[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65077-65080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26992]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket  WA-70-7148; FRL -7397-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``we'').

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve most, but not all of the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for visibility submitted by the 
State of Washington on November 5, 1999. Significant provisions of this 
SIP revision that we propose to approve include an improved smoke 
management plan and the Southwest Air Pollution Control Agency (SWAPCA) 
emission limitations on the Centralia Power Plant located in central 
western Washington.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Steven K. Body, EPA, 
Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101. You may see copies of the relevant documents used in 
this proposed action during normal business hours at the following 
location: EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, EPA Region 10, Office 
of Air Quality, at (206) 553-0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information is organized 
in the following order:

Background

I. Background on Visibility
    A. What is visibility protection and why do we have it?
    B. What are the main visibility protections provided by federal 
rules?
    C. How has visibility been protected in Washington?
II. What are the required provisions of a visibility SIP?
    A. Long Term Strategy
    B. Monitoring
    C. BART
III. What does this proposed Visibility SIP revision change and how 
do these changes compare to federal requirements?
    A. Provisions to revise the protection of Integral Vistas
    B. Provisions to revise the Smoke Management Plan
    i. What is Washington's Smoke Management Plan?
    ii. How does Washington's 1999 proposed SIP Revision change the 
Plan?
    iii. How does the Smoke Management Plan compare to federal 
requirements?
    C. Provisions to include the SWAPCA RACT Emission Limitations 
for Centralia Power Plant
    D. Provisions to revise the State's Best Available Retrofit 
Technology and New Source Review Rules

Administrative Requirements

Background

I. Background on Visibility

A. What Is Visibility Protection and Why Do We Have It?

    Section 169A of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires 
states to protect visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas. 
Mandatory Class I federal areas are specified large National Parks or 
Wilderness Areas. In Washington, there are 8 mandatory Class I federal 
areas; the Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park, 
Olympic National Park, Alpine Lake Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak 
Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Mount Adams Wilderness 
Area, and Pasayten Wilderness Area. 40 CFR 81.434 The federal rules 
regulating visibility protection are set out in 40 CFR part 51, subpart 
P.

B. What Are the Main Visibility Protections Provided by the Federal 
Rules?

    The Clean Air Act sets out a goal of preventing any future and 
remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I 
federal areas. 42 U.S.C. 7491. Employing a close coordination process 
among the state and the federal land managers (FLM), the federal rules 
require monitoring of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas, as 
well as the development of a long-term strategy for making reasonable 
progress towards the national visibility goal. The visibility 
protection rules also provide for an assessment of visibility impacts 
from any new or major modification to a major stationary

[[Page 65078]]

source that may affect mandatory Class I federal areas. Additionally, 
in the event that a federal land manager certifies impairment of 
visibility in a mandatory Class I federal area that could be caused, or 
contributed to, by an existing stationary facility, emission 
limitations representing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) may 
be imposed on the facility.
    The federal visibility rules were modified in 1999 to include 
provisions for addressing regional haze. See 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999. 
Regional haze is visibility impairment which results from the 
cumulative impact of emissions from many point and non-point sources. 
All states are currently in the process of developing revisions to 
their SIPs to address the regional haze provisions. Therefore, the SIP 
submission under discussion in this action is not required to comply 
with the regional haze provisions of 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.

C. How Has Visibility Been Protected in Washington?

    The initial proposed Visibility SIP for Washington was submitted by 
the State and approved in part by EPA on May 4, 1987, (52 FR 16243). 
EPA approved the Washington State Visibility Protection Program (with 
exceptions described below), certain provisions of 173-403 Washington 
Administrative Code (WAC) Implementation of Regulations for Air 
Contaminant Sources, and the 1983 Smoke Management Program. EPA 
disapproved Section V.B., the new source review program, Appendix A, 
the Proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rule, and the 
Proposed New Source Review Regulations.

II. What are the Required Provisions of a Visibility SIP?

    40 CFR 51.302 provides the requirements for Visibility SIPs. These 
requirements and how the Washington Visibility SIP meets these 
requirements are summarized below.

A. Long-Term Strategy

    The SIP needs to include a long-term (10-15 year) strategy that 
includes emission limitations, schedules of compliance, and other 
measures as deemed necessary to make reasonable progress toward the 
national goal. See 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(i). In general, Section VI of 
the proposed 1999 SIP revision provides a discussion of the long-term 
strategy, including measures for stationary sources, mobile sources, 
area sources, and interstate coordination. The long-term strategy must 
include:
    [sbull] A strategy for evaluating visibility in mandatory Class I 
federal areas by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring 
techniques. See 40 CFR 51.305(a). Section V of the proposed 1999 SIP 
revision provides for monitoring through the IMPROVE monitoring network 
and an assessment strategy.
    [sbull] A provision for the available visibility data and provide a 
mechanism for its use in decisions required by the regulations. See 40 
CFR 51.305(b). Section IX of the proposed 1999 SIP revision provides 
for the development and use of available data for SIP review and 
development.
    [sbull] A strategy covering any existing impairment the Federal 
Land Manager certifies to the State and integral vista of which the 
Federal Land Manager notifies the State at least 6 months prior to plan 
submission. See 40 CFR 51.306(a)(1). Section I of the proposed 1999 SIP 
revision discusses certification of impairment in federal mandatory 
Class I areas. Section III of the proposed 1999 SIP revision discusses 
integral vistas.
    [sbull] A discussion, with reasonable specificity, why the long-
term strategy is adequate for making reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 
51.306(a)(3). Section VI of the proposed 1999 SIP revision discusses 
all source categories, the control measures that apply to them, and a 
qualitative assessment of how these are adequate for making reasonable 
progress. Section IX of the proposed 1999 SIP revision discusses the 
evaluation of progress toward achieving the national visibility goal.
    [sbull] Coordination of the long-term strategy with other existing 
plans and goals, including those provided by affected Federal Land 
Managers. See 40 CFR 51.306(a)(3). Section IV of the proposed 1999 SIP 
revision provides for the consultation with Federal Land Managers for 
the review and revision of the visibility SIP and New Source Review 
rules.
    [sbull] Provisions for periodic review and revision as appropriate 
of not less than every three years. See 40 CFR 51.306(c). This review 
must include:
    (1) Progress achieved in remedying existing impairment;
    (2) The ability of the long-term strategy to prevent future 
impairment;
    (3) Any change in visibility since the last report;
    (4) Additional measures, including the need for SIP revisions that 
may be needed to assure reasonable progress;
    (5) The progress achieved in implementing BART and meeting other 
schedules set forth in the long-term strategy; and
    (6) The impact of any exemption granted under 40 CFR 51.303.
    (7) The need for BART to remedy existing visibility impairment of 
any integral vista.
    Section IV of the proposed 1997 SIP revision provides for the 
review of the visibility SIP.
    [sbull] Provisions for review of the impacts of any new or modified 
major stationary source. See 40 CFR 51.306(d). The Washington 
Department of Ecology has a fully delegated Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program. The Department of Ecology was notified of 
this delegation by letter dated February 7, 2002.

B. Monitoring

    The plan must contain an assessment of visibility impairment and a 
discussion of how each element of the plan relates to preventing future 
or remedying existing impairment. See 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(ii). Section 
V of the proposed 1999 SIP revision provides for visibility monitoring 
of the mandatory Class I federal areas. Section IV of the proposed 1999 
SIP revision provides a general discussion of the effect of measures on 
preventing future and remedying existing impairment.

C. BART

    The plan must contain emission limitations representing BART for 
any existing facility that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.301(e), 
and for which impairment has been certified by the Federal Land 
managers and for which the State has determined such impairment is 
reasonably attributed to that source. (40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(iii).
    The State has not determined that existing impairment in any 
mandatory Class I federal area for which impairment has been certified 
can be reasonably attributed to a specific major stationary source.

III. What Does This Proposed Visibility SIP Revision Change and How Do 
These Changes Compare to the Federal Requirements?

A. Provisions To Revise the Protection of Integral Vistas

    The 1987 SIP included a list of ``Preliminary Integral Vistas'' 
that were proposed by the National Park Service (NPS). The 1987 SIP 
provides that until the NPS finalizes the list of vistas, the panoramas 
listed in the January 15, 1981 Federal Register (Table III-2) will be 
protected under the visibility SIP. These integral vistas were never 
finalized by the NPS in accord with 40 CFR 51.304. Thus, there are no 
federally recognized Integral Vistas to be

[[Page 65079]]

protected. In the interim, no emission limitation was established for a 
source that specifically protected an integral vista, nor is the State 
proposing to revise and relax an emission limitation established for 
integral vista protection. The 1999 proposed SIP revision removes the 
provisions that would have continued these protections. The federal 
visibility regulations (40 CFR 51.304(d)) indicate that a state need 
not in its implementation plan list any integral vista the 
identification of which was not made in accordance with the criteria in 
40 CFR 51.304(a). Since no integral vistas have been identified by the 
FLM, there is no relaxation of SIP emission requirements and since the 
1999 proposed SIP revision meets the applicable requirements for 
visibility protection in mandatory Class I federal areas, EPA proposes 
approval of this revision.

B. Provisions To Revise the Smoke Management Plan

i. What Is Washington's Smoke Management Plan?
    Washington's Smoke Management Plan (SMP) is a program designed to 
manage smoke impacts from the burning of silviculture and agriculture 
wastes. The SMP balances forest and agricultural land burning with 
preventing smoke from being carried to, or accumulating in, designated 
areas and other areas sensitive to smoke.
ii. How Does Washington's 1999 Proposed SIP Revision Change the Plan?
    The Smoke Management Plan (SMP) of 1998 submitted in the proposed 
1999 Visibility SIP revision is a significant improvement over the 1983 
SMP included in the 1987 SIP. The 1983 SMP provides for reduced 
emissions through optimization of fuel conditions (i.e. dry fuel), 
improves ventilation and dispersion through meteorology, and minimizes 
impact by controlling smoke drift into populated areas. There is no 
consideration for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I federal 
areas.
    The 1998 SMP requires approval from the Resource Protection 
Division Manager, Department of Natural Resources for all burns. 
Approval requirements differ depending whether the fire is a ``large 
fire'' involving over 100 tons of fuel or small fire. Large fire burn 
approval considers a number of factors including likelihood of 
intrusion into populated areas and Class I areas, air quality 
regulations, violation of emission reductions targets, violations of 
another state's air quality standards, and whether smoke will disperse 
within given timeframes. Operators of small fires (less than 100 ton of 
fuel) must call a toll free phone number and follow the instructions 
that apply for that day and location of the proposed burn.
    The SMP further requires emissions from burning be reduced by 20% 
from baseline levels (defined in the SMP) by December 1994 and until 
December 2000. Emissions from burning must be permanently reduced by 
50% from baseline levels by December 2000.
iii. How Does the Smoke Management Plan Compare to Federal 
Requirements?
    The visibility protection provisions at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P 
suggest that states consider Smoke Management Plans in developing long-
term strategies for visibility protection. However, there are no 
specific federal requirements for states to develop and adopt Smoke 
Management Plans. In September 1992, the Environmental Protection 
Agency published The Prescribed Burning Background Document and 
Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures to 
assist states in the development of Smoke Management Plans (EPA-450/2-
92-003). These are a few examples of how the federal government 
acknowledges the benefits of smoke management plans.

C. Provisions To Include the SWAPCA RACT Emission Limits for Centralia 
Power Plant

    Centralia Power Plant (CPP) is a coal fired electrical generating 
station that has a potential to emit (PTE) 90,000 t/yr SO2. It is a 
BART eligible source as defined by 40 CFR 51.301. It is located near 
the mandatory Class I federal area, Mt. Rainier National Park in 
Washington state. The National Park Service has certified visibility 
impairment at Mt. Rainier National Park. The State of Washington has 
NOT determined that this visibility impairment is reasonably 
attributable to the CPP.
    The SIP must contain emission limitations representing BART and 
schedules for compliance with BART for each existing stationary 
facility identified according to 40 CFR 51.302 (c)(4). The state needs 
to identify each existing facility which may reasonably be anticipated 
to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any Class I 
federal areas where the impairment in the mandatory Class I area is 
reasonably attributable to that existing stationary facility. The State 
has not identified any source or group of small sources, including the 
Centralia Power Plant (CPP), as existing facilities that may reasonably 
be expected to contribute to visibility impairment to Class I areas. 
Therefore, under 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4), a BART analysis is not required 
for CPP. In the future regional haze SIP, a BART analysis may be 
required for the CPP under 40 CFR 51.308(e).
    In a separate activity the State, Southwest Air Pollution Control 
Authority (SWAPCA), the National Park Service and Forest Service, 
owners of the CPP, and EPA entered into a negotiated agreement to 
establish emission limits for SO2, NOX, and PM-10 for the 
CPP. The SWAPCA, who has regulatory authority over the CPP, issued the 
CPP a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) order under state 
law that contain emission limitations. This RACT Order is included in 
the proposed 1999 Visibility SIP revision.
    Both SWAPCA in their Technical Support Document for the RACT Order 
and EPA Region 10 have independently conducted an analysis of the 
emission limits in the RACT Order comparing them against what would 
have been required using the Clean Air Act definition of BART and EPA 
BART guidelines. Additional details on this analyses can be found in 
the Technical Support Document accompanying this proposed action and 
docket of this proposed action. The conclusion of both analysis is that 
the RACT Order emission limits for SO2 and PM-10 represent BART. EPA 
proposes to approve these emissions limitations as meeting the BART 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(c)(4). Additionally, while the 
NOX emission limitation may have represented BART when the 
emission limits in the RACT Order were negotiated, recent technology 
advancements have been made. EPA cannot say that the emission 
limitations in the SWAPCA RACT Order for NOX represent BART. 
However EPA proposes to approve the emission limits for NOX 
as a strengthening of the SIP for visibility purposes.

D. Provisions To Revise the State's Best Available Retrofit Technology 
and New Source Review Rules

    The proposed 1999 SIP revision also included revised rules for Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (WAC 173-400-151 and New Source 
Review (NSR) (WAC 173-400-110, 112, 113, & 141). Subsequent to the 
submittal in 1999, the State has verbally indicated that new rules are 
being developed and the rules in this submittal will soon be obsolete. 
EPA proposes to take no action on these rules.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed

[[Page 65080]]

action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 10, 2002.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 02-26992 Filed 10-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P