Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Visibility Protection, 23721-23730 [2015-09889]

Download as PDF 23721 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 16, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 2. In § 52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry in alphabetical order for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS’’ to read as follows: ■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS § 52.770 * 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Title Indiana date * * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 12/12/2011 * * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0755; FRL–9926–95– Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Visibility Protection Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) on January 27, 2014. These revisions implement the preconstruction permitting regulations for large industrial (major source) facilities in attainment and unclassifiable areas, called the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD program in Washington has been historically operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). This approval of Ecology’s PSD program narrows the FIP to include only those few facilities, emission sources, geographic areas, and permits for which Ecology does not have PSD permitting jurisdiction or authority. The EPA is also approving Ecology’s visibility protection permitting program which overlaps significantly with the PSD program. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 * * * * This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) except visibility, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and (M). * This final rule is effective on May 29, 2015. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0755. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 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: DATES: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P SUMMARY: Explanation * * 4/29/2015, [insert Federal Register citation]. * [FR Doc. 2015–09883 Filed 4–28–15; 8:45 am] VerDate Sep<11>2014 EPA Approval Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: (i) The words or initials ‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’ mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise. PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * (ii) The words ‘‘EPA’’, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ mean or refer to the Environmental Protection Agency. (iii) The initials ‘‘SIP’’ mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words ‘‘Washington’’ and ‘‘State’’ mean the State of Washington. Table of Contents I. Background Information II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background Information On January 27, 2014, Ecology submitted revisions to update the general air quality regulations contained in Chapter 173–400 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that apply to sources within Ecology’s jurisdiction, including minor new source review, major source nonattainment new source review (major NNSR), PSD, and the visibility protection (visibility) program. On October 3, 2014, the EPA finalized approval of provisions contained in Chapter 173–400 WAC that apply generally to all sources under Ecology’s jurisdiction, but stated that we would act separately on the major sourcespecific permitting programs in a phased approach (79 FR 59653). On November 7, 2014, the EPA finalized the second phase in the series, approving the major NNSR regulations contained in WAC 173–400–800 through 173–400– 860, as well as other parts of Chapter 173–400 WAC that support major NNSR (79 FR 66291). On January 7, 2015, the EPA proposed approval of the remainder of Ecology’s January 27, 2014 submittal, covering the PSD and visibility requirements for E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 23722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations major stationary sources under Ecology’s jurisdiction (80 FR 838). An explanation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, submitted revisions, and the EPA’s reasons for and limitations of the proposed approval are provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, which, together with this document, provides the basis for our final action. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on February 6, 2015. The EPA received two sets of similar comments on the proposal. Before addressing the public comments, the EPA is clarifying its discussion in the January 7, 2015 proposal, regarding two important distinctions between the applicability of Ecology’s minor NSR program and its PSD program. These differences arise from the State’s definitions of the terms ‘‘modification’’ in WAC 173–400– 030(48) and ‘‘major modification’’ in WAC 173–400–710 and –720, which adopt the Federal definitions in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2) for Ecology’s PSD program. See 80 FR at 840. The proposal first noted that the applicability test for ‘‘modifications’’ under Ecology’s minor NSR program is based on the definition of modification in CAA section 111(a)(4) and the EPA’s implementing rules at 40 CFR 60.14, and specifically, that a modification is an increase in the emission rate of an existing facility in terms of kilograms per hour. See WAC 173–400–030(48). The proposal then noted that the applicability test under the Federal PSD program is based on tons per year. The EPA is clarifying here that under Washington’s PSD program, the determination of whether a project (as that term is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(52) and which is adopted by reference at WAC 173–400– 720(4)(a)(vi)) is a ‘‘major modification’’ is, consistent with the Federal PSD program, based on whether the project results in both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase in terms of tons per year. See WAC 400–173–720(4)(a)(vi) (which adopts by reference the Federal PSD applicability test and definitions in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b)(2), respectively); see also WAC 173–400–710(a). Therefore, as stated in the proposal, for any physical or operational change at an existing stationary source, regulated sources and permitting authorities will need to calculate emission changes in terms of both kilograms per hour and tons per year to determine whether changes are subject to minor NSR, PSD, or both. Second, the proposal discussed a difference in minor NSR versus PSD review in Washington that arises from a limitation on the scope of the review of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 a modification under Ecology’s minor NSR program. The EPA first noted that, under Ecology’s minor NSR program, new source review of a modification is limited to the emission unit or units proposed to be modified and the air contaminants whose emissions would increase as a result of the modification. See WAC 173–400–110(1)(d) (‘‘New source review of a modification is limited to the emission unit or units proposed to be modified and the air contaminants whose emissions would increase as a result of the modification.’’). In contrasting this minor NSR provision with the requirements of Ecology’s PSD program (and the Federal PSD program), the EPA incorrectly used the phrase ‘‘new and modified units’’ rather than the terms ‘‘new emissions units’’ and ‘‘existing emissions units,’’ the terminology used in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2), which is incorporated into Washington’s PSD regulations and the subject of this final SIP approval. The EPA is emphasizing here that, under Ecology’s PSD program (as under the Federal PSD program), review of a project that is a ‘‘major modification’’ must be done in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400–750, and that the limitation in WAC 173–400– 110(1)(d) on the review of a ‘‘modification’’ does not apply to a ‘‘major modification.’’ See WAC 173– 400–110(1)(d) (‘‘Review of a major modification must comply with WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400–750 or 173–400–800 through 173–400–860, as applicable.’’). II. Response to Comments The EPA received two sets of similar comments from the Northwest Pulp & Paper Association and the Washington Forest Protection Association regarding carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial combustion of biomass. A. CO2 Emissions From Industrial Combustion of Both Fossil Fuel and Biomass Comment: The EPA must clearly explain in the final approval that, due to the limitations imposed by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.235.020(3) concerning the industrial combustion of biomass,1 the EPA is 1 Note that one commenter refers to the exemption in RCW 70.235.020(3) as applying to ‘‘forest biomass’’ and points to the definition of that term in RCW 79.02.010(7)(a). RCW 70.235.020(3), however, uses the term ‘‘biomass,’’ not ‘‘forest biomass,’’ and nothing in RCW Ch. 70.235 indicates that the definitions in RCW Ch. 79.02 are to be used in interpreting RCW Ch. 70.235. We therefore continue to use the terminology in RCW Ch. 79.02 in describing the scope of the remaining Federal Implementation Plan for PSD in Washington. PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 retaining the authority to conduct the best available control technology (BACT) analysis for PSD permits only for biogenic CO2 emissions from biomass and will coordinate its processing and issuance of PSD permits with the Department of Ecology. One of the commenters specifically requests clarity regarding situations where there are multiple combustion fuels producing CO2 from a source and whether Ecology would retain PSD permitting authority for CO2 emissions resulting from the industrial combustion of non-biomass fuels from such a source. Response: As discussed in the proposal of this rule, RCW 70.235.020(3) statutorily bars Ecology from regulating CO2 under Ecology’s PSD program in some circumstances. That statute provides that ‘‘[e]xcept for purposes of reporting, emissions of carbon dioxide from industrial combustion of biomass in the form of fuel wood, wood waste, wood by-products, and wood residuals shall not be considered a greenhouse gas as long as the region’s silvicultural sequestration capacity is maintained or increased.’’ The EPA has been actively examining whether under Federal law CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass may be exempt from the PSD permitting requirements in a manner similar to RCW 70.235.020(3). In 2011, the EPA adopted a rule that deferred, for a period of three years, the application of the PSD and Title V permitting requirements to CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources (biogenic CO2). 76 FR 43490 (July 20, 2011) (Biomass Deferral Rule). During the three-year deferral period, the EPA conducted a detailed examination of the science associated with biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources and developed a document entitled ‘‘Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ which the Agency submitted to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) for peer review. On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision overturning the Biomass Deferral Rule. Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 421 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Although this decision has not yet taken effect because of matters still pending in the courts, the Biomass Deferral Rule expired on its own terms on July 21, 2014. The EPA was not able to issue an additional rule before this date addressing the regulation of biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources in the PSD permitting program. However, the EPA plans to propose revisions to the PSD E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations rules to include an exemption from the BACT requirement for GHGs from waste-derived feedstocks and from nonwaste biogenic feedstocks derived from sustainable forest or agricultural practices. For all other biogenic feedstocks, the EPA intends to propose that biogenic CO2 emissions would remain subject to the GHG BACT requirement at this time. See Memorandum from Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ (Nov. 19, 2014). In addition, to continue advancing our understanding of the role biomass can play in reducing overall GHG emissions, the EPA has developed a second draft of the Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources, and is initiating a second round of targeted peer review through its SAB. Although the EPA is planning to initiate the rulemaking described above that would enable states to avoid applying BACT to GHG emissions from combustion of biogenic feedstocks derived from sustainable forest or agricultural practices, the CAA and EPA regulations presently require that PSD permitting programs address CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass. CO2 is a gas included in the definition of ‘‘greenhouse gas’’ used in the Federal PSD program.2 Because GHGs are a pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA, section 165 of the Act requires GHG emissions from a major source obtaining a PSD permit to be subject to PSD requirements, particularly the requirement to meet emission limitations based on application of BACT. After the expiration of the threeyear period in the EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule, there is presently no EPA rule in place that exempts the CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass from the requirements of the PSD permitting program. As discussed in our January 7, 2015 proposal (80 FR 838), because of the Supreme Court decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427, the EPA is not applying the requirement that a state’s SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a 2 See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 significant net emissions increase from a physical change or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source.3 However, the BACT requirement remains applicable to GHGs from a source that is subject to PSD because it is major for another regulated NSR pollutant (what is known as an ‘‘anyway source’’) and which would emit a significant amount of GHGs (i.e., more than 75,000 tons per year CO2 equivalent emissions, CO2e, as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)). Absent an EPA rule establishing an exemption for CO2 emissions from biomass combustion, the determination of BACT for a regulated NSR pollutant must consider all of the emissions of each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act. Because RCW 70.235.020(3) prohibits Ecology from establishing BACT limits for such sources that include CO2 emissions resulting from the industrial combustion of biomass, Washington law is inconsistent with the EPA’s current regulations implementing the PSD provisions in the CAA in that regard. As a result, the EPA must retain a FIP under 40 CFR 52.21 and issue partial PSD permits to ensure that major sources in Washington have a means to satisfy the CAA construction permit requirements for GHGs when CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass in Washington cannot be considered or regulated by Ecology under its PSD rules.4 Because Ecology does have authority to carry out all PSD requirements for GHGs except for sources permitted to engage in the industrial combustion of biomass, the EPA is approving Ecology’s regulations as part of the Washington PSD SIP for such purposes. For sources subject to the FIP, the EPA is retaining the authority to conduct the BACT analysis for all GHGs when necessary, not just the biogenic CO2 emissions not covered by the Washington permitting program under RCW 70.235.020(3). Because the regulated NSR pollutant is GHGs and not CO2, the Federal PSD permit issued by the EPA under the FIP will contain a BACT limit covering all GHG emissions from a subject emission unit 3 Under this decision, the Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or major modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit, but that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. See 80 FR at 842. 4 PSD permitting of CO emissions from such 2 sources was also excluded from the 2013 Delegation Agreement between the EPA and Washington. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 23723 when that unit is permitted to emit biogenic CO2 not covered by the Washington permitting program. The EPA believes it should retain authority over all GHG emissions at such sources to avoid difficulties that could arise if Ecology and the EPA each separately evaluated BACT for only a portion of the GHG emissions from an emission unit. For example, each agency could end up calculating cost values that would not reflect the true cost of the control options for GHG emissions because not all GHGs, as defined under the Federal PSD program, would be considered by either agency. Thus, the EPA FIP addresses the impact of the Washington statutory provision in two ways. First, the Ecology and the EPA definitions of GHGs are effectively different, with the EPA’s definition being more inclusive (i.e., it does not exclude CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass) so an ‘‘anyway source’’ could be subject to PSD for GHGs under the FIP when it would not be subject to PSD under the SIP. In this situation, the EPA will issue a Federal PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21 for the new major stationary source or major modification that would require BACT for GHGs for all subject emission units at the source, regardless of whether CO2 emissions were from the industrial combustion of biomass or from other sources of GHG emissions at the facility. Second, if an ‘‘anyway source’’ is subject to PSD for GHG emissions under both the SIP and the FIP, but there are CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass that cannot be addressed in the Ecology PSD permit, the EPA will issue a Federal PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21 requiring BACT for GHGs for each subject emissions unit with CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass. Note that the Ecology PSD permit issued under the SIP will address all other subject emission units that do not have CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass. We have revised the language of 40 CFR 52.2497 to reflect this clarification. Given this dual CAA PSD permitting authority in situations where there are multiple combustion fuels producing CO2 from a source engaged in the industrial combustion of biomass in Washington, the EPA will coordinate closely with Ecology during the PSD permit issuance process. B. EPA Guidance Comment: The EPA should also clarify that it will follow the EPA’s existing guidance on BACT for biogenic emissions, ‘‘Guidance for Determining E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 23724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Best Available Control Technology for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Bioenergy Production’’ (March 2011 guidance). Response: The March 2011 guidance is the EPA’s most recent guidance on the topic of BACT determinations for bioenergy production and the EPA will consider it, as appropriate, in issuing PSD permits under the FIP. The EPA will also consider prior BACT determinations for GHGs at biomass facilities, such as the one reflected in the permit EPA Region 9 issued to Sierra Pacific Industries. In the November 19, 2014 Memorandum cited above, the EPA has also stated that the Agency anticipates providing additional guidance to sources undergoing BACT analyses involving biogenic feedstocks. To the extent that guidance is available at the time the EPA issues permits under the FIP discussed in this rule, the EPA will consider that guidance as well. Radiation, to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1—10, November 19, 2014, regarding biogenic CO2 emissions and urged the EPA to complete rulemaking regarding this issue in an expeditious manner. Response: The EPA will endeavor to complete this rulemaking in a timely manner. After considering public comments on the proposal for that rule, if the final rule contains an exemption that aligns with the scope of RCW 70.235.020(3), the EPA will reevaluate the extent to which the FIP established in this rule should remain applicable to Washington facilities with CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass. To enable the EPA to remove such sources from the FIP, Washington may need to consider whether an amendment to RCW 70.235.020(3) is appropriate to match the scope of any final rule adopted by the EPA. C. The EPA’s Next Steps on Biogenic CO2 Emissions From Stationary Sources Comment: One commenter referenced the EPA’s memorandum, ‘‘Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ from Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and III. Final Action For the reasons set forth in our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 838, January 7, 2015, as further discussed above, the EPA is approving and incorporating by reference the PSD and visibility permitting regulations submitted by Ecology on January 27, 2014. This action is the third and final in a series approving the remaining elements contained in Ecology’s January 27, 2014 submittal. The previous two actions consisted of the EPA’s October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59653) approval of general provisions that apply to all air pollution sources and the EPA’s November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66291) approval of requirements that implement major source NNSR. A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference Into the SIP The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into Washington’s SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, the PSD and visibility permitting regulations listed in the table below. A full copy of the regulations is included in the docket for this action. The EPA has also determined that the general air quality regulations at WAC 173–400–036, WAC 173–400–110, WAC 173–400–111, WAC 173–400–112, WAC 173–400–113, WAC 173–400–171, and WAC 173–400–560, to the extent they relate to implementation of Ecology’s PSD and visibility programs, also meet the EPA’s requirements for subject sources.5 REGULATIONS APPROVED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE State citation State effective date Title/Subject Explanation Chapter 173–400 WAC, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 173–400–036 173–400–110 Relocation of Portable Sources ...... New Source Review (NSR) for Sources and Portable Sources. 5 The EPA previously approved these regulations as part of our October 3, 2014 approval of Ecology’s minor new source review (NSR) program. Approval of these regulations for purposes of implementing the PSD and visibility programs is subject to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 12/29/12 12/29/12 Except: 173–400–110(1)(c)(ii)(C); 173–400–110(1)(e); 173–400–110(2)(d); The part of WAC 173–400–110(4)(b)(vi) that says, • ‘‘not for use with materials containing toxic air pollutants, as listed in chapter 173–460 WAC,’’; The part of 400–110 (4)(e)(iii) that says, • ‘‘where toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173–460 WAC are not emitted’’; The part of 400–110(4)(e)(f)(i) that says, • ‘‘that are not toxic air pollutants listed in chapter 173–460 WAC’’; The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xviii) that says, • ‘‘, to the extent that toxic air pollutant gases as defined in chapter 173–460 WAC are not emitted’’; The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that says, • ‘‘where no toxic air pollutants as listed under chapter 173–460 WAC are emitted’’; The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that says, • ‘‘, or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173– 460 WAC’’; The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxv) that says, • ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants’’; The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that says, • ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173–460 WAC’’; 400–110(4)(h)(xl) , second sentence; and exceptions and explanations described in the EPA’s July 10, 2014 proposed (79 FR 39351) and October 3, 2014 final action (79 FR 59653), and the January 7, 2015 proposed action (80 FR 838) on the general air quality regulations contained in WAC 173–400– PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 036, WAC 173–400–110, WAC 173–400–111, WAC 173–400–112, WAC 173–400–113, WAC 173–400– 171, and WAC 173–400–560. E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23725 REGULATIONS APPROVED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE—Continued State citation State effective date Title/Subject 173–400–111 Processing Notice of Construction Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Sources. 12/29/12 173–400–112 Processing Notice of Construction Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Sources. New Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas—Review for Compliance with Regulations. Increment Protection ....................... Special Protection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas. Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. 12/29/12 173–400–560 General Order of Approval .............. 12/29/12 173–400–700 Review of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution. Definitions ........................................ Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The last row of the table in 173–400–110(5)(b) regarding exemption levels for Toxic Air Pollutants. Except: 173–400–111(3)(h); 173–400–111(3)(i); The part of 173–400–111(8)(a)(v) that says, • ‘‘and 173–460–040,’’; and 173–400–111(9). Except: 173–400–112(8). 4/1/11 173–400–113 173–400–116 173–400–117 173–400–171 173–400–710 173–400–720 173–400–730 173–400–740 173–400–750 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Application Processing Procedures. PSD Permitting Public Involvement Requirements. Revisions to PSD Permits ............... B. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits As discussed in the proposal, Ecology requested approval to exercise its authority to fully administer the PSD program with respect to those sources under Ecology’s permitting jurisdiction that have existing PSD permits issued by the EPA since August 7, 1977. 80 FR 843, January 7, 2015. Upon the effective date of this approval of Ecology’s PSD program into the SIP, we transfer the EPA-issued PSD permits issued on and after August 7, 1977 to Ecology. The EPA retains authority to administer PSD permits issued by the EPA in Washington prior to August 7, 1977. Id. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Explanation C. Scope of Final Action 1. WAC 173–400–700 Through 173– 400–750 12/29/12 Except: 173–400–113(3), second sentence. 9/10/11 12/29/12 12/29/12 12/29/12 12/29/12 Except: The part of 173–400–171(3)(b) that says, • ‘‘or any increase in emissions of a toxic air pollutant above the acceptable source impact level for that toxic air pollutant as regulated under chapter 173–460 WAC’’; and 173–400–171(12). Except: The part of 173–400–560(1)(f) that says, ‘‘173–460 WAC’’. Except: 173–400–720(4)(a)(i through iv); 173–400–720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173– 400–720(4)(a)(vi) with respect to the incorporation by reference of the text in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.21(i)(5)(i), and 52.21(k)(2). 12/29/12 12/29/12 12/29/12 Except: 173–400–750(2) second sentence. statewide, except where a local clean air agency has received delegation of the Federal PSD program from the EPA or has a SIP-approved PSD program. At this time, no local clean air agencies in Washington have a delegated or SIPapproved PSD program. For the reasons provided in the preambles to the proposed and final notices of rulemaking, the EPA is therefore approving WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400–750 to apply statewide, with the three exceptions described below. For the following exceptions, the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 40 CFR 52.21 will continue to apply, and the EPA will retain responsibility for issuing PSD permits to and implementing the Federal PSD program for such sources: Under WAC 173–400–700, Ecology’s PSD regulations contained in WAC 173– 400–700 through 173–400–750 apply VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 a. Sources Under the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Jurisdiction By statute, Ecology does not have authority to issue PSD permits to sources under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Therefore, the EPA’s approval of Ecology’s PSD program, under WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400–750, excludes projects under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. Such sources will continue to be subject to the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 40 CFR 52.21, until such time that EFSEC’s PSD rules are approved into the SIP. b. CO2 Emissions From Industrial Combustion of Biomass As discussed above, under a provision contained in RCW 70.235.020, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions—Reporting Requirements, Ecology is statutorily barred from E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 23726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations regulating certain GHG emissions. As a result, the EPA is retaining a FIP under 40 CFR 52.21 and will issue partial PSD permits to ensure that major sources in Washington have a means to satisfy the CAA construction permit requirements for GHGs when CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass in Washington are not being considered or regulated by Ecology under its PSD rules. Because Ecology does have authority to carry out all PSD requirements for GHGs except for sources permitted to engage in the industrial combustion of biomass, the EPA is approving Ecology’s regulations as part of the Washington PSD SIP for such purposes. c. Sources in Certain Areas of Indian Country Excluded from the scope of this final approval of Ecology’s PSD program are all Indian reservations in the State, except as specifically noted below, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Sources on such lands will continue to be subject to the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 40 CFR 52.21. 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 exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area) and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve Ecology’s PSD regulations into the SIP with respect to such lands. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES d. Scope of PSD FIP in Washington Consistent with the limitations on the scope of the EPA’s final approval of WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400– 750 in the Washington SIP, the EPA retains, but significantly narrows, the scope of the current PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497. The EPA will continue to implement the current PSD FIP as provided in III.C.1.a., b., and c. of this document. 2. WAC 173–400–116 and 173–400–117 With respect to the EPA’s approval of WAC 173–400–116 and WAC 173–400– 117, the SIP-approved provisions of WAC 173–400–020 govern jurisdictional applicability for those sections. WAC 173–400–020 states, ‘‘[t]he provisions of this chapter shall apply statewide, except for specific subsections where a local authority has adopted and implemented corresponding local rules that apply only to sources subject to local jurisdiction as provided under RCW 70.94.141 and 70.94.331.’’ Because VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Ecology will be the only authority in Washington with a SIP-approved PSD program that would implement WAC 173–400–116, Increment Protection, the EPA’s approval of WAC 173–400–116 applies statewide, with the two exceptions discussed below. Similarly, the scope of our approval of WAC 173– 400–117, Special Protection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas, applies statewide for PSD permits issued by Ecology under WAC 173–400– 700 through 173–400–750, noting the two exceptions discussed below. However, for visibility-related elements associated with permits issued under the major NNSR program, the applicability of WAC 173–400–117 is more complicated because local clean air agencies have the authority under state law to have alternative, but no less stringent, permitting requirements. Therefore, consistent with the EPA’s November 7, 2014 approval of Ecology’s major NNSR program, our approval of WAC 173–400–117, as it relates to NNSR permits issues under WAC 173– 400–800 through 173–400–860, is limited to only those counties or sources where Ecology has direct jurisdiction. The counties where Ecology has direct jurisdiction are: Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman Counties, with the two exceptions discussed below. The EPA also notes that under the SIP-approved provisions of WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012, Ecology has statewide, direct jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants, excluding certain areas of Indian country as discussed further. The EPA is therefore approving WAC 173–400– 117 in all areas of the state under Ecology’s jurisdiction for those specified source categories. For the following exceptions the visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2498 will continue to apply and the EPA will retain responsibility for issuing visibility permits for such sources: a. Sources Under the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Jurisdiction By State statute, Ecology does not have authority to issue permits to sources under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Therefore, the EPA’s approval of WAC 173–400–116 and 173–400–117 excludes projects under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. Such sources will continue to be subject to the visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 52.2498, until such time that EFSEC’s corollaries to WAC 173–400–116 and 173–400–117 are approved into the SIP. b. Sources in Certain Areas of Indian Country Excluded from the scope of this final approval of the visibility permitting program are all Indian reservations in the State, except as specifically noted below, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Sources on such lands will continue to be subject to the visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2498. 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 exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area) and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve Ecology’s visibility regulations into the SIP with respect to such lands for those facilities where Ecology has direct jurisdiction. c. Scope of Visibility FIP in Washington Consistent with the limitations on the scope of our approval of Ecology’s major NNSR program (79 FR at 43349), the EPA retains, but significantly narrows, the scope of the current visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2498. D. The EPA’s Oversight Role As discussed in the proposal, 80 FR at 845, in approving state new source review rules into SIPs, the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that all states properly implement their SIP-approved preconstruction permitting programs. The EPA’s approval of Ecology’s PSD rules does not divest the EPA of the responsibility to continue appropriate oversight to ensure that permits issued by Ecology are consistent with the requirements of the CAA, Federal regulations, and the SIP. The EPA’s authority to oversee permit program implementation is set forth in sections 113, 167, and 505(b) of the CAA. For example, section 167 provides that the EPA shall issue administrative orders, initiate civil actions, or take whatever other action may be necessary to prevent the construction or modification of a major stationary source that does not ‘‘conform to the requirements of’’ the PSD program. Similarly, section 113(a)(5) of the CAA provides for administrative orders and civil actions whenever the EPA finds that a state ‘‘is not acting in compliance with’’ any requirement or prohibition of the CAA regarding the construction of new E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations sources or modification of existing sources. Likewise, section 113(a)(1) provides for a range of enforcement remedies whenever the EPA finds that a person is in violation of an applicable implementation plan. In making judgments as to what constitutes compliance with the CAA and regulations issued thereunder, the EPA looks to (among other sources) its prior interpretations regarding those statutory and regulatory requirements and policies for implementing them. It follows that state actions implementing the Federal CAA that do not conform to the CAA may lead to potential oversight action by the EPA. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Washington State Department of Ecology regulations listed in section II.A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference into the SIP of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 • 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 requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington’s SIP is approved to apply on 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. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated February 25, 2014. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation. 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 23727 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 29, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 13, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart WW—Washington 2. Section 52.2470 is amended in paragraph (c), Table 2—Additional Regulations Approved for Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction by: ■ a. Revising the heading; ■ b. Revising the entries 173–400–036, 173–400–110, 173–400–111, 173–400– 112, and 173–400–113; ■ c. Adding in numerical order entries for 173–400–116 and 173–400–117; ■ d. Revising the entries 173–400–171 and 173–400–560; ■ e. Adding in numerical order entries for 173–400–700, 173–400–710, 173– ■ E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 23728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 400–720, 173–400–730, 173–400–740, and 173–400–750; and ■ f. Removing the footnote at end of Table 2. § 52.2470 The revisions and additions read as follows: * Identification of plan. * * (c) * * * * * TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) DIRECT JURISDICTION [Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–400–700, WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012] State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources * 173–400–036 .. * Relocation of Portable Sources. * 12/29/12 * 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. * 173–400–110 .. * New Source Review (NSR) for Sources and Portable Sources. * 12/29/12 * 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 173–400–111 .. Processing Notice of Construction Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Sources. Requirements for New Sources in Nonattainment Areas—Review for Compliance with Regulations. New Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas—Review for Compliance with Regulations. Increment Protection 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. Except: 173–400–112(8). 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. Except: 173–400–113(3), second sentence. 9/10/11 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 173–400–112 .. 173–400–113 .. 173–400–116 .. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 * * * * * * Except: 173–400–110(1)(c)(ii)(C); 173–400–110(1)(e); 173–400–110(2)(d); The part of WAC 173–400–110(4)(b)(vi) that says, • ‘‘not for use with materials containing toxic air pollutants, as listed in chapter 173–460 WAC,’’; The part of 400–110 (4)(e)(iii) that says, • ‘‘where toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173–460 WAC are not emitted’’; The part of 400–110(4)(e)(f)(i) that says, • ‘‘that are not toxic air pollutants listed in chapter 173–460 WAC’’; The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xviii) that says, • ‘‘, to the extent that toxic air pollutant gases as defined in chapter 173–460 WAC are not emitted’’; The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that says, • ‘‘where no toxic air pollutants as listed under chapter 173–460 WAC are emitted’’; The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that says, • ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173–460 WAC’’; The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxv) that says, • ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants’’; The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that says, • ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173–460 WAC’’; 400–110(4)(h)(xl), second sentence; and The last row of the table in 173–400–110(5)(b) regarding exemption levels for Toxic Air Pollutants. Except: 173–400–111(3)(h); 173–400–111(3)(i); The part of 173–400–111(8)(a)(v) that says, • ‘‘and 173–460–040,’’; and 173–400–111(9). Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 23729 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) DIRECT JURISDICTION—Continued [Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–400–700, WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012] State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 173–400–117 .. Special Protection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas. 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. * 173–400–171 .. * Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. * 12/29/12 * 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. * * * Except: The part of 173–400–171(3)(b) that says, • ‘‘or any increase in emissions of a toxic air pollutant above the acceptable source impact level for that toxic air pollutant as regulated under chapter 173–460 WAC’’; and 173–400–171(12). * 173–400–560 .. * General Order of Approval. * 12/29/12 * * Except: The part of 173–400–560(1)(f) that says, ‘‘173–460 WAC’’. 173–400–700 .. Review of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution. Definitions ................ 4/1/11 * 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 173–400–710 .. 12/29/12 173–400–720 .. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). 12/29/12 173–400–730 .. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Application Processing Procedures. PSD Permitting Public Involvement Requirements. Revisions to PSD Permits. 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 04/29/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 173–400–740 .. 173–400–750 .. * 12/29/12 * * * * * * * 3. Section 52.2497 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: ■ § 52.2497 quality. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES * Significant deterioration of air (a) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air Act are not fully met because the plan does not include approvable procedures for preventing the significant deterioration of air quality from: (1) Facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council pursuant to Chapter 80.50 Revised Code of Washington (RCW); (2) Facilities with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the industrial VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Except: 173–400–720(4)(a)(i–iv); 173–400–720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173– 400–720(4)(a)(vi) with respect to the incorporation by reference of the text in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.21(i)(5)(i), and 52.21(k)(2). Except: 173–400–750(2) second sentence. * * combustion of biomass in the following circumstances: (i) Where a new major stationary source or major modification would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements for greenhouse gases (GHGs) under § 52.21, but would not be subject to PSD under the state implementation plan (SIP) because CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass are excluded from consideration as GHGs as a matter of state law under RCW 70.235.020(3); or (ii) Where a new major stationary source or major modification is subject to PSD for GHGs under both the Washington SIP and the FIP, but CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass are excluded PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * from consideration in the Ecology PSD permitting process because of the exclusion in RCW 70.235.020(3); (3) Indian reservations in Washington, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area) as provided in the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction; and (4) Sources subject to PSD permits issued by the EPA prior to August 7, 1977, but only with respect to the general administration of any such permits still in effect (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature). E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 23730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (b) Regulations for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. The provisions of § 52.21, except paragraph (a)(1), are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable plan for Washington for the facilities, emission sources, geographic areas, and permits listed in paragraph (a) of this section. For situations addressed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the EPA will issue a Federal PSD permit under § 52.21 to the new major stationary source or major modification addressing PSD requirements applicable to GHGs for all subject emission units at the source, regardless of whether CO2 emissions resulted from the industrial combustion of biomass or from other sources of GHGs at the facility. For situations addressed in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the EPA will issue a Federal PSD permit under § 52.21 addressing PSD requirements applicable to GHGs for each subject emissions unit that is permitted to emit CO2 from the industrial combustion of biomass. * * * * * 4. Section 52.2498 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: ■ mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 52.2498 Visibility protection. (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not fully met because the plan does not include approvable procedures for visibility new source review for: (1) Facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council pursuant to Chapter 80.50 Revised Code of Washington; (2) Sources subject to the jurisdiction of local air authorities; (3) Indian reservations in Washington except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area) as provided in the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. (b) Regulations for visibility new source review. The provisions of § 52.28 are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable plan for Washington for the facilities, emission sources, and geographic areas listed in paragraph (a) of this section. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–09889 Filed 4–28–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Apr 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0418; FRL–9925–78] Phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6dodecyl-4-methyl-; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This regulation amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of phenol, 2-(2Hbenzotriazol-2-yl)-6-dodecyl-4-methyl(CAS Reg. No. 23328–53–2) to allow its use on all growing crops as an inert ingredient (ultraviolet (UV) stabilizer) at a maximum concentration of 10% in pesticide formulations, Loveland Products Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6dodecyl-4-methyl-. DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 29, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). SUMMARY: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0418, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. How can I get electronic access to other related information? You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr. gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. C. How can I file an objection or hearing request? Under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– OPP–2014–0418 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 29, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b). In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 2014–0418, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23721-23730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09889]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0755; FRL-9926-95-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Visibility Protection

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were
submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) on January 27, 2014.
These revisions implement the preconstruction permitting regulations
for large industrial (major source) facilities in attainment and
unclassifiable areas, called the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD program in Washington has been
historically operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). This
approval of Ecology's PSD program narrows the FIP to include only those
few facilities, emission sources, geographic areas, and permits for
which Ecology does not have PSD permitting jurisdiction or authority.
The EPA is also approving Ecology's visibility protection permitting
program which overlaps significantly with the PSD program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0755. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Planning Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA requests that
if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the
docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

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:

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials ``Act'' or ``CAA'' mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words ``EPA'', ``we'', ``us'' or ``our'' mean or refer to
the Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials ``SIP'' mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
(iv) The words ``Washington'' and ``State'' mean the State of
Washington.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

On January 27, 2014, Ecology submitted revisions to update the
general air quality regulations contained in Chapter 173-400 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that apply to sources within
Ecology's jurisdiction, including minor new source review, major source
nonattainment new source review (major NNSR), PSD, and the visibility
protection (visibility) program. On October 3, 2014, the EPA finalized
approval of provisions contained in Chapter 173-400 WAC that apply
generally to all sources under Ecology's jurisdiction, but stated that
we would act separately on the major source-specific permitting
programs in a phased approach (79 FR 59653). On November 7, 2014, the
EPA finalized the second phase in the series, approving the major NNSR
regulations contained in WAC 173-400-800 through 173-400-860, as well
as other parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC that support major NNSR (79 FR
66291).
On January 7, 2015, the EPA proposed approval of the remainder of
Ecology's January 27, 2014 submittal, covering the PSD and visibility
requirements for

[[Page 23722]]

major stationary sources under Ecology's jurisdiction (80 FR 838). An
explanation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, submitted
revisions, and the EPA's reasons for and limitations of the proposed
approval are provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, which,
together with this document, provides the basis for our final action.
The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on February 6,
2015. The EPA received two sets of similar comments on the proposal.
Before addressing the public comments, the EPA is clarifying its
discussion in the January 7, 2015 proposal, regarding two important
distinctions between the applicability of Ecology's minor NSR program
and its PSD program. These differences arise from the State's
definitions of the terms ``modification'' in WAC 173-400-030(48) and
``major modification'' in WAC 173-400-710 and -720, which adopt the
Federal definitions in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2) for Ecology's PSD program.
See 80 FR at 840. The proposal first noted that the applicability test
for ``modifications'' under Ecology's minor NSR program is based on the
definition of modification in CAA section 111(a)(4) and the EPA's
implementing rules at 40 CFR 60.14, and specifically, that a
modification is an increase in the emission rate of an existing
facility in terms of kilograms per hour. See WAC 173-400-030(48). The
proposal then noted that the applicability test under the Federal PSD
program is based on tons per year. The EPA is clarifying here that
under Washington's PSD program, the determination of whether a project
(as that term is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(52) and which is adopted by
reference at WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi)) is a ``major modification'' is,
consistent with the Federal PSD program, based on whether the project
results in both a significant emissions increase and a significant net
emissions increase in terms of tons per year. See WAC 400-173-
720(4)(a)(vi) (which adopts by reference the Federal PSD applicability
test and definitions in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b)(2), respectively);
see also WAC 173-400-710(a). Therefore, as stated in the proposal, for
any physical or operational change at an existing stationary source,
regulated sources and permitting authorities will need to calculate
emission changes in terms of both kilograms per hour and tons per year
to determine whether changes are subject to minor NSR, PSD, or both.
Second, the proposal discussed a difference in minor NSR versus PSD
review in Washington that arises from a limitation on the scope of the
review of a modification under Ecology's minor NSR program. The EPA
first noted that, under Ecology's minor NSR program, new source review
of a modification is limited to the emission unit or units proposed to
be modified and the air contaminants whose emissions would increase as
a result of the modification. See WAC 173-400-110(1)(d) (``New source
review of a modification is limited to the emission unit or units
proposed to be modified and the air contaminants whose emissions would
increase as a result of the modification.''). In contrasting this minor
NSR provision with the requirements of Ecology's PSD program (and the
Federal PSD program), the EPA incorrectly used the phrase ``new and
modified units'' rather than the terms ``new emissions units'' and
``existing emissions units,'' the terminology used in 40 CFR
52.21(a)(2), which is incorporated into Washington's PSD regulations
and the subject of this final SIP approval. The EPA is emphasizing here
that, under Ecology's PSD program (as under the Federal PSD program),
review of a project that is a ``major modification'' must be done in
accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750,
and that the limitation in WAC 173-400-110(1)(d) on the review of a
``modification'' does not apply to a ``major modification.'' See WAC
173-400-110(1)(d) (``Review of a major modification must comply with
WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 or 173-400-800 through 173-400-860,
as applicable.'').

II. Response to Comments

The EPA received two sets of similar comments from the Northwest
Pulp & Paper Association and the Washington Forest Protection
Association regarding carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
industrial combustion of biomass.

A. CO2 Emissions From Industrial Combustion of Both Fossil
Fuel and Biomass

Comment: The EPA must clearly explain in the final approval that,
due to the limitations imposed by Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
70.235.020(3) concerning the industrial combustion of biomass,\1\ the
EPA is retaining the authority to conduct the best available control
technology (BACT) analysis for PSD permits only for biogenic
CO2 emissions from biomass and will coordinate its
processing and issuance of PSD permits with the Department of Ecology.
One of the commenters specifically requests clarity regarding
situations where there are multiple combustion fuels producing
CO2 from a source and whether Ecology would retain PSD
permitting authority for CO2 emissions resulting from the
industrial combustion of non-biomass fuels from such a source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Note that one commenter refers to the exemption in RCW
70.235.020(3) as applying to ``forest biomass'' and points to the
definition of that term in RCW 79.02.010(7)(a). RCW 70.235.020(3),
however, uses the term ``biomass,'' not ``forest biomass,'' and
nothing in RCW Ch. 70.235 indicates that the definitions in RCW Ch.
79.02 are to be used in interpreting RCW Ch. 70.235. We therefore
continue to use the terminology in RCW Ch. 79.02 in describing the
scope of the remaining Federal Implementation Plan for PSD in
Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: As discussed in the proposal of this rule, RCW
70.235.020(3) statutorily bars Ecology from regulating CO2
under Ecology's PSD program in some circumstances. That statute
provides that ``[e]xcept for purposes of reporting, emissions of carbon
dioxide from industrial combustion of biomass in the form of fuel wood,
wood waste, wood by-products, and wood residuals shall not be
considered a greenhouse gas as long as the region's silvicultural
sequestration capacity is maintained or increased.'' The EPA has been
actively examining whether under Federal law CO2 emissions
from the industrial combustion of biomass may be exempt from the PSD
permitting requirements in a manner similar to RCW 70.235.020(3). In
2011, the EPA adopted a rule that deferred, for a period of three
years, the application of the PSD and Title V permitting requirements
to CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic
stationary sources (biogenic CO2). 76 FR 43490 (July 20,
2011) (Biomass Deferral Rule). During the three-year deferral period,
the EPA conducted a detailed examination of the science associated with
biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources and developed
a document entitled ``Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' which the Agency submitted to the
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) for peer review.
On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued a decision overturning the Biomass Deferral
Rule. Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 421 (D.C. Cir.
2013). Although this decision has not yet taken effect because of
matters still pending in the courts, the Biomass Deferral Rule expired
on its own terms on July 21, 2014. The EPA was not able to issue an
additional rule before this date addressing the regulation of biogenic
CO2 emissions from stationary sources in the PSD permitting
program. However, the EPA plans to propose revisions to the PSD

[[Page 23723]]

rules to include an exemption from the BACT requirement for GHGs from
waste-derived feedstocks and from non-waste biogenic feedstocks derived
from sustainable forest or agricultural practices. For all other
biogenic feedstocks, the EPA intends to propose that biogenic
CO2 emissions would remain subject to the GHG BACT
requirement at this time. See Memorandum from Janet McCabe, Acting
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, to EPA Air
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, ``Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' (Nov. 19, 2014). In addition, to
continue advancing our understanding of the role biomass can play in
reducing overall GHG emissions, the EPA has developed a second draft of
the Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from
Stationary Sources, and is initiating a second round of targeted peer
review through its SAB.
Although the EPA is planning to initiate the rulemaking described
above that would enable states to avoid applying BACT to GHG emissions
from combustion of biogenic feedstocks derived from sustainable forest
or agricultural practices, the CAA and EPA regulations presently
require that PSD permitting programs address CO2 emissions
from the industrial combustion of biomass. CO2 is a gas
included in the definition of ``greenhouse gas'' used in the Federal
PSD program.\2\ Because GHGs are a pollutant subject to regulation
under the CAA, section 165 of the Act requires GHG emissions from a
major source obtaining a PSD permit to be subject to PSD requirements,
particularly the requirement to meet emission limitations based on
application of BACT. After the expiration of the three-year period in
the EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule, there is presently no EPA rule in
place that exempts the CO2 emissions from the industrial
combustion of biomass from the requirements of the PSD permitting
program. As discussed in our January 7, 2015 proposal (80 FR 838),
because of the Supreme Court decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group
v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427, the EPA is not
applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program
require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only
pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above
the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant
emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a
physical change or change in the method of operation of a major
stationary source.\3\ However, the BACT requirement remains applicable
to GHGs from a source that is subject to PSD because it is major for
another regulated NSR pollutant (what is known as an ``anyway source'')
and which would emit a significant amount of GHGs (i.e., more than
75,000 tons per year CO2 equivalent emissions,
CO2e, as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)). Absent an EPA rule
establishing an exemption for CO2 emissions from biomass
combustion, the determination of BACT for a regulated NSR pollutant
must consider all of the emissions of each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act. Because RCW 70.235.020(3) prohibits Ecology
from establishing BACT limits for such sources that include
CO2 emissions resulting from the industrial combustion of
biomass, Washington law is inconsistent with the EPA's current
regulations implementing the PSD provisions in the CAA in that regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(definition of ``subject to
regulation'').
\3\ Under this decision, the Supreme Court held that the EPA may
not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining
whether a source is a major source (or major modification thereof)
required to obtain a PSD permit, but that the EPA could continue to
require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of
pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions
based on the application of BACT. See 80 FR at 842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result, the EPA must retain a FIP under 40 CFR 52.21 and issue
partial PSD permits to ensure that major sources in Washington have a
means to satisfy the CAA construction permit requirements for GHGs when
CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass in
Washington cannot be considered or regulated by Ecology under its PSD
rules.\4\ Because Ecology does have authority to carry out all PSD
requirements for GHGs except for sources permitted to engage in the
industrial combustion of biomass, the EPA is approving Ecology's
regulations as part of the Washington PSD SIP for such purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ PSD permitting of CO2 emissions from such sources
was also excluded from the 2013 Delegation Agreement between the EPA
and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For sources subject to the FIP, the EPA is retaining the authority
to conduct the BACT analysis for all GHGs when necessary, not just the
biogenic CO2 emissions not covered by the Washington
permitting program under RCW 70.235.020(3). Because the regulated NSR
pollutant is GHGs and not CO2, the Federal PSD permit issued
by the EPA under the FIP will contain a BACT limit covering all GHG
emissions from a subject emission unit when that unit is permitted to
emit biogenic CO2 not covered by the Washington permitting
program. The EPA believes it should retain authority over all GHG
emissions at such sources to avoid difficulties that could arise if
Ecology and the EPA each separately evaluated BACT for only a portion
of the GHG emissions from an emission unit. For example, each agency
could end up calculating cost values that would not reflect the true
cost of the control options for GHG emissions because not all GHGs, as
defined under the Federal PSD program, would be considered by either
agency.
Thus, the EPA FIP addresses the impact of the Washington statutory
provision in two ways. First, the Ecology and the EPA definitions of
GHGs are effectively different, with the EPA's definition being more
inclusive (i.e., it does not exclude CO2 emissions from the
industrial combustion of biomass) so an ``anyway source'' could be
subject to PSD for GHGs under the FIP when it would not be subject to
PSD under the SIP. In this situation, the EPA will issue a Federal PSD
permit under 40 CFR 52.21 for the new major stationary source or major
modification that would require BACT for GHGs for all subject emission
units at the source, regardless of whether CO2 emissions
were from the industrial combustion of biomass or from other sources of
GHG emissions at the facility. Second, if an ``anyway source'' is
subject to PSD for GHG emissions under both the SIP and the FIP, but
there are CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of
biomass that cannot be addressed in the Ecology PSD permit, the EPA
will issue a Federal PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21 requiring BACT for
GHGs for each subject emissions unit with CO2 emissions from
the industrial combustion of biomass. Note that the Ecology PSD permit
issued under the SIP will address all other subject emission units that
do not have CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of
biomass. We have revised the language of 40 CFR 52.2497 to reflect this
clarification.
Given this dual CAA PSD permitting authority in situations where
there are multiple combustion fuels producing CO2 from a
source engaged in the industrial combustion of biomass in Washington,
the EPA will coordinate closely with Ecology during the PSD permit
issuance process.

B. EPA Guidance

Comment: The EPA should also clarify that it will follow the EPA's
existing guidance on BACT for biogenic emissions, ``Guidance for
Determining

[[Page 23724]]

Best Available Control Technology for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
from Bioenergy Production'' (March 2011 guidance).
Response: The March 2011 guidance is the EPA's most recent guidance
on the topic of BACT determinations for bioenergy production and the
EPA will consider it, as appropriate, in issuing PSD permits under the
FIP. The EPA will also consider prior BACT determinations for GHGs at
biomass facilities, such as the one reflected in the permit EPA Region
9 issued to Sierra Pacific Industries. In the November 19, 2014
Memorandum cited above, the EPA has also stated that the Agency
anticipates providing additional guidance to sources undergoing BACT
analyses involving biogenic feedstocks. To the extent that guidance is
available at the time the EPA issues permits under the FIP discussed in
this rule, the EPA will consider that guidance as well.

C. The EPA's Next Steps on Biogenic CO2 Emissions From Stationary
Sources

Comment: One commenter referenced the EPA's memorandum,
``Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources,'' from Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation, to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1--10,
November 19, 2014, regarding biogenic CO2 emissions and
urged the EPA to complete rulemaking regarding this issue in an
expeditious manner.
Response: The EPA will endeavor to complete this rulemaking in a
timely manner. After considering public comments on the proposal for
that rule, if the final rule contains an exemption that aligns with the
scope of RCW 70.235.020(3), the EPA will reevaluate the extent to which
the FIP established in this rule should remain applicable to Washington
facilities with CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion
of biomass. To enable the EPA to remove such sources from the FIP,
Washington may need to consider whether an amendment to RCW
70.235.020(3) is appropriate to match the scope of any final rule
adopted by the EPA.

III. Final Action

For the reasons set forth in our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 838,
January 7, 2015, as further discussed above, the EPA is approving and
incorporating by reference the PSD and visibility permitting
regulations submitted by Ecology on January 27, 2014. This action is
the third and final in a series approving the remaining elements
contained in Ecology's January 27, 2014 submittal. The previous two
actions consisted of the EPA's October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59653) approval
of general provisions that apply to all air pollution sources and the
EPA's November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66291) approval of requirements that
implement major source NNSR.

A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference Into the SIP

The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into
Washington's SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, the PSD and visibility
permitting regulations listed in the table below. A full copy of the
regulations is included in the docket for this action. The EPA has also
determined that the general air quality regulations at WAC 173-400-036,
WAC 173-400-110, WAC 173-400-111, WAC 173-400-112, WAC 173-400-113, WAC
173-400-171, and WAC 173-400-560, to the extent they relate to
implementation of Ecology's PSD and visibility programs, also meet the
EPA's requirements for subject sources.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The EPA previously approved these regulations as part of our
October 3, 2014 approval of Ecology's minor new source review (NSR)
program. Approval of these regulations for purposes of implementing
the PSD and visibility programs is subject to the exceptions and
explanations described in the EPA's July 10, 2014 proposed (79 FR
39351) and October 3, 2014 final action (79 FR 59653), and the
January 7, 2015 proposed action (80 FR 838) on the general air
quality regulations contained in WAC 173-400-036, WAC 173-400-110,
WAC 173-400-111, WAC 173-400-112, WAC 173-400-113, WAC 173-400-171,
and WAC 173-400-560.

Regulations Approved and Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/Subject effective Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 173-400 WAC, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-400-036................ Relocation of Portable 12/29/12 ........................................
Sources.
173-400-110................ New Source Review (NSR) 12/29/12 Except:
for Sources and Portable 173-400-110(1)(c)(ii)(C); 173-400-
Sources. 110(1)(e); 173-400-110(2)(d);
The part of WAC 173-400-110(4)(b)(vi)
that says,
``not for use with materials
containing toxic air pollutants, as
listed in chapter 173-460 WAC,'';
The part of 400-110 (4)(e)(iii) that
says,
``where toxic air pollutants as
defined in chapter 173-460 WAC are not
emitted'';
The part of 400-110(4)(e)(f)(i) that
says,
``that are not toxic air
pollutants listed in chapter 173-460
WAC'';
The part of 400-110 (4)(h)(xviii) that
says,
``, to the extent that toxic
air pollutant gases as defined in
chapter 173-460 WAC are not emitted'';
The part of 400-110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that
says,
``where no toxic air pollutants
as listed under chapter 173-460 WAC are
emitted'';
The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that
says,
``, or <= 1% (by weight) toxic
air pollutants as listed in chapter 173-
460 WAC'';
The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxv) that
says,
``or <= 1% (by weight) toxic
air pollutants'';
The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that
says,
``or <= 1% (by weight) toxic
air pollutants as listed in chapter 173-
460 WAC'';
400-110(4)(h)(xl) , second sentence; and

[[Page 23725]]

The last row of the table in 173-400-
110(5)(b) regarding exemption levels
for Toxic Air Pollutants.
173-400-111................ Processing Notice of 12/29/12 Except:
Construction 173-400-111(3)(h);
Applications for 173-400-111(3)(i);
Sources, Stationary The part of 173-400-111(8)(a)(v) that
Sources and Portable says,
Sources. ``and 173-460-040,''; and 173-
400-111(9).
173-400-112................ Processing Notice of 12/29/12 Except:
Construction 173-400-112(8).
Applications for
Sources, Stationary
Sources and Portable
Sources.
173-400-113................ New Sources in Attainment 12/29/12 Except:
or Unclassifiable Areas-- 173-400-113(3), second sentence.
Review for Compliance
with Regulations.
173-400-116................ Increment Protection..... 9/10/11 ........................................
173-400-117................ Special Protection 12/29/12 ........................................
Requirements for Federal
Class I Areas.
173-400-171................ Public Notice and 12/29/12 Except:
Opportunity for Public The part of 173-400-171(3)(b) that says,
Comment.
``or any increase in emissions
of a toxic air pollutant above the
acceptable source impact level for that
toxic air pollutant as regulated under
chapter 173-460 WAC''; and
173-400-171(12).
173-400-560................ General Order of Approval 12/29/12 Except:
The part of 173-400-560(1)(f) that says,
``173-460 WAC''.
173-400-700................ Review of Major 4/1/11 ........................................
Stationary Sources of
Air Pollution.
173-400-710................ Definitions.............. 12/29/12 ........................................
173-400-720................ Prevention of Significant 12/29/12 Except:
Deterioration (PSD). 173-400-720(4)(a)(i through iv); 173-400-
720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173-400-
720(4)(a)(vi) with respect to the
incorporation by reference of the text
in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v),
52.21(i)(5)(i), and 52.21(k)(2).
173-400-730................ Prevention of Significant 12/29/12 ........................................
Deterioration
Application Processing
Procedures.
173-400-740................ PSD Permitting Public 12/29/12 ........................................
Involvement Requirements.
173-400-750................ Revisions to PSD Permits. 12/29/12 Except:
173-400-750(2) second sentence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits

As discussed in the proposal, Ecology requested approval to
exercise its authority to fully administer the PSD program with respect
to those sources under Ecology's permitting jurisdiction that have
existing PSD permits issued by the EPA since August 7, 1977. 80 FR 843,
January 7, 2015. Upon the effective date of this approval of Ecology's
PSD program into the SIP, we transfer the EPA-issued PSD permits issued
on and after August 7, 1977 to Ecology. The EPA retains authority to
administer PSD permits issued by the EPA in Washington prior to August
7, 1977. Id.

C. Scope of Final Action

1. WAC 173-400-700 Through 173-400-750
Under WAC 173-400-700, Ecology's PSD regulations contained in WAC
173-400-700 through 173-400-750 apply statewide, except where a local
clean air agency has received delegation of the Federal PSD program
from the EPA or has a SIP-approved PSD program. At this time, no local
clean air agencies in Washington have a delegated or SIP-approved PSD
program. For the reasons provided in the preambles to the proposed and
final notices of rulemaking, the EPA is therefore approving WAC 173-
400-700 through 173-400-750 to apply statewide, with the three
exceptions described below. For the following exceptions, the PSD FIP
codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 40 CFR 52.21 will continue to apply, and
the EPA will retain responsibility for issuing PSD permits to and
implementing the Federal PSD program for such sources:
a. Sources Under the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC)
Jurisdiction
By statute, Ecology does not have authority to issue PSD permits to
sources under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. See Chapter 80.50 of the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Therefore, the EPA's approval of
Ecology's PSD program, under WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750,
excludes projects under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. Such sources will
continue to be subject to the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 40
CFR 52.21, until such time that EFSEC's PSD rules are approved into the
SIP.
b. CO2 Emissions From Industrial Combustion of Biomass
As discussed above, under a provision contained in RCW 70.235.020,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions--Reporting Requirements, Ecology is
statutorily barred from

[[Page 23726]]

regulating certain GHG emissions. As a result, the EPA is retaining a
FIP under 40 CFR 52.21 and will issue partial PSD permits to ensure
that major sources in Washington have a means to satisfy the CAA
construction permit requirements for GHGs when CO2 emissions
from the industrial combustion of biomass in Washington are not being
considered or regulated by Ecology under its PSD rules. Because Ecology
does have authority to carry out all PSD requirements for GHGs except
for sources permitted to engage in the industrial combustion of
biomass, the EPA is approving Ecology's regulations as part of the
Washington PSD SIP for such purposes.
c. Sources in Certain Areas of Indian Country
Excluded from the scope of this final approval of Ecology's PSD
program are all Indian reservations in the State, except as
specifically noted below, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Sources on such
lands will continue to be subject to the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR
52.2497 and 40 CFR 52.21.
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
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as
the 1873 Survey Area) and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve
Ecology's PSD regulations into the SIP with respect to such lands.
d. Scope of PSD FIP in Washington
Consistent with the limitations on the scope of the EPA's final
approval of WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750 in the Washington SIP,
the EPA retains, but significantly narrows, the scope of the current
PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497. The EPA will continue to implement
the current PSD FIP as provided in III.C.1.a., b., and c. of this
document.
2. WAC 173-400-116 and 173-400-117
With respect to the EPA's approval of WAC 173-400-116 and WAC 173-
400-117, the SIP-approved provisions of WAC 173-400-020 govern
jurisdictional applicability for those sections. WAC 173-400-020
states, ``[t]he provisions of this chapter shall apply statewide,
except for specific subsections where a local authority has adopted and
implemented corresponding local rules that apply only to sources
subject to local jurisdiction as provided under RCW 70.94.141 and
70.94.331.'' Because Ecology will be the only authority in Washington
with a SIP-approved PSD program that would implement WAC 173-400-116,
Increment Protection, the EPA's approval of WAC 173-400-116 applies
statewide, with the two exceptions discussed below. Similarly, the
scope of our approval of WAC 173-400-117, Special Protection
Requirements for Federal Class I Areas, applies statewide for PSD
permits issued by Ecology under WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750,
noting the two exceptions discussed below. However, for visibility-
related elements associated with permits issued under the major NNSR
program, the applicability of WAC 173-400-117 is more complicated
because local clean air agencies have the authority under state law to
have alternative, but no less stringent, permitting requirements.
Therefore, consistent with the EPA's November 7, 2014 approval of
Ecology's major NNSR program, our approval of WAC 173-400-117, as it
relates to NNSR permits issues under WAC 173-400-800 through 173-400-
860, is limited to only those counties or sources where Ecology has
direct jurisdiction. The counties where Ecology has direct jurisdiction
are: Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin,
Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille,
San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman Counties, with the two
exceptions discussed below. The EPA also notes that under the SIP-
approved provisions of WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC 173-
415-012, Ecology has statewide, direct jurisdiction for kraft pulp
mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants, excluding
certain areas of Indian country as discussed further. The EPA is
therefore approving WAC 173-400-117 in all areas of the state under
Ecology's jurisdiction for those specified source categories.
For the following exceptions the visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR
52.2498 will continue to apply and the EPA will retain responsibility
for issuing visibility permits for such sources:
a. Sources Under the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC)
Jurisdiction
By State statute, Ecology does not have authority to issue permits
to sources under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. See Chapter 80.50 of the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Therefore, the EPA's approval of WAC
173-400-116 and 173-400-117 excludes projects under the jurisdiction of
EFSEC. Such sources will continue to be subject to the visibility FIP
codified at 40 CFR 52.2498, until such time that EFSEC's corollaries to
WAC 173-400-116 and 173-400-117 are approved into the SIP.
b. Sources in Certain Areas of Indian Country
Excluded from the scope of this final approval of the visibility
permitting program are all Indian reservations in the State, except as
specifically noted below, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Sources on such
lands will continue to be subject to the visibility FIP codified at 40
CFR 52.2498.
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
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as
the 1873 Survey Area) and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve
Ecology's visibility regulations into the SIP with respect to such
lands for those facilities where Ecology has direct jurisdiction.
c. Scope of Visibility FIP in Washington
Consistent with the limitations on the scope of our approval of
Ecology's major NNSR program (79 FR at 43349), the EPA retains, but
significantly narrows, the scope of the current visibility FIP codified
at 40 CFR 52.2498.

D. The EPA's Oversight Role

As discussed in the proposal, 80 FR at 845, in approving state new
source review rules into SIPs, the EPA has a responsibility to ensure
that all states properly implement their SIP-approved preconstruction
permitting programs. The EPA's approval of Ecology's PSD rules does not
divest the EPA of the responsibility to continue appropriate oversight
to ensure that permits issued by Ecology are consistent with the
requirements of the CAA, Federal regulations, and the SIP. The EPA's
authority to oversee permit program implementation is set forth in
sections 113, 167, and 505(b) of the CAA. For example, section 167
provides that the EPA shall issue administrative orders, initiate civil
actions, or take whatever other action may be necessary to prevent the
construction or modification of a major stationary source that does not
``conform to the requirements of'' the PSD program. Similarly, section
113(a)(5) of the CAA provides for administrative orders and civil
actions whenever the EPA finds that a state ``is not acting in
compliance with'' any requirement or prohibition of the CAA regarding
the construction of new

[[Page 23727]]

sources or modification of existing sources. Likewise, section
113(a)(1) provides for a range of enforcement remedies whenever the EPA
finds that a person is in violation of an applicable implementation
plan.
In making judgments as to what constitutes compliance with the CAA
and regulations issued thereunder, the EPA looks to (among other
sources) its prior interpretations regarding those statutory and
regulatory requirements and policies for implementing them. It follows
that state actions implementing the Federal CAA that do not conform to
the CAA may lead to potential oversight action by the EPA.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Washington State Department of Ecology regulations listed in section
II.A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference into the SIP of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved
to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Washington's SIP is approved to apply on 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. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter
dated February 25, 2014. The EPA did not receive a request for
consultation.
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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 29, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 13, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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. Section 52.2470 is amended in paragraph (c), Table 2--Additional
Regulations Approved for Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Direct Jurisdiction by:
0
a. Revising the heading;
0
b. Revising the entries 173-400-036, 173-400-110, 173-400-111, 173-400-
112, and 173-400-113;
0
c. Adding in numerical order entries for 173-400-116 and 173-400-117;
0
d. Revising the entries 173-400-171 and 173-400-560;
0
e. Adding in numerical order entries for 173-400-700, 173-400-710, 173-

[[Page 23728]]

400-720, 173-400-730, 173-400-740, and 173-400-750; and
0
f. Removing the footnote at end of Table 2.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *

Table 2--Additional Regulations Approved for Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct Jurisdiction
[Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat,
Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities
subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-
trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for
facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173-400-700, WAC 173-405-012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC
173-415-012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval Explanations
date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400--General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
173-400-036..... Relocation of 12/29/12 04/29/15 ..............................................
Portable [Insert
Sources. Federal
Register
citation].

* * * * * * *
173-400-110..... New Source 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
Review (NSR) [Insert 173-400-110(1)(c)(ii)(C);
for Sources Federal 173-400-110(1)(e); 173-400-110(2)(d);
and Portable Register The part of WAC 173-400-110(4)(b)(vi) that
Sources. citation]. says,
``not for use with materials
containing toxic air pollutants, as listed in
chapter 173-460 WAC,'';
The part of 400-110 (4)(e)(iii) that says,
``where toxic air pollutants as
defined in chapter 173-460 WAC are not
emitted'';
The part of 400-110(4)(e)(f)(i) that says,
``that are not toxic air pollutants
listed in chapter 173-460 WAC'';
The part of 400-110 (4)(h)(xviii) that says,
``, to the extent that toxic air
pollutant gases as defined in chapter 173-460
WAC are not emitted'';
The part of 400-110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that says,
``where no toxic air pollutants as
listed under chapter 173-460 WAC are
emitted'';
The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that says,
``or <= 1% (by weight) toxic air
pollutants as listed in chapter 173-460
WAC'';
The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxv) that says,
``or <= 1% (by weight) toxic air
pollutants'';
The part of 400-110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that says,
``or <= 1% (by weight) toxic air
pollutants as listed in chapter 173-460
WAC'';
400-110(4)(h)(xl), second sentence; and
The last row of the table in 173-400-110(5)(b)
regarding exemption levels for Toxic Air
Pollutants.
173-400-111..... Processing 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
Notice of [Insert 173-400-111(3)(h);
Construction Federal 173-400-111(3)(i);
Applications Register The part of 173-400-111(8)(a)(v) that says,
for Sources, citation]. ``and 173-460-040,''; and
Stationary 173-400-111(9).
Sources and
Portable
Sources.
173-400-112..... Requirements 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
for New [Insert 173-400-112(8).
Sources in Federal
Nonattainment Register
Areas--Review citation].
for Compliance
with
Regulations.
173-400-113..... New Sources in 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
Attainment or [Insert 173-400-113(3), second sentence.
Unclassifiable Federal
Areas--Review Register
for Compliance citation].
with
Regulations.
173-400-116..... Increment 9/10/11 04/29/15 ..............................................
Protection. [Insert
Federal
Register
citation].

[[Page 23729]]

173-400-117..... Special 12/29/12 04/29/15 ..............................................
Protection [Insert
Requirements Federal
for Federal Register
Class I Areas. citation].

* * * * * * *
173-400-171..... Public Notice 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
and [Insert The part of 173-400-171(3)(b) that says,
Opportunity Federal ``or any increase in emissions of a
for Public Register toxic air pollutant above the acceptable
Comment. citation]. source impact level for that toxic air
pollutant as regulated under chapter 173-460
WAC''; and
173-400-171(12).

* * * * * * *
173-400-560..... General Order 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
of Approval. [Insert The part of 173-400-560(1)(f) that says,
Federal ``173-460 WAC''.
Register
citation].
173-400-700..... Review of Major 4/1/11 04/29/15 ..............................................
Stationary [Insert
Sources of Air Federal
Pollution. Register
citation].
173-400-710..... Definitions.... 12/29/12 04/29/15 ..............................................
[Insert
Federal
Register
citation].
173-400-720..... Prevention of 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
Significant [Insert 173-400-720(4)(a)(i-iv); 173-400-
Deterioration Federal 720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi)
(PSD). Register with respect to the incorporation by
citation]. reference of the text in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.21(i)(5)(i), and
52.21(k)(2).
173-400-730..... Prevention of 12/29/12 04/29/15 ..............................................
Significant [Insert
Deterioration Federal
Application Register
Processing citation].
Procedures.
173-400-740..... PSD Permitting 12/29/12 04/29/15 ..............................................
Public [Insert
Involvement Federal
Requirements. Register
citation].
173-400-750..... Revisions to 12/29/12 04/29/15 Except:
PSD Permits. [Insert 173-400-750(2) second sentence.
Federal
Register
citation].

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.2497 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec. 52.2497 Significant deterioration of air quality.

(a) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air
Act are not fully met because the plan does not include approvable
procedures for preventing the significant deterioration of air quality
from:
(1) Facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities
Site Evaluation Council pursuant to Chapter 80.50 Revised Code of
Washington (RCW);
(2) Facilities with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
the industrial combustion of biomass in the following circumstances:
(i) Where a new major stationary source or major modification would
be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
requirements for greenhouse gases (GHGs) under Sec. 52.21, but would
not be subject to PSD under the state implementation plan (SIP) because
CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass are
excluded from consideration as GHGs as a matter of state law under RCW
70.235.020(3); or
(ii) Where a new major stationary source or major modification is
subject to PSD for GHGs under both the Washington SIP and the FIP, but
CO2 emissions from the industrial combustion of biomass are
excluded from consideration in the Ecology PSD permitting process
because of the exclusion in RCW 70.235.020(3);
(3) Indian reservations in Washington, except for non-trust land
within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also
known as the 1873 Survey Area) as provided in the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction; and
(4) Sources subject to PSD permits issued by the EPA prior to
August 7, 1977, but only with respect to the general administration of
any such permits still in effect (e.g., modifications, amendments, or
revisions of any nature).

[[Page 23730]]

(b) Regulations for preventing significant deterioration of air
quality. The provisions of Sec. 52.21, except paragraph (a)(1), are
hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable plan for
Washington for the facilities, emission sources, geographic areas, and
permits listed in paragraph (a) of this section. For situations
addressed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the EPA will issue a
Federal PSD permit under Sec. 52.21 to the new major stationary source
or major modification addressing PSD requirements applicable to GHGs
for all subject emission units at the source, regardless of whether
CO2 emissions resulted from the industrial combustion of
biomass or from other sources of GHGs at the facility. For situations
addressed in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the EPA will issue a
Federal PSD permit under Sec. 52.21 addressing PSD requirements
applicable to GHGs for each subject emissions unit that is permitted to
emit CO2 from the industrial combustion of biomass.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.2498 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec. 52.2498 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not
fully met because the plan does not include approvable procedures for
visibility new source review for:
(1) Facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities
Site Evaluation Council pursuant to Chapter 80.50 Revised Code of
Washington;
(2) Sources subject to the jurisdiction of local air authorities;
(3) Indian reservations in Washington except for non-trust land
within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also
known as the 1873 Survey Area) as provided in the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction.
(b) Regulations for visibility new source review. The provisions of
Sec. 52.28 are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable
plan for Washington for the facilities, emission sources, and
geographic areas listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-09889 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.