable to sources holding existing 

nonattainment NSR permits will remain 

in effect. 

As part of this action, EPA is 

proposing to revise certain provisions in 

Maine’s SIP. The SIP revisions would 

affect specific parts of two chapters of 

Maine’s nonattainment NSR permitting 

regulations previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP. The first is Chapter 113 

entitled ‘‘Growth Offset Regulations’’ 

which contains emissions offsets 

requirements for sources subject to 

nonattainment NSR. The second is 

Chapter 115 entitled ‘‘Emission License 

Regulation’’ which includes generally 

applicable requirements for sources that 

must obtain an emissions license in 

Maine. More specifically, EPA is 

proposing to remove from Chapter 113 

all references to the OTR as a basis for 

the applicability of VOC nonattainment 

NSR permitting requirements. Those 

references appear in section 1 

(Applicability), section 2.C.1 (Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas), section 2.C.2 

(Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Location 

of offsets), and section 3 (Exemptions). 

EPA also is proposing to remove 

references in Chapter 113 to the 

permissible location of emissions offsets 

for attainment areas (these provisions 

for attainment areas are only relevant if 

location in the OTR is a basis for 

nonattainment NSR applicability). 

These references appear in sections 

2.C.3 (Ozone Nonattainment Areas) and 

2.C.3.b. (Ozone Nonattainment Areas) of 

Chapter 113, and will not be relevant if 

the section 176A(a)(2) restructuring is 

approved, because new or modified 

major stationary sources of VOC located 

in areas attaining the ozone standard 

will no longer be required to obtain 

offsets. In Chapter 115, EPA proposes to 

remove the reference to the OTR in 

Sections V.B.2 (Criteria for Granting a 

License) and VI.B.2 (New sources and 

modifications, Nonattainment areas). 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

state’s submission that complies with 

the provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing 

state submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, these actions, merely 

propose to approve Maine’s requests as 

meeting Federal requirements and do 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having 

significant economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the Maine 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the state, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 18, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18831 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0088; FRL–9841–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10

Limited Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a limited maintenance plan 

submitted by the State of Washington on 

July 1, 2013, for the Thurston County 

maintenance area (Thurston County) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47260 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

10 micrometers (PM10). The EPA is also 

proposing to approve both local and 

state regulatory updates related to this 

maintenance plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0088, by any of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle WA, 98101 

C. Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov 

D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. 

Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013– 

0088. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, 

hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by using the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. This Action 

II. Background 

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in 

Rulemaking Process 

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

PM10 Areas 

A. Requirements for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

B. Conformity under the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

V. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that 

Thurston County qualifies for the limited 

maintenance plan option? 

B. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory? 

C. Does the limited maintenance plan 

include an assurance of continued 

operation of an appropriate EPAApproved air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 

58? 

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

E. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

VI. Revisions to the Washington SIP 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

limited maintenance plan submitted by 

the State of Washington (the State) on 

July 1, 2013, for Thurston County, 

including approval of a monitoring 

system modification for the area. The 

limited maintenance plan also includes 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) regulatory changes 

that strengthen the control measures 

contained in the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) since our last approval on 

January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). In 

addition to the state regulatory changes, 

the EPA is proposing to approve 

corresponding local regulations adopted 

by the Olympic Region Clean Air 

Agency (ORCAA) because they have 

direct implementation authority in 

Thurston County. Lastly, the EPA is 

proposing to remove Chapter 173–433– 

170 Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) Retail Sales Fee from the SIP 

because this provision was not a control 

measure relied on for attainment or a 

required element of the SIP. The EPA 

has determined that removal of this 

provision will not interfere with 

continued attainment and maintenance 

of the standard. Similarly, the EPA is 

proposing to remove Chapter 173–433– 

200 WAC Regulatory Actions and 

Penalties from the SIP incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 52.2470. The EPA 

reviews and approves state submissions 

to ensure they provide adequate 

enforcement authority. However, 

regulations describing agency 

enforcement authority are not 

incorporated into the SIP to avoid 

potential conflict with the EPA’s 

independent authorities. Likewise, the 

EPA has reviewed and is proposing 

approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 Penalties 

as having adequate enforcement 

authority, but will not incorporate this 

section by reference into the SIP 

codified in 40 CFR 52.2470. 

II. Background 

The EPA identified a portion of 

Thurston County as a ‘‘Group I’’ area of 

concern due to measured violations of 

the newly promulgated 24-hour PM10

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) on August 7, 1987 (52 FR 

29383). Ecology and ORCAA worked 

with the communities of Lacey, 

Olympia, and Tumwater to develop a 

plan for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

The plan was focused on wood smoke 

reduction and was submitted in 

November 1988. On November 15, 1990, 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments 

under section 107(d)(4)(B), designated 

the Thurston County Group I area as 

nonattainment for PM10 by operation of 

law. The EPA published a Federal 

Register notice announcing all areas 

designated nonattainment for PM10 on 

March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). In order 

to address the additional moderate area 

requirements imposed by the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, Ecology submitted a 

supplement to the attainment plan in 

November 1991. EPA took final action 

to approve the entire plan on July 27, 

1993 (58 FR 40056). 

The control measures contained in the 

Thurston County plan rapidly brought 

the area into attainment by 1991 and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 47261 

formed the foundation of the wood 

smoke reduction program still in use 

today. As PM10 levels in the area 

steadily declined, the EPA redesignated 

the Thurston County nonattainment 

area to a maintenance area on October 

4, 2000 (65 FR 59128). In addition to 

approving Ecology’s redesignation 

request for the area, the EPA also 

approved a maintenance plan to ensure 

continued compliance with the PM10

NAAQS for ten years. The purpose of 

the current limited maintenance plan is 

to fulfill the second 10-year planning 

requirement of Clean Air Act section 

175A (b) to ensure compliance through 

2020. 

III. Public and Stakeholder 

Involvement in Rulemaking Process 

Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that each SIP revision offer a 

reasonable opportunity for notice and 

public hearing. This must occur prior to 

the revision being submitted by the 

State to the EPA. The State provided 

notice and an opportunity for public 

comment beginning April 22, 2013, with 

no comments received. Under the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the 

State also offered an opportunity for a 

public hearing; however no requests 

were received. This SIP revision was 

submitted by the Governor’s designee 

and was received by the EPA on July 1, 

2013. The EPA evaluated Ecology’s 

submittal and determined that the State 

met the requirements for reasonable 

notice and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2). 

IV. The Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for PM10 Areas 

A. Requirements for the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued 

guidance on streamlined maintenance 

plan provisions for certain moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas (Memo from 

Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality 

Standards and Strategies Division, 

entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Moderate PM10

Nonattainment Areas’’ (limited 

maintenance plan option memo). The 

limited maintenance plan option memo 

contains a statistical demonstration that 

areas meeting certain air quality criteria 

will, with a high degree of probability, 

maintain the standard ten years into the 

future. Thus, the EPA provided the 

maintenance demonstration for areas 

meeting the criteria outlined in the 

memo. It follows that future year 

emission inventories for these areas, and 

some of the standard analyses to 

determine transportation conformity 

with the SIP, are no longer necessary. 

To qualify for the limited 

maintenance plan option the State must 

demonstrate the area meets the criteria 

described below. First, the area should 

have attained the PM10 NAAQS. 

Second, the most recent five years of air 

quality data at all monitors in the area, 

called the 24-hour average design value, 

should be at or below 98 mg/m3. Third, 

the State should expect only limited 

growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10

emissions (including fugitive dust) and 

should have passed a motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, 

the memo identifies core provisions that 

must be included in all limited 

maintenance plans. These provisions 

include an attainment year emissions 

inventory, assurance of continued 

operation of an EPA-approved air 

quality monitoring network, and 

contingency provisions. 

B. Conformity Under the Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option 

The transportation conformity rule 

and the general conformity rule (40 CFR 

parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 

areas and maintenance areas covered by 

an approved maintenance plan. Under 

either conformity rule, an acceptable 

method of demonstrating a Federal 

action conforms to the applicable SIP is 

to demonstrate that expected emissions 

from the planned action are consistent 

with the emissions budget for the area. 

While qualification for the limited 

maintenance plan option does not 

exempt an area from the need to affirm 

conformity, conformity may be 

demonstrated without submitting an 

emissions budget. Under the limited 

maintenance plan option, emissions 

budgets are treated as essentially not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to expect that the 

qualifying areas would experience so 

much growth in that period that a 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS would 

result. For transportation conformity 

purposes, the EPA would conclude that 

emissions in these areas need not be 

capped for the maintenance period and 

therefore a regional emissions analysis 

would not be required. Similarly, 

Federal actions subject to the general 

conformity rule could be considered to 

satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40 

CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same 

reasons that the budgets are essentially 

considered to be unlimited. 

V. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that 

Thurston County qualifies for the 

limited maintenance plan option? 

As discussed above, the limited 

maintenance plan option memo outlines 

the requirements for an area to qualify. 

First, the area should be attaining the 

NAAQS. Thurston County has been 

attaining the NAAQS since 1991. EPA 

formally redesignated the area from 

nonattainment to attainment, making it 

a maintenance area effective December 

4, 2000 (65 FR 59128). 

Second, the average design value for 

the past five years of monitoring data 

must be at or below the critical design 

value of 98 mg/m3 for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. The critical design value is a 

margin of safety in which an area has a 

one in ten probability of exceeding the 

NAAQS. Using the most recently 

available Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) monitoring data for the years 

2001–2005, the State’s analysis 

demonstrated that Thurston County’s 

average design value was 60 mg/m3, well 

below the 98 mg/m3 threshold. An FRM 

monitor is one that has been approved 

by the EPA under 40 CFR part 58 to 

measure compliance with the NAAQS. 

As discussed later in this proposal, 

Ecology and ORCAA also calculated 

average design values using more recent 

non-FRM nephelometer data for the 

period 2008 to 2012. This more recent 

monitoring data shows that PM10 levels 

continued to decline with an average 

design value of 45 mg/m3. The EPA 

reviewed the data provided by Ecology 

and ORCAA and finds that Thurston 

County meets the design value criteria 

outlined in the limited maintenance 

plan option memo. 

Third, the area must meet the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test 

described in attachment B of the limited 

maintenance plan option memo. 

Ecology submitted an analysis showing 

that growth in on-road mobile PM10

emissions sources was minimal and 

would not threaten the assumption of 

maintenance that underlies the limited 

maintenance plan policy. Using the 

EPA’s methodology, Ecology calculated 

a regional emissions analysis margin of 

safety of 62 mg/m3, easily meeting the 

threshold of 98 mg/m3. The EPA 

reviewed the calculations in the State’s 

limited maintenance plan submittal and 

concurs with this conclusion. 

Lastly, the limited maintenance plan 

option memo requires all controls relied 

on to demonstrate attainment remain in 

place for the area to qualify. The 

controls on wood smoke reduction, 

Chapter 173–433 WAC Solid Fuel 

Burning Device Standards, were 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47262 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

approved by the EPA into the SIP on 

January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). As 

discussed later in this proposal, Ecology 

made updates to Chapter 173–433 WAC 

strengthening the control measures 

since the EPA’s last approval. The EPA 

reviewed these changes and confirmed 

that the underlying control measures 

remain in place, thus qualifying for the 

limited maintenance plan option. 

As described above, Thurston County 

meets the qualification criteria set forth 

in the limited maintenance plan option 

memo. Under the limited maintenance 

plan option, the State will be expected 

to determine on an annual basis that the 

criteria are still being met. If the State 

determines that the limited maintenance 

plan criteria are not being met, it should 

take action to reduce PM10

concentrations enough to requalify. One 

possible approach the State could take 

is to implement contingency measures. 

Section V. I. provides a description of 

contingency provisions submitted as 

part of the limited maintenance plan 

submittal. To insure this requirement is 

met, Ecology commits to reporting to the 

EPA on continued qualification for the 

limited maintenance plan option in the 

annual monitoring network report. 

B. Does the State have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory? 

Pursuant to the limited maintenance 

plan option memo, the State’s approved 

attainment plan should include an 

emissions inventory which can be used 

to demonstrate attainment of the 

NAAQS. The inventory should 

represent emissions during the same 

five-year period associated with air 

quality data used to determine whether 

the area meets the applicability 

requirements of the limited 

maintenance plan option. 

Ecology’s Thurston County limited 

maintenance plan submittal includes an 

emissions inventory based on Ecology’s 

2005 Triennial Emissions Inventory and 

the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. 

These base years represent the most 

recent emissions inventory data 

available and are consistent with the 

data used to determine applicability of 

the limited maintenance plan option 

(i.e., having no violations of the PM10

NAAQS). The emissions inventory 

focused on four significant source 

categories chosen based on a review of 

the original maintenance plan. These 

source categories, in order of relative 

impact, are wood burning, construction 

dust, road dust, and vehicle exhaust and 

tire wear. Since the Thurston County 

area is primarily residential and 

governmental, other source categories, 

including industrial sources, are 

insignificant. This data supports 

Ecology’s conclusion that the control 

measures contained in the original 

attainment plan will continue to protect 

and maintain the PM10 NAAQS. 

C. Does the limited maintenance plan 

include an assurance of continued 

operation of an appropriate EPAApproved air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR 

Part 58? 

PM10 monitoring was established in 

the Thurston County area in 1985, with 

many changes to the monitoring 

technology and requirements since. 

Beginning in 1990, Ecology and ORCAA 

collocated a nephelometer with the 

existing PM10 FRM monitor. A 

nephelometer is an instrument that is 

widely used to calculate particulate 

matter concentrations based on light 

scatter measurements. While not an 

EPA-approved FRM monitoring method, 

Ecology and ORCAA found that the 

nephelometer and the PM10 FRM 

monitor were highly correlated. Because 

of this high level of correlation between 

the monitors, as part of the 2007 annual 

network monitoring report under 40 

CFR part 58, Ecology requested 

replacing the FRM monitor with the 

nephelometer so that resources could be 

redirected to more pressing 

environmental issues such as ensuring 

that areas of concern in the State were 

in compliance with the recently revised 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, 

which is defined as particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers. 

The EPA approved this request on 

November 16, 2007. A full description 

of the correlation data is included in the 

limited maintenance plan submittal. 

The EPA is proposing to approve this 

monitoring system modification, using 

nephelometer data to represent PM10

concentrations, under 40 CFR 58.14(c) 

for the second 10-year maintenance plan 

period because this modification is a 

reproducible approach to representing 

air quality in the Thurston County 

maintenance area, and the area 

continues to meet all applicable 

Appendix D requirements evaluated as 

part of the annual network approval 

process. As detailed in the limited 

maintenance plan, ORCAA will 

calculate the PM10 design value estimate 

annually from nephelometer data 

through 2020 to confirm the area 

continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. 

ORCAA also makes a commitment to 

continue operation of a nephelometer in 

the Thurston County maintenance area 

through the 2020, the end of the 

maintenance period, to determine PM10

levels. In the unlikely event that after 

exceptional events are discounted, the 

second highest PM10 concentration in a 

calendar year based on nephelometer 

monitoring exceeds the LMP threshold 

of 98 mg/m3, Ecology, ORCAA, and EPA 

will discuss reestablishment of FRM 

monitoring as part of the annual 

network monitoring report process. 

D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

Clean Air Act section 175A states that 

a maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violation of the NAAQS which may 

occur after redesignation of the area to 

attainment. The EPA is proposing 

approval of ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) into 

the SIP. This regulation was passed in 

conjunction with the 1997 maintenance 

plan submission and prohibits the use 

of uncertified woodstoves in the 

Thurston County maintenance area for 

the sole purpose of meeting Clean Air 

Act requirements for contingency 

measures. The EPA reviewed ORCAA 

Rule 8.1.4(e) and determined that it 

meets the contingency measure 

requirements. The contingency measure 

will be triggered if a violation of the 

PM10 standard occurs at the Thurston 

County maintenance area monitor based 

on nephelometer and/or FRM 

monitoring. A violation of the PM10

standard will be determined by the 

procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix K—Interpretation of the 

NAAQS for Particulate Matter. 

E. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

(1) Transportation Conformity 

Under the limited maintenance plan 

option, emissions budgets are treated as 

essentially not constraining for the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to expect that qualifying 

areas would experience so much growth 

in that period that a NAAQS violation 

would result. While areas with 

maintenance plans approved under the 

limited maintenance plan option are not 

subject to the budget test, the areas 

remain subject to the other 

transportation conformity requirements 

of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) in the area or the State must 

document and ensure that: 

(a) Transportation plans and projects 

provide for timely implementation of 

SIP transportation control measures 

(TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.113; 

(b) Transportation plans and projects 

comply with the fiscal constraint 

element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 47263 

(c) The MPO’s interagency 

consultation procedures meet the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

93.105; 

(d) Conformity of transportation plans 

is determined no less frequently than 

every three years, and conformity of 

plan amendments and transportation 

projects is demonstrated in accordance 

with the timing requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 93.104; 

(e) The latest planning assumptions 

and emissions model are used as set 

forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 

93.111; 

(f) Projects do not cause or contribute 

to any new localized carbon monoxide 

or particulate matter violations, in 

accordance with procedures specified in 

40 CFR 93.123; and 

(g) Project sponsors and/or operators 

provide written commitments as 

specified in 40 CFR 93.125. 

Upon approval of the Thurston 

County limited maintenance plan, the 

area is exempt from performing a 

regional emissions analysis, but must 

meet project-level conformity analyses 

as well as the transportation conformity 

criteria mentioned above. 

(2) General Conformity 

For Federal actions required to 

address the specific requirements of the 

general conformity rule, one set of 

requirements applies particularly to 

ensuring that emissions from the action 

will not cause or contribute to new 

violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate 

current violations, or delay timely 

attainment. One way that this 

requirement can be met is to 

demonstrate that ‘‘the total of direct and 

indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and 

documented by the state agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable 

SIP to result in a level of emissions 

which, together with all other emissions 

in the nonattainment area, would not 

exceed the emissions budgets specified 

in the applicable SIP’’ (40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)). 

The decision about whether to 

include specific allocations of allowable 

emissions increases to sources is one 

made by the state air quality agencies. 

These emissions budgets are different 

than those used in transportation 

conformity. Emissions budgets in 

transportation conformity are required 

to limit and restrain emissions. 

Emissions budgets in general conformity 

allow increases in emissions up to 

specified levels. The State has not 

chosen to include specific emissions 

allocations for Federal projects that 

would be subject to the provisions of 

general conformity. 

VI. Revisions to the Washington SIP 

As previously discussed, the EPA 

approved the wood smoke control 

measures contained in Chapter 173–433 

WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device 

Standards on January 15, 1993, based 

on state regulatory provisions in effect 

as of October 18, 1990 (58 FR 4578). 

Ecology subsequently revised Chapter 

173–433 WAC to strengthen the control 

measures with changes such as adding 

one of the nation’s most stringent state 

woodstove certification standards and 

by moving towards a two-stage burn ban 

system to encourage adoption of the 

cleaner burning woodstoves. These 

changes to Chapter 173–433 WAC were 

effective on April 20, 1991 and March 

6, 1993, but were not submitted for 

adoption into the SIP at that time. A 

redline strikeout copy of the regulatory 

changes along with the EPA’s analysis is 

included in the docket for this action. 

Based on our review, the EPA is 

proposing to approve Ecology’s 1991 

and 1993 regulatory updates. In 

addition, Ecology requested that the 

EPA remove from the approved SIP 

Chapter 173–433–170 WAC Retail Sales 

Fee (state effective January 3, 1989) 

because this provision is not a control 

measure or a required element of the 

SIP. After reviewing the original 

Thurston County attainment plan, the 

EPA agrees that this provision was not 

a control measure relied upon for 

attainment and removal of Chapter 173– 

433–170 from the SIP will not interfere 

with continued attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Similarly, 

the EPA erred in including Chapter 

173–433–200 WAC Regulatory Actions 

and Penalties in the SIP incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 52.2470. The EPA 

reviews and approves state submissions 

to ensure they provide adequate 

enforcement authority. However, 

regulations describing agency 

enforcement authority are not 

incorporated into the SIP to avoid 

potential conflict with the EPA’s 

independent authorities. Therefore, we 

will remove Chapter 173–433–200 WAC 

from 40 CFR 52.2470. 

While the provisions of Chapter 173– 

433 WAC Solid Fuel Burning Device 

Standards apply statewide per Chapter 

173–433–020 WAC, Ecology requested 

that the EPA approve portions of 

ORCAA Rule 8.1 Wood Heating and 

ORCAA Rule 6.2 Outdoor Burning 

because ORCAA has direct 

implementation authority in Thurston 

County. The EPA reviewed these 

regulations to ensure they are as 

stringent as the existing control 

measures, with a full copy of the EPA’s 

analysis included in the docket for this 

action. It is important to note that the 

ORCAA control measures, particularly 

burn ban trigger levels, focus on the 

more stringent and environmentally 

relevant 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Ecology 

and ORCAA provided an analysis of 

PM10 and PM2.5 data collected by 

collocated FRM monitors at the 

Thurston County monitoring site. 

ORCAA found that the two pollutants 

were correlated and one could be 

determined from the other with a high 

degree of accuracy within the range of 

observations. The 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS revised in 2006 has a protection 

level of 35 mg/m3 compared to the 1987 

PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 mg/m3. 

Based on the monitoring data from 

Thurston County, ORCAA found that in 

the critical winter season the majority of 

PM10 is PM2.5. The statistical 

relationship between the two PM 

parameters indicates PM2.5 levels would 

need to exceed 139 mg/m3 before the 

PM10 NAAQS is exceeded. The EPA 

concurs that Thurston County would 

violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS well 

before it exceeded the PM10 NAAQS. By 

setting burn ban trigger levels to protect 

the 35 mg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

ORCAA is simultaneously protecting 

the 150 mg/m3 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

Finally, ORCAA Rule 8.1.4(e) provides 

a local clean air agency rule for 

implementing the contingency measure 

which would prohibit the use of 

uncertified wood stoves. The EPA 

reviewed the ORCAA regulations and 

determined that they strengthen the SIP 

and meet the CAA requirements. As 

discussed above with respect to 

enforcement authorities, the EPA 

reviewed and proposes approval of 

ORCAA Rule 8.1.6 Penalties but will not 

incorporate this provision by reference 

in 40 CFR 52.2470. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Agency Citation Title State or local 

effective date Submitted 

Ecology .............. 173–433–030 ................................................ Definitions ..................................................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES—Continued 

Agency Citation Title State or local 

effective date Submitted 

Ecology .............. 173–433–100 ................................................ Emission performance standards ................. 03/06/93 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–110 ................................................ Opacity standards ........................................ 03/06/93 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–120 ................................................ Prohibited fuel types ..................................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–140 ................................................ Impaired air quality criteria ........................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–150 ................................................ Curtailment ................................................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 6.2.3 (only as it applies to the cities of 

Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater).

No residential or land clearing burning ........ 02/04/12 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 6.2.6 .............................................................. Curtailment ................................................... 03/18/11 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 6.2.7 .............................................................. Recreational Burning .................................... 03/18/11 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.1 .............................................................. Definitions ..................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.2 (b) and (c) ........................................... General emission standards ........................ 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.3 .............................................................. Prohibited fuel types ..................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.4 .............................................................. Curtailment ................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.5 .............................................................. Exceptions .................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.6 .............................................................. Penalties ....................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.7 .............................................................. Sale and installation of uncertified 

woodstoves.

05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.8 .............................................................. Disposal of uncertified woodstoves .............. 05/22/10 07/01/13 

VII. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

second 10-year limited maintenance 

plan for Thurston County submitted by 

Washington State. The state’s submittal 

also included a request to approve state 

regulatory updates to the original 

control measures included in Chapter 

173–433 WAC as well as corresponding 

local ORCAA regulations. The EPA is 

proposing to approve these regulatory 

changes as well as corrections to the 

EPA’s January 1993 approval because 

these changes strengthen the SIP. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and the EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 22, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18843 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510; FRL–9841–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new 

or revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, 

the CAA requires states to submit a plan 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS