[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34821-34825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-14573]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket  WA-70-7148; FRL-7493-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most, but 
not all of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for visibility 
submitted by the State of Washington on November 5, 1999. The 
significant provisions of this SIP revision that we are approving 
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: This action is effective on July 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's SIP revision and other information 
supporting this action are available for inspection at EPA Region 10, 
Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, EPA Region 10, Office 
of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, 
or at (206) 553-0782.

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

Background
I. Background on this Action
II. Background on Visibility

[[Page 34822]]

    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?
III. What are the required provisions of a visibility SIP?
    A. Long-Term Strategy
    B. Monitoring
    C. Best Available Retrofit Technology
IV. 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
    B. Provisions to revise the Smoke Management Plan
    i. What is Washington's Smoke Management Plan?
    ii. How does Washington's 1999 SIP Revision change the Plan?
    iii. How does the Smoke Management Plan compare to Federal 
requirements?
    C. Provisions to include the SWAPCA Reasonably Available Control 
Technology Emission Limitations for Centralia Power Plant
    D. Provisions to revise the State's Best Available Retrofit 
Technology and New Source Review Rules
V. Response to Public Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Background

I. Background on This Action

    On October 23, 2002, EPA proposed in the Federal Register, 
approving certain portions of the proposed Washington Visibility SIP 
revision and taking no action on other provisions of the proposed SIP 
revisions. See 67 FR 65077, October 23, 2002. In that notice, EPA 
provided a 30 day review and comment period and solicited comments on 
our proposal. EPA received no comments. EPA is now taking final action 
on the SIP revision consistent with the published proposal.

II. 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 Lakes Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak 
Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Mount Adams Wilderness 
Area, and Pasayten Wilderness Area. See 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7491. Employing a close coordination 
process among the state and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs), 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 source that may affect mandatory Class I Federal areas. 
Additionally, in the event that a FLM 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.

III. 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 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 to address any existing impairment the FLM 
certifies to the State and integral vista of which the FLM 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 mandatory Class I Federal 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 FLMs. See 40 CFR 
51.306(a)(3).

[[Page 34823]]

Section IV of the proposed 1999 SIP revision provides for the 
consultation with FLMs 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 1999 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. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    The State must identify and analyze for BART each existing 
stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal 
area where the impairment is reasonably attributable to that existing 
stationary facility. See 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4). The plan must also 
contain emission limitations representing BART for any existing 
stationary facility identified according to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4).
    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.

IV. 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 in accordance 
with 40 CFR 51.304, 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. Thus, there 
are no federally recognized integral vistas to be 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 SMP of 1998 submitted in the proposed 1999 Visibility SIP 
revision significantly improves the 1983 SMP included in the 1987 SIP. 
The 1983 SMP provided for reduced emissions from prescribed fires 
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 was 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 prescribed 
fires. Approval requirements differ depending whether the fire is a 
``large fire'' involving over 100 tons of fuel or a small fire. Large 
fire burn approval considers a number of factors including likelihood 
of smoke intrusion into populated areas or mandatory Class I Federal 
areas, air quality regulations, violation of emission reductions 
targets, violation of another state's air quality standards, and 
whether smoke will disperse within given timeframes. Operators of small 
fires (less than 100 tons of fuel) must call a toll-free phone number 
and follow the instructions that apply for that day and location of the 
proposed fire.
    The SMP further requires emissions from prescribed fires 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 SMPs in developing long-term strategies 
for visibility protection. However, there are no specific Federal 
requirements for states to develop and adopt SMPs. 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].

C. Provisions To Include the SWAPCA Reasonably Available Control 
Technology Emission Limits for Centralia Power Plant

    The Centralia Power Plant (CPP) is a coal-fired electrical 
generating station that has a potential to emit (PTE) 90,000 t/yr 
Sulfur dioxide (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

[[Page 34824]]

NPS 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 mandatory 
Class I Federal areas where the impairment in the mandatory Class I 
Federal area is reasonably attributable to that existing stationary 
facility. The State has not identified CPP, or any other source or 
group of small sources as an existing facility that may reasonably be 
expected to contribute to visibility impairment to mandatory Class I 
Federal 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, SWAPCA, the NPS and U.S. Forest 
Service, owners of the CPP, and EPA entered into a negotiated agreement 
to establish emission limits for SO2, oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
of less than 10 micrometers (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 
the negotiated 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 in the docket of this action. The 
conclusion of both analyses is that the RACT Order emission limits for 
SO2 and PM-10 represent BART. EPA is approving 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 
now say that the emission limitations in the SWAPCA RACT Order for 
NOX represent BART. However EPA is approving 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 BART rules 
(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. Therefore EPA is taking no action 
on these rules.

V. Response to Comments

    EPA solicited comments on the proposed action in the October 23, 
2002, Federal Register document (67 FR 65077). EPA received no 
comments. Therefore, there is no response to comments.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This 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 approves 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 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 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 11, 2003. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does

[[Page 34825]]

not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 24, 2003.
L. John Iani,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2470 by adding paragraph (c)(82) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (82) On November 5, 1999, the State of Washington, Department of 
Ecology submitted a revision to the Visibility SIP. EPA approves all 
provisions to the November 5, 1999 Visibility SIP revision including, 
but not limited to the 1998 Smoke Management Plan, and South West Air 
Pollution Control Agency, Reasonably Available Control Technology order 
on the Centralia Power plant. EPA is taking no action on Section VIII. 
Identification and Analysis for Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) and Section X, New Source Review, of the November 5, 1999, 
Visibility SIP revision.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) South West Air Pollution Control Agency (SWAPCA) regulatory 
order, SWAPCA 97-2057R1, Regulatory Order to Establish RACT Limits and 
Order of Approval, Adopted February 26, 1998.
    (B) [Reserved]

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2475 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2475  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (g) Visibility.
    (1) EPA approves as a revision to the Washington State 
Implementation Plan, the November 5, 1999, Visibility SIP revision, 
except that EPA is taking no action on Section VIII. Identification and 
Analysis for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), and Section X, 
New Source Review of the November 5, 1999, Visibility SIP revision.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
4. In Sec.  52.2479, the table is amended by revising the entries under 
Section 5 to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2479  Contents of the Federally approved, State submitted 
implementation plan.

* * * * *

      Washington State Implementation Plan for Air Quality State and Local Requirements--Table of Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Section 5--Federally Mandated Programs [Dates in brackets indicate EPA effective date]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.BAP--Business Assistance Program [5/8/95]
5.IM--Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Program [9/25/96]
5.OXY--Oxygenated Gasoline Program [3/21/94]
5.SMP--Smoke Management Program [7/6/87]
5.VIS--Washington State Visibility Protection Program [7/6/87]
5.VIS.NSR--Visibility New Source Review (NSR) for nonattainment areas for Washington [7/28/86]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Supplemental Section A--Reference Material [Date in brackets indicate EPA effective date]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.1--Description of Source test Program for the State Implementation Plan [10/24/84]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Supplemental B--Administrative and Procedural Material [Dates in brackets indicate EPA effective date]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.3--Correspondence
B.3.1--Legal Authority [6/05/80]
B.3.2--Correspondence prior to 1991
B.3.2.1--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Tri-Counties [9/23/81]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-14573 Filed 6-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P