Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78311 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through ww.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, 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 EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, 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 whose disclosure 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 Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by 

email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: December 9, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30712 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket #: EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0713; FRL– 

9904–63–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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

limited maintenance plan submitted by 

the State of Washington, dated 

November 25, 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). A 

limited maintenance plan is used to 

meet Clean Air Act requirements for 

formerly designated nonattainment 

areas with little risk of violating the 

PM10 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (PM10 NAAQS) again. All 

three areas currently have monitored 

PM10 levels that are roughly one-third of 

the PM10 NAAQS, with steady declines 

in PM10 levels since the areas were first 

identified as potentially violating the 

PM10 NAAQS in 1987. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0713, 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– 

0713. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78312 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

V. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that the 

maintenance areas qualify 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. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

limited maintenance plan submitted by 

the State of Washington (Washington or 

the State), dated November 25, 2013, for 

the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10

maintenance areas, including approval 

of a monitoring system modification for 

the area. If finalized, the EPA’s approval 

of this limited maintenance plan will 

satisfy 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. 

II. Background 

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 

to establish PM10 pollution control 

strategies. Primary control strategies for 

the three areas included a residential 

wood smoke control program, a fugitive 

dust 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 

continuing declines in PM10 levels ever 

since. 

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, published March 13, 2001). The 

purpose of the current limited 

maintenance plan is to fulfill the second 

10-year planning requirement, section 

175A(b) of the Clean Air Act, 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 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision offer a reasonable 

opportunity for notice and public 

hearing. The State provided notice and 

an opportunity for public comment 

beginning September 27, 2013, and 

ending November 4, 2013. Under the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.102(a), the 

State held a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. 

on October 30, 2013 in the Mill Creek 

Room of the Kent Commons, 525 Fourth 

Avenue N, Kent, Washington. Two sets 

of comments were received. The first 

comment discussed the burning of coal 

in Asia generally, and requested 

stronger action to address international 

pollution. The second comment 

requested that Ecology expand the Kent 

maintenance area boundary and 

consider more stringent control measure 

in the future. The EPA reviewed both 

sets of comments and determined that 

Ecology’s responses were appropriate 

and adequate. This SIP revision was 

submitted by the Governor’s designee 

and was received by the EPA on 

November 29, 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. See 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78313 

V. Review of the State’s Submittal 

A. Has the State demonstrated that the 

maintenance areas qualify 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 

PM10 NAAQS. Monitoring data shows 

that all three areas attained the PM10

NAAQS by 1990, with declining levels 

of PM10 ever since. The EPA formally 

redesignated the areas from 

nonattainment to attainment, making 

them maintenance areas effective May 

14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, published March 

13, 2001). 

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. The design values for Kent, 

Seattle, and Tacoma based on 24-hour 

PM10 monitoring data from 2003 

through 2007 are 57 ± 3 mg/m3, 68 ± 4 

mg/m3, and 72 ± 9 mg/m3. As discussed 

later in this proposal, in these three 

areas PM10 levels can be estimated with 

a high degree of accuracy using fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 

concentrations. In 2007, the EPA 

approved the State’s request to shift 

from PM10 specific monitoring in Kent, 

Seattle, and Tacoma to rely on the more 

stringent and environmentally relevant 

PM2.5 NAAQS monitoring effort. PM10

design values estimated using PM2.5

concentration levels from 2008 to 2012 

are 46 ± 3 mg/m3, 50 ± 5 mg/m3, and 58 

± 8 mg/m3, respectively. The EPA 

reviewed the data and methodology 

provided by the State and finds that all 

three areas meet the design value 

criteria of 98 mg/m3 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. 

The State 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, the State 

calculated total growth in on-road motor 

vehicle PM10 emissions over the tenyear period for Kent, Seattle, and 

Tacoma of 1.5 mg/m3, 2.7 mg/m3, and 2.9 

mg/m3, respectively. This calculation is 

derived using Attachment B of the 

EPA’s limited maintenance plan memo, 

where the projected percentage increase 

in vehicle miles traveled over the next 

ten years (VMTpi) is multipled by the 

on-road mobile portion of the 

attainment year inventory (DVmv), 

including both primary and secondary 

PM10 emissions and re-entrained road 

dust. The EPA reviewed the calculations 

in the State’s limited maintenance plan 

submittal and concurs with the 

determination that all three areas meet 

the motor vehicle regional emissions 

analysis test. This test is met when 

(VMTpi × DVmv) plus the design value 

for the most recent five years of quality 

assured data is below the limited 

maintenance plan threshold of 98 mg/ 

m3. The results for Kent, Seattle, and 

Tacoma were 61.5 mg/m3, 74.7 mg/m3, 

and 83.9 mg/m3, respectively. Please see 

Appendix A of the State’s submission 

for the full analysis. 

Lastly, the limited maintenance plan 

option memo requires all controls relied 

on to demonstrate attainment remain in 

place for the areas to qualify. The EPA 

confirmed that the underlying control 

measures for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 

remain in place, thus qualifying for the 

limited maintenance plan option. 

As described above, the Kent, Seattle, 

and Tacoma maintenance areas meet 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 ensure this requirement is 

met, the State 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 

submission 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. 

The limited maintenance plan 

submittal includes an emissions 

inventory based on the State’s draft 

2011 Triennial Emissions Inventory. 

This inventory is prepared as part of the 

2011 National Emissions Inventory 

under the EPA’s Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (73 FR 76539, December 

17, 2008). The information was 

supplemented with annual 2011 

industrial emissions reported to PSCAA 

and Ecology. The 2011 base years 

represent the most recent emissions 

inventory data available and is 

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 seven 

significant source categories chosen 

based on a review of the original 

maintenance plan. The 2011 emission 

categories are shown along with source 

categories from the original 

maintenance plan in parentheses. These 

categories are: On-road mobile (gasoline 

exhaust); port and marine, on-road 

mobile (diesel exhaust); port and marine 

(ships); locomotives, including fugitive 

dust (locomotives); residential wood 

combustion (wood burning); paved road 

dust, unpaved road dust (road dust); 

and industrial (allowable industrial). 

Other source categories, including 

outdoor burning, construction dust, 

aircraft emissions, wildfires, cigarette 

smoke, commercial charbroiling, and 

secondary particulate matter, are 

insignificant. The EPA reviewed and is 

proposing to approve the emissions 

inventory and methodology. The 

emissions inventory data supports the 

State’s conclusion that the existing 

control measures in place 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 Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma areas 

between 1985 and 1987, with many 

changes to the monitoring technology 

and requirements since. Beginning in 

1999, the State collocated PM2.5

monitors with the existing PM10 Federal 

Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors to 

establish correlation data and confirm 

that PM10 levels could be accurately 

predicted using PM2.5 concentrations for 

the areas. Due to the high level of 

correlation between the PM2.5 and PM10

monitors, the State requested 

discontinuing the PM10 specific 

monitors as part of the 2007 annual 

network monitoring report under 40 

CFR part 58. The EPA approved this 

request in a letter dated November 16, 

2007, included in the docket for this 

action. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78314 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

A full description of the correlation 

data and the estimation model is 

included in the limited maintenance 

plan submittal. The EPA is proposing to 

approve this monitoring system 

modification, using PM2.5 monitoring 

data to estimate PM10 concentrations, 

under 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the second 

10-year maintenance plan period. This 

estimation method is a reproducible 

approach to representing air quality in 

all three maintenance areas, and all 

three areas continue to meet the 

applicable Appendix D requirements 

evaluated as part of the annual network 

approval process. As detailed in the 

limited maintenance plan, the State will 

calculate the PM10 design value estimate 

annually from PM2.5 monitoring data 

through 2020 to confirm the area 

continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. 

The State also makes a commitment to 

continue operation of PM2.5 monitoring 

in the three maintenance areas through 

the 2020, the end of the maintenance 

period, to determine PM10 levels. In the 

unlikely event that after exceptional 

events are taken into account, the 

calculated design value for PM10

exceeds the limited maintenance plan 

threshold of 98 mg/m3, the State will reestablish PM10 monitoring. 

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. Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency’s Regulation I—Article 13.07(b) 

provides for prohibition of the use of 

uncertified woodstoves for the sole 

purpose of meeting Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency measures. 

The EPA approved Article 13.07(b) as a 

contingency measure for all three areas 

on March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14492). 

Regulation I—Article 13.07(b) remains 

in effect today and the entire Article 13 

was re-approved by the EPA on May 29, 

2013 (78 FR 32131). 

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; 

(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. 

Upon approval of the limited 

maintenance plan for the Kent, Seattle, 

and Tacoma areas, the three PM10

maintenance areas are 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. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

limited maintenance plan submitted by 

the State of Washington, dated 

November 25, 2013, for the Kent, 

Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 maintenance 

areas, including approval of a 

monitoring system modification for the 

area. If finalized, the EPA’s approval of 

this limited maintenance plan will 

satisfy 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. 

VII. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78315 

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. 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: December 12, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30878 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0002; FRL–9904–53– 

Region 10] 

Revision to the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan; Approval of Fine 

Particulate Matter Control Measures; 

Franklin County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2012, the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) submitted a revision to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

address Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for the Idaho portion 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Franklin 

County’’) of the cross border Logan, 

Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area (Logan UT– 

ID). The EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of PM2.5 control measures 

contained in the December 2012 

submittal because incorporation of these 

measures would strengthen the Idaho 

SIP and reduce sources of PM2.5

emissions in Franklin County that 

contribute to violations of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan UT–ID 

nonattainment area. Consequently, the 

EPA is not acting on the entire contents 

of the December 2012 SIP submission 

revision at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0002, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 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– 

0002. 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 docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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. 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 telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 

or the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background 

II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5

Control Measures 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS