Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report, 24954-24960 [2018-11572]

Download as PDF 24954 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This action merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Incorporation by reference. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 18, 2018. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. Chapter I, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1488 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (f). ■ [FR Doc. 2018–11752 Filed 5–30–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS because it merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished. Jkt 244001 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 14:59 May 30, 2018 The EPA believes that this proposed rule will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Because this proposed rule merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished, this proposal will not cause any emissions increases. ■ This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VerDate Sep<11>2014 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0001; FRL–9978– 75—Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Washington on November 6, 2017. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Washington submitted its Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (progress report or report) and a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing regional haze implementation plan is not needed at this time. Washington submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act to submit a report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the existing plan addressing regional haze. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2018–0001 at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553–0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. I. Background Washington submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on December 22, 2010, and supplemental E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1 pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules information on December 29, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the Washington regional haze SIP on December 6, 2012, and June 11, 2014.1 In the same June 11, 2014, action, the EPA disapproved certain elements related to best available retrofit technology (BART), discussed in more detail in section III.A. below, and promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the disapproved elements of the SIP. With the exception of the disapproved BART elements, the EPA approved all remaining portions of Washington’s regional haze SIP, including: The identification of affected Class I Federal areas 2 (Class I area or areas); the determination of baseline conditions, natural conditions, and uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I area; the emissions inventories; the sources of visibility impairment in Washington’s Class I areas; the state’s monitoring strategy; the state’s consultation with other states and Federal Land Managers; the reasonable progress goals (RPGs); the long-term strategy; and the state’s remaining BART determinations. Five years after submission of the initial regional haze plan, states are required to submit reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state’s existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On November 6, 2017, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted as a SIP revision a report on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the progress report an assessment of whether the current ‘‘implementation plan’’ is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term ‘‘implementation plan’’ is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. See 40 CFR 51.301. The EPA is, therefore, proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state’s regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the 1 See 77 FR 72742 and 79 FR 33438. designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 2 Areas VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 May 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 ‘‘existing implementation plan’’ under 40 R 51.308(g)(6) and (h). As discussed below, the EPA is proposing to approve Washington’s progress report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Washington’s long-term strategy and emission control measures in the existing regional haze implementation plan are sufficient to meet all established RPGs for 2018. II. Context for Understanding Washington’s Progress Report To facilitate a better understanding of Washington’s progress report as well as the EPA’s evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze program in Washington. A. Framework for Measuring Progress The EPA established a metric for determining visibility conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview index,’’ measured in deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors. Washington has eight Class I areas within its borders: Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Mount Adams Wilderness Area, Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Pasayten Wilderness Area. Monitoring data representing visibility conditions in Washington’s eight Class I areas is based on the six IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1. As shown in the table, the NOCA1 monitoring site represents two Class I areas, the WHPA1 site represents two other Class I areas, and the remaining four sites represent individual Class I areas. TABLE 1—WASHINGTON IMPROVE MONITORING SITES AND REPRESENTED CLASS I AREAS Site code Class I area OLYM1 ... NOCA1 .. Olympic National Park. North Cascades National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness. Pasayten Wilderness. Alpine lakes Wilderness. Mt. Rainier National Park. Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mt. Adams Wilderness. PASA1 ... SNPA1 ... MORA1 .. WHPA1 .. Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state’s initial regional haze SIP must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 24955 must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to achieve it. Washington set the RPGs for its eight Class I areas based on regional atmospheric air quality modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) using projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state control strategies expected to be in place before 2018. As part of the WRAP coordination and joint modeling, Washington worked closely with other western states to ensure that control measures put in place to meet RPGs for Washington Class I areas were also sufficient to address Washington’s impact on Class I areas in other states. The EPA, in our approval of Washington’s 2010 regional haze SIP, stated that Washington’s control measures coordinated through the WRAP would enable it to achieve the RPGs established for the mandatory Class I areas in Washington, as well as the RPGs established by other states for the Class I areas where Washington sources are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment.3 The progress report provided an update using the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area in Oregon as an example. The coordinated WRAP projected emissions inventories and modeling, approved as part of the 2010 regional haze SIP, showed that in 2002 Washington contributed 33.5% of the nitrate and 21.6% of the sulfate on the worst days at Mount Hood Wilderness Area. However, by 2018, Washington’s contribution on the worst days was projected to decrease to 25.9% and 17.5%, respectively. The EPA notes that the Mount Hood Wilderness Area is currently meeting the 2018 reasonable progress goals for best and worst days based on 2012–2016 data,4 further supporting Washington’s view that coordination through the WRAP is an effective means of meeting reduction targets in neighboring western states. B. Data Sources for Washington’s Progress Report Washington relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report 3 77 FR 76174, 76205; 79 FR 33438. the EPA’s proposed approval of the Oregon regional haze progress report (83 FR 11927, March 19, 2018). 4 See E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1 24956 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules titled ‘‘Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report’’ (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included as Appendix A of the progress report, in the docket for this action. The WRAP report was prepared for the 15 western state members to provide the technical basis for the first of their individual progress reports. Data is presented in this report on a regional, state, and Class I area-specific basis that characterize the difference between baseline conditions (2000–2004) and the first 5-year progress period (2005–2009). Washington also evaluated visibility conditions in its eight Class I areas based on the most recent 5-year data available at the time Washington developed the progress report (2010– 2014). III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Washington’s Progress Report This section describes the contents of Washington’s progress report and the EPA’s evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA’s evaluation of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i). pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS A. Status of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze Implementation Plan In its progress report, Washington provided a description of the control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional haze program and make projections of expected emissions reductions from the 2002 base year to 2018. Washington’s regional haze SIP noted that many of the control measures were already-adopted federal and state provisions such as: The Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard, Tier 2 Tailpipe Standards, Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle Rule, Non-road Diesel Rule, low sulfur fuel requirements for gasoline engines, onroad diesel engines, off-road diesel engines, and locomotives, as well as Washington’s decision to adopt the California low emission vehicle requirements. Other control measures were originally adopted to reduce ozone or particulate matter (PM) with the cobenefit of reducing visibility impairment, such as the smoke management and agriculture burning programs. Because these other state and federal control measures with the expected co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment were generally already in place, the most significant focus of Washington’s initial regional haze SIP was implementation of BART, as summarized below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 May 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 1. British Petroleum Cherry Point Refinery The British Petroleum (BP) Cherry Point Refinery is located near Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7836, with emissions limitations for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX) from process heaters, as well as limitations on total sulfur content of the refinery fuel gas used in all process heaters and boilers. In the progress report Washington noted that all emission reductions required by the BART order have been implemented. On February 16, 2016, the EPA approved the most recent modification to the BART order which coordinated emission limitations with more recent minor source new source review approvals, and to accommodate future equipment replacement projects (81 FR 7710). 2. Intalco Aluminum Corporation The Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) is a primary aluminum smelter also located at Cherry Point near Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7837, Revision 1, to Intalco on November 15, 2010. The revised order imposed Washington’s determined BART control technology, pollution prevention measures, emission limits, compliance dates, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. On June 11, 2014, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Washington’s sulfur dioxide (SO2) BART determination for Intalco.5 Concurrent with the limited disapproval, the EPA promulgated a FIP imposing a SO2 ‘‘Better than BART’’ alternative on Intalco.6 This alternative, as requested by Intalco in a letter dated June 22, 2012, consisted of a 5,240 tons per year annual SO2 emission limit on the potlines. The progress report noted that Intalco has complied with the requirements of the BART order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the plant’s air operating permit. The progress report also showed that while emissions have increased due to increased aluminum production, levels remain below the SO2 emission limit. 3. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company The Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro) operates a refinery near Anacortes, Washington, that processes crude oil into refined oil products, including ultra-low sulfur 5 See 79 FR 33438, 33452; See also proposed rulemaking, 77 FR 76174, at pages 76188–76192. 6 See 40 CFR 52.2500. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 diesel oil, jet fuel, #6 fuel oil, and gasoline. The primary emission units of concern were the process heaters, boiler, and flares. On July 7, 2010, Ecology issued BART Order 7838 requiring specific fuel gas sulfur content limits, a wet scrubber system on the catalyst regeneration/carbon monoxide boiler exhaust, and NOX limits on two process heaters. The EPA approved portions of BART Order 7838 but disapproved the NOX BART determination for five BART emission units and promulgated a FIP imposing a ‘‘Better than BART’’ alternative. The federal ‘‘Better than BART’’ alternative was based on Tesoro’s request to the EPA on November 5, 2012. In the request, Tesoro identified seven non-BART units at the facility that achieve substantially more SO2 emission reductions compared to the NOX emission reductions that would be achieved from BART on the five BART subject units. Tesoro requested SO2 emission limitations on those non-BART units as an alternative to emission limits for NOX on the BART subject units. The EPA determined that the visibility improvement would be greater under the alternative than under BART, and promulgated the federal ‘‘Better than BART’’ alternative under the FIP.7 The progress report noted that Tesoro continues to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the BART order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the plant’s air operating permit. The progress report also showed that SO2 emissions have declined significantly over the past ten years, while NOX and PM emissions have remained stable. 4. Alcoa Wenatchee Works In our June 11, 2014, final action, the EPA disapproved Washington’s BART exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee Works), and promulgated a federal BART FIP for all emission units subject to BART at the facility.8 After evaluating various control technologies, we determined that the costs of compliance and the anticipated visibility benefits did not warrant new controls at the facility. We therefore determined that the existing controls at the facility were BART and adjusted some emission limits in the facility’s air operating permit to reflect the level of emission reductions achievable by those existing controls.9 The progress report noted that Alcoa decided to curtail 7 See 40 CFR 52.2501. See also proposed rulemaking 77 FR 76174, at pages 76196–76198. 8 See 40 CFR 52.2502. 9 See 79 FR 33438, page 33440. E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1 24957 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules operations at this plant at the end of 2015, until market prices of aluminum recover sufficiently to restart the plant. 5. Lafarge North America Lafarge North America (Lafarge) is located in Seattle, Washington and produces Portland cement by the wet kiln process. The largest BART sources of concern were the rotary kiln and the clinker cooler. The other BART units included raw material handling, finished product storage bins, finish mill conveying system, bagging system, and bulk loading/unloading system baghouses, with a total of just 480 tons per year of PM emissions. Washington issued, and the EPA approved, BART Order 7841 to implement emission controls for NOX and SOX. The progress report noted that prior to the compliance date in the BART order, the company ceased cement production at this facility. The plant must meet all requirements, including NOX and SOX emission controls identified in the BART order, prior to restarting the plant. 6. TransAlta Centralia Power Plant In a final action on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved Washington’s BART determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta).10 The BART determination and compliance order established a NOX emission limit of 0.21 pounds per million British Thermal Units, and among other things, required selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) to be installed by January 1, 2013. The BART order also required one coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 2020, and the second coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 2025, unless Washington determines that state or federal law requires that selective catalytic reduction must be installed on either unit. The progress report noted that TransAlta installed SNCR, along with other associated controls, and demonstrated compliance with the initial emission limitation in the order. However, the progress report noted that the plant is also required to determine if it could reliably comply with a lower emission limitation. At the time of the progress report submission, Washington explained that this work had not been completed due to a number of factors, primarily inconsistent plant operation and difficulties with the in situ ammonia slip monitors. With respect to inconsistent plan operation, Washington noted that plant operation has reduced to 50%–60% of full annual capacity compared to greater than 80% when the BART order was issued, with NOX emissions in 2015 approximately half the amount emitted in 2010. remove SO2, (3) a dry electrostatic precipitator for additional particulate control, and (4) good combustion practices for NOX emission control. The progress report noted that Weyerhauser continues to comply with the BART order. 8. Port Townsend Paper Company Port Townsend Paper Company operates a kraft pulp and paper mill in Port Townsend, Washington that manufactures kraft pulp, kraft papers, and lightweight liner board. The four BART eligible emission units identified in the 2010 regional haze SIP were the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, No. 10 power boiler, and lime kiln. On October 20, 2010, Washington issued Order 7839, Revision 1, which established emission limits for the existing controls at the facility as BART. The controls under the BART order are an electrostatic precipitator to control PM from the recovery furnace, a wet scrubber to control PM and SO2 from the smelt dissolving tank, a multiclone and wet scrubber to control PM emissions from the No. 10 power boiler, and a Venturi wet scrubber to control PM and SO2 from the lime kiln. The progress report noted that the facility continues to comply with the BART order. 7. Weyerhaeuser Corporation, Longview Weyerhaeuser Corporation (Weyerhaeuser) operates a Kraft pulp and paper mill in Longview, Washington. The facility has three emission units subject to BART: No. 10 recovery furnace; No. 10 smelt dissolver tank; and No. 11 power boiler. On July 7, 2010, Washington issued BART Order 7840. As described in the EPA’s proposed approval of BART for this facility, Washington determined that the existing controls, techniques, and emission limits, already in place to meet prior new source review and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) requirements, constituted BART for NOX, SO2, and PM.11 Specifically, these controls were an electrostatic precipitator and a staged combustion system for the recovery furnace and a high efficiency wet scrubber for the smelt dissolver tank. The No. 11 power boiler controls were: (1) A multiclone to remove large particulate, (2) dry trona injection to B. Summary of Visibility Conditions In the progress report, Washington documented the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000–2004) and the most current five year averaging period available at the time Washington developed the progress report (2010– 2014).12 Washington demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the baseline (2000–2004) and current (2010–2014) visibility periods, meeting all the 2018 reasonable progress goals established in the regional haze SIP. TABLE 2—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20% MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS 20% Most impaired days pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS Monitor Class I area OLYM1 ...... NOCA1 ...... Olympic Nat’l Park ............................................. North Cascades National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness. Alpine Lakes Wilderness ................................... Mount Rainier National Park ............................. Goat Rocks Wilderness, and Mount Adams Wilderness. SNPA1 ...... MORA1 ..... WHPA1 ..... 10 77 11 77 FR 72742, 72744. FR 76174, at page 76201. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 May 30, 2018 2000–04 Baseline (dv) 2010–14 Current period (dv) 20% Least impaired days 2018 RPGs (dv) 2010–14 Current period (dv) 2000–04 Baseline (dv) 16.7 16.0 13.8 13.0 16.4 15.6 6.0 3.4 3.7 2.7 6.0 3.4 17.8 18.2 12.8 15.6 15.2 11.8 16.3 16.7 11.8 5.5 5.5 1.7 3.4 3.9 0.9 5.5 5.5 1.7 12 Additional in-depth analysis for the 2005–2009 progress period conducted by the WRAP was also included as an appendix to the progress report. Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 2018 RPGs (dv) Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1 24958 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20% MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS—Continued 20% Most impaired days Monitor Class I area 2000–04 Baseline (dv) PASA1 ....... Pasayten Wilderness ......................................... Washington’s progress report included an analysis of progress and impediments to progress. With respect to impediments to progress, Washington cited wildfire smoke originating in the state or transported from outside the state, offshore and ocean-going vessel emissions, mobile source emissions (onroad and non-road sources under federal emission control), and international emissions as factors largely beyond state control that can interfere with progress toward improved visibility in Class I areas. Further detail on many of these source categories is included in the emissions inventory discussion below. The progress report also contained a review of Washington’s visibility monitoring strategy, concluding that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule. Washington will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network to collect and analyze the visibility data and suggested additional sites for consideration should additional federal or state funding become 2010–14 Current period (dv) 15.2 20% Least impaired days 13.1 15.1 available. These proposed sites include the southwest portion of Olympic National Park, and Stevens Pass or Stehekin to better reflect conditions at Glacier Peak Wilderness. C. Summary of Emissions Reductions The Washington progress report also included a summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state from the control measures discussed above. The progress report included the 2002 WRAP inventory used for baseline condition modeling, Ecology’s periodic comprehensive inventory submitted to the EPA for the national emission inventories for the years 2005 and 2011, and the WRAP’s projected emissions inventory for 2018. The progress report highlighted significant differences between the inventories due to methodology changes over the years. First, mobile source emission estimates are not directly comparable because they are based on different emissions models. Starting in 2007, the EPA required the use of the MOVES model for mobile source 2010–14 Current period (dv) 2000–04 Baseline (dv) 2018 RPGs (dv) 2.7 2018 RPGs (dv) 1.8 2.7 emissions modeling. The progress report noted that the model transition resulted in significant changes, especially for NOX emissions when comparing prior year estimates and projections based on those estimates, including the WRAP’s 2018 projections calculated with Mobile 6.2. Second, the WRAP did not estimate direct PM2.5 from mobile sources, only dust from road surfaces, representing a large difference between the WRAP inventories and Ecology’s 2005 and 2011 inventories. Third, the WRAP emission inventories did not separately report emissions from locomotives or marine vessels. These emissions are included in the mobile source segment. Lastly, the progress report noted that Washington recently updated its inventory to reflect revised emission factors for some area source categories and fires, compared to what was used by the WRAP. Factoring in these differences in the emissions inventory methodology, Washington concluded that emissions have declined for most source categories. TABLE 3—SULFUR OXIDES EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY Category WRAP 2002 2005 2011 WRAP 2018 Stationary sources ........................................................................................... Area sources .................................................................................................... Wildfires ........................................................................................................... Anthropogenic fires .......................................................................................... Mobile sources ................................................................................................. Locomotives ..................................................................................................... Marine vessels ................................................................................................. 52,885 7,311 1,641 1,411 19,436 ........................ ........................ 23,367 1,562 1,563 ........................ 7,505 1,546 15,774 13,832 1,472 348 ........................ 1,059 95 11,529 37,444 8,667 1,641 1,043 941 ........................ ........................ Total .......................................................................................................... 82,684 51,317 28,335 49,736 TABLE 4—NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS Category WRAP 2002 2005 2011 WRAP 2018 Stationary sources ........................................................................................... Area sources .................................................................................................... Wildfires ........................................................................................................... Anthropogenic fires .......................................................................................... Mobile sources ................................................................................................. Locomotives ..................................................................................................... Marine vessels ................................................................................................. Biogenic ........................................................................................................... 43,355 17,587 5,997 6,821 286,701 ........................ ........................ 17,923 43,386 8,581 5,714 ........................ 198,168 18,973 29,142 ........................ 26,565 8,599 679 ........................ 202,436 15,026 20,486 ........................ 49,456 22,746 5,997 4,971 102,440 ........................ ........................ 17,923 Total .......................................................................................................... 378,384 303,964 273,791 203,533 VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 May 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 24959 TABLE 5—FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY Category WRAP 2002 2005 2011 WRAP 2018 Stationary sources ........................................................................................... Area sources .................................................................................................... Wildfires ........................................................................................................... Anthropogenic fires .......................................................................................... Mobile sources ................................................................................................. Locomotives ..................................................................................................... Marine vessels ................................................................................................. Fugitive and windblown dust ........................................................................... 2,257 12,708 1,139 3,869 2,819 ........................ ........................ 18,358 5,773 39,822 22,196 ........................ 6,944 583 1,440 ........................ 3,958 55,060 3,706 ........................ 8,757 428 1,021 ........................ 2,625 17,234 1,139 2,691 2,910 ........................ ........................ 22,767 Total .......................................................................................................... 41,150 76,758 72,930 49,366 In its progress report, Washington concluded that the state is making adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of control measures in the regional haze implementation plan. The state also identified more recent federal and international control measures not included in 2018 emission projections. These measures include the International Maritime Organization NOX and fuel sulfur requirements, the more stringent Emission Control Area (ECA) requirements for the United States and Canadian west coasts, updated federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and more stringent federal mobile source standards promulgated since Washington’s submission of the original regional haze SIP. pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h)) In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the EPA a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress report, Washington provided a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis for the state’s negative declaration is the finding that visibility on the 20% most and least impaired days has improved, and Washington has attained the 2018 RPGs at all Washington IMPROVE monitors. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Washington adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing Washington regional haze implementation plan requires no substantive revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I areas. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 May 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i)) In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state provided the Federal Land Managers with an opportunity for consultation at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan revision). The state also included a description of how it addressed the comments provided by the Federal Land Managers, presented in Appendix E of the progress report. The EPA proposes to find that Washington has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i). IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action The EPA proposes to approve the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, submitted by Washington to the EPA on November 6, 2017, as meeting the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze implementation plan is adequate to meet the state’s visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that Washington fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with Federal Land Managers. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable federal regulations.13 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action: 13 42 PO 00000 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • 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); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • 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 rulemaking 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). In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1 24960 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nevertheless, the EPA offered consultation and coordination to Washington tribes in letters dated July, 6, 2017. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 17, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2018–11572 Filed 5–30–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0186; FRL–9978– 94—Region 4] Approval of TN Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on May 12, 2017, and supplemented on February 9, 2018, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units. Since all the CISWI units in the State are located at the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee, the State has issued the facility an operating permit the terms of which are the pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 May 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 relevant provisions of the EG and has submitted the permit as part of its state plan. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R04– OAR–2018–0186] at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be reached via telephone at 404–562–9013 and via email at bloeth.mark@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and other solid waste. On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 FR 75338. EPA revised the NSPS and PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 EG for CISWI units on March 21, 2011. See 76 FR 15704. Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, EPA received petitions for reconsideration requesting that EPA reconsider numerous provisions in the rule. EPA granted reconsideration on certain issues and promulgated a CISWI reconsideration rule on February 7, 2013. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, EPA received petitions to further reconsider certain provisions of the 2013 NSPS and EG for CISWI units. On January 21, 2015, EPA granted reconsideration on four specific issues and finalized reconsideration of the CISWI NSPS and EG on June 23, 2016. See 81 FR 40956. Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. II. Review of Tennessee’s CISWI State Plan Submittal Tennessee submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state 1 on May 12, 2017, and supplemented its submittal on February 9, 2018. EPA has reviewed the plan for existing CISWI units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. State plans must include the following nine essential elements: Identification of legal authority; identification of mechanism for implementation; inventory of affected facilities; emissions inventory; emissions limits; compliance schedules; testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; public hearing records; and annual state progress reports on facility compliance. Since all the CISWI units identified in the State are located at Eastman Chemical Company’s facility in Kingsport, Tennessee (‘‘Eastman’’), the State has issued the facility an operating permit (permit number 072397) the terms of which are the relevant provisions of the EG and has submitted the permit as the legal mechanism to implement its state plan. A. Identification of Legal Authority Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has 1 The submitted state plan does not apply in Indian country located in the state. E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM 31MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24954-24960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11572]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0001; FRL-9978-75--Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the regional haze State Implementation Plan 
(SIP), submitted by Washington on November 6, 2017. Washington 
submitted its Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (progress report or 
report) and a negative declaration stating that further revision of the 
existing regional haze implementation plan is not needed at this time. 
Washington submitted both the progress report and the negative 
declaration in the form of implementation plan revisions as required by 
federal regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional 
Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act to submit a report 
describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals established 
for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the existing 
plan addressing regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0001 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office 
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256, 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

    Washington submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on 
December 22, 2010, and supplemental

[[Page 24955]]

information on December 29, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the 
Washington regional haze SIP on December 6, 2012, and June 11, 2014.\1\ 
In the same June 11, 2014, action, the EPA disapproved certain elements 
related to best available retrofit technology (BART), discussed in more 
detail in section III.A. below, and promulgated a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) for the disapproved elements of the SIP. With 
the exception of the disapproved BART elements, the EPA approved all 
remaining portions of Washington's regional haze SIP, including: The 
identification of affected Class I Federal areas \2\ (Class I area or 
areas); the determination of baseline conditions, natural conditions, 
and uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I area; the emissions 
inventories; the sources of visibility impairment in Washington's Class 
I areas; the state's monitoring strategy; the state's consultation with 
other states and Federal Land Managers; the reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs); the long-term strategy; and the state's remaining BART 
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 77 FR 72742 and 79 FR 33438.
    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five years after submission of the initial regional haze plan, 
states are required to submit reports that evaluate progress towards 
the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each Class I 
area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within 
the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the 
same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of 
the state's existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On November 
6, 2017, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted 
as a SIP revision a report on the progress made in the first 
implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas.
    The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the progress 
report an assessment of whether the current ``implementation plan'' is 
sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40 
CFR 51.308(g). The term ``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes 
of the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal 
Implementation Plan. See 40 CFR 51.301. The EPA is, therefore, 
proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any 
issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan in 
assessing the adequacy of the ``existing implementation plan'' under 40 
R 51.308(g)(6) and (h). As discussed below, the EPA is proposing to 
approve Washington's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that 
Washington's long-term strategy and emission control measures in the 
existing regional haze implementation plan are sufficient to meet all 
established RPGs for 2018.

II. Context for Understanding Washington's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Washington's progress 
report as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides 
background on the regional haze program in Washington.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA established a metric for determining visibility conditions 
at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,'' measured in 
deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is 
calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors. 
Washington has eight Class I areas within its borders: Alpine Lakes 
Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness 
Area, Mount Adams Wilderness Area, Mount Rainier National Park, North 
Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Pasayten Wilderness 
Area. Monitoring data representing visibility conditions in 
Washington's eight Class I areas is based on the six IMPROVE monitors 
identified in Table 1. As shown in the table, the NOCA1 monitoring site 
represents two Class I areas, the WHPA1 site represents two other Class 
I areas, and the remaining four sites represent individual Class I 
areas.

  Table 1--Washington IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I
                                  Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site code                          Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1.............................  Olympic National Park.
NOCA1.............................  North Cascades National Park,
                                     Glacier Peak Wilderness.
PASA1.............................  Pasayten Wilderness.
SNPA1.............................  Alpine lakes Wilderness.
MORA1.............................  Mt. Rainier National Park.
WHPA1.............................  Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mt. Adams
                                     Wilderness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state's initial regional haze SIP 
must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 
percent least impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired 
days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 
percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on 
the 20 percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility 
conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a 
state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the 
baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions 
measures needed to achieve it. Washington set the RPGs for its eight 
Class I areas based on regional atmospheric air quality modeling 
conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) using 
projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state 
control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.
    As part of the WRAP coordination and joint modeling, Washington 
worked closely with other western states to ensure that control 
measures put in place to meet RPGs for Washington Class I areas were 
also sufficient to address Washington's impact on Class I areas in 
other states. The EPA, in our approval of Washington's 2010 regional 
haze SIP, stated that Washington's control measures coordinated through 
the WRAP would enable it to achieve the RPGs established for the 
mandatory Class I areas in Washington, as well as the RPGs established 
by other states for the Class I areas where Washington sources are 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment.\3\ The 
progress report provided an update using the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area 
in Oregon as an example. The coordinated WRAP projected emissions 
inventories and modeling, approved as part of the 2010 regional haze 
SIP, showed that in 2002 Washington contributed 33.5% of the nitrate 
and 21.6% of the sulfate on the worst days at Mount Hood Wilderness 
Area. However, by 2018, Washington's contribution on the worst days was 
projected to decrease to 25.9% and 17.5%, respectively. The EPA notes 
that the Mount Hood Wilderness Area is currently meeting the 2018 
reasonable progress goals for best and worst days based on 2012-2016 
data,\4\ further supporting Washington's view that coordination through 
the WRAP is an effective means of meeting reduction targets in 
neighboring western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 76174, 76205; 79 FR 33438.
    \4\ See the EPA's proposed approval of the Oregon regional haze 
progress report (83 FR 11927, March 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Data Sources for Washington's Progress Report

    Washington relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a 
report

[[Page 24956]]

titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable 
Progress Summary Report'' (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included 
as Appendix A of the progress report, in the docket for this action. 
The WRAP report was prepared for the 15 western state members to 
provide the technical basis for the first of their individual progress 
reports. Data is presented in this report on a regional, state, and 
Class I area-specific basis that characterize the difference between 
baseline conditions (2000-2004) and the first 5-year progress period 
(2005-2009). Washington also evaluated visibility conditions in its 
eight Class I areas based on the most recent 5-year data available at 
the time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Washington's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Washington's progress report 
and the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation 
of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the 
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 
51.308(i).

A. Status of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze Implementation 
Plan

    In its progress report, Washington provided a description of the 
control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional 
haze program and make projections of expected emissions reductions from 
the 2002 base year to 2018. Washington's regional haze SIP noted that 
many of the control measures were already-adopted federal and state 
provisions such as: The Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard, Tier 
2 Tailpipe Standards, Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle 
Rule, Non-road Diesel Rule, low sulfur fuel requirements for gasoline 
engines, on-road diesel engines, off-road diesel engines, and 
locomotives, as well as Washington's decision to adopt the California 
low emission vehicle requirements. Other control measures were 
originally adopted to reduce ozone or particulate matter (PM) with the 
co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment, such as the smoke 
management and agriculture burning programs. Because these other state 
and federal control measures with the expected co-benefit of reducing 
visibility impairment were generally already in place, the most 
significant focus of Washington's initial regional haze SIP was 
implementation of BART, as summarized below.
1. British Petroleum Cherry Point Refinery
    The British Petroleum (BP) Cherry Point Refinery is located near 
Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7836, with emissions 
limitations for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides 
(SOX) from process heaters, as well as limitations on total 
sulfur content of the refinery fuel gas used in all process heaters and 
boilers. In the progress report Washington noted that all emission 
reductions required by the BART order have been implemented. On 
February 16, 2016, the EPA approved the most recent modification to the 
BART order which coordinated emission limitations with more recent 
minor source new source review approvals, and to accommodate future 
equipment replacement projects (81 FR 7710).
2. Intalco Aluminum Corporation
    The Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) is a primary aluminum 
smelter also located at Cherry Point near Ferndale, Washington. 
Washington issued BART Order 7837, Revision 1, to Intalco on November 
15, 2010. The revised order imposed Washington's determined BART 
control technology, pollution prevention measures, emission limits, 
compliance dates, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. On June 
11, 2014, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of Washington's sulfur dioxide (SO2) BART determination for 
Intalco.\5\ Concurrent with the limited disapproval, the EPA 
promulgated a FIP imposing a SO2 ``Better than BART'' 
alternative on Intalco.\6\ This alternative, as requested by Intalco in 
a letter dated June 22, 2012, consisted of a 5,240 tons per year annual 
SO2 emission limit on the potlines. The progress report 
noted that Intalco has complied with the requirements of the BART 
order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the 
plant's air operating permit. The progress report also showed that 
while emissions have increased due to increased aluminum production, 
levels remain below the SO2 emission limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 79 FR 33438, 33452; See also proposed rulemaking, 77 FR 
76174, at pages 76188-76192.
    \6\ See 40 CFR 52.2500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company
    The Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro) operates a 
refinery near Anacortes, Washington, that processes crude oil into 
refined oil products, including ultra-low sulfur diesel oil, jet fuel, 
#6 fuel oil, and gasoline. The primary emission units of concern were 
the process heaters, boiler, and flares. On July 7, 2010, Ecology 
issued BART Order 7838 requiring specific fuel gas sulfur content 
limits, a wet scrubber system on the catalyst regeneration/carbon 
monoxide boiler exhaust, and NOX limits on two process 
heaters. The EPA approved portions of BART Order 7838 but disapproved 
the NOX BART determination for five BART emission units and 
promulgated a FIP imposing a ``Better than BART'' alternative. The 
federal ``Better than BART'' alternative was based on Tesoro's request 
to the EPA on November 5, 2012. In the request, Tesoro identified seven 
non-BART units at the facility that achieve substantially more 
SO2 emission reductions compared to the NOX 
emission reductions that would be achieved from BART on the five BART 
subject units. Tesoro requested SO2 emission limitations on 
those non-BART units as an alternative to emission limits for 
NOX on the BART subject units. The EPA determined that the 
visibility improvement would be greater under the alternative than 
under BART, and promulgated the federal ``Better than BART'' 
alternative under the FIP.\7\ The progress report noted that Tesoro 
continues to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the BART 
order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the 
plant's air operating permit. The progress report also showed that 
SO2 emissions have declined significantly over the past ten 
years, while NOX and PM emissions have remained stable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR 52.2501. See also proposed rulemaking 77 FR 
76174, at pages 76196-76198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Alcoa Wenatchee Works
    In our June 11, 2014, final action, the EPA disapproved 
Washington's BART exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in 
Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee Works), and promulgated a federal BART 
FIP for all emission units subject to BART at the facility.\8\ After 
evaluating various control technologies, we determined that the costs 
of compliance and the anticipated visibility benefits did not warrant 
new controls at the facility. We therefore determined that the existing 
controls at the facility were BART and adjusted some emission limits in 
the facility's air operating permit to reflect the level of emission 
reductions achievable by those existing controls.\9\ The progress 
report noted that Alcoa decided to curtail

[[Page 24957]]

operations at this plant at the end of 2015, until market prices of 
aluminum recover sufficiently to restart the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 40 CFR 52.2502.
    \9\ See 79 FR 33438, page 33440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Lafarge North America
    Lafarge North America (Lafarge) is located in Seattle, Washington 
and produces Portland cement by the wet kiln process. The largest BART 
sources of concern were the rotary kiln and the clinker cooler. The 
other BART units included raw material handling, finished product 
storage bins, finish mill conveying system, bagging system, and bulk 
loading/unloading system baghouses, with a total of just 480 tons per 
year of PM emissions. Washington issued, and the EPA approved, BART 
Order 7841 to implement emission controls for NOX and 
SOX. The progress report noted that prior to the compliance 
date in the BART order, the company ceased cement production at this 
facility. The plant must meet all requirements, including 
NOX and SOX emission controls identified in the 
BART order, prior to restarting the plant.
6. TransAlta Centralia Power Plant
    In a final action on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved 
Washington's BART determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation 
LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta).\10\ 
The BART determination and compliance order established a 
NOX emission limit of 0.21 pounds per million British 
Thermal Units, and among other things, required selective noncatalytic 
reduction (SNCR) to be installed by January 1, 2013. The BART order 
also required one coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no 
later than December 31, 2020, and the second coal fired unit to 
permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 2025, unless 
Washington determines that state or federal law requires that selective 
catalytic reduction must be installed on either unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 77 FR 72742, 72744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report noted that TransAlta installed SNCR, along with 
other associated controls, and demonstrated compliance with the initial 
emission limitation in the order. However, the progress report noted 
that the plant is also required to determine if it could reliably 
comply with a lower emission limitation. At the time of the progress 
report submission, Washington explained that this work had not been 
completed due to a number of factors, primarily inconsistent plant 
operation and difficulties with the in situ ammonia slip monitors. With 
respect to inconsistent plan operation, Washington noted that plant 
operation has reduced to 50%-60% of full annual capacity compared to 
greater than 80% when the BART order was issued, with NOX 
emissions in 2015 approximately half the amount emitted in 2010.
7. Weyerhaeuser Corporation, Longview
    Weyerhaeuser Corporation (Weyerhaeuser) operates a Kraft pulp and 
paper mill in Longview, Washington. The facility has three emission 
units subject to BART: No. 10 recovery furnace; No. 10 smelt dissolver 
tank; and No. 11 power boiler. On July 7, 2010, Washington issued BART 
Order 7840. As described in the EPA's proposed approval of BART for 
this facility, Washington determined that the existing controls, 
techniques, and emission limits, already in place to meet prior new 
source review and national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) requirements, constituted BART for NOX, 
SO2, and PM.\11\ Specifically, these controls were an 
electrostatic precipitator and a staged combustion system for the 
recovery furnace and a high efficiency wet scrubber for the smelt 
dissolver tank. The No. 11 power boiler controls were: (1) A multiclone 
to remove large particulate, (2) dry trona injection to remove 
SO2, (3) a dry electrostatic precipitator for additional 
particulate control, and (4) good combustion practices for 
NOX emission control. The progress report noted that 
Weyerhauser continues to comply with the BART order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 77 FR 76174, at page 76201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Port Townsend Paper Company
    Port Townsend Paper Company operates a kraft pulp and paper mill in 
Port Townsend, Washington that manufactures kraft pulp, kraft papers, 
and lightweight liner board. The four BART eligible emission units 
identified in the 2010 regional haze SIP were the recovery furnace, 
smelt dissolving tank, No. 10 power boiler, and lime kiln. On October 
20, 2010, Washington issued Order 7839, Revision 1, which established 
emission limits for the existing controls at the facility as BART. The 
controls under the BART order are an electrostatic precipitator to 
control PM from the recovery furnace, a wet scrubber to control PM and 
SO2 from the smelt dissolving tank, a multiclone and wet 
scrubber to control PM emissions from the No. 10 power boiler, and a 
Venturi wet scrubber to control PM and SO2 from the lime 
kiln. The progress report noted that the facility continues to comply 
with the BART order.

B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In the progress report, Washington documented the differences 
between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-
2004) and the most current five year averaging period available at the 
time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).\12\ 
Washington demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements 
in visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the 
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2010-2014) visibility periods, 
meeting all the 2018 reasonable progress goals established in the 
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Additional in-depth analysis for the 2005-2009 progress 
period conducted by the WRAP was also included as an appendix to the 
progress report.

                                         Table 2--Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Most impaired days                          20% Least impaired days
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Monitor                    Class I area                           2010-14                                         2010-14
                                                              2000-04     Current period  2018 RPGs (dv)      2000-04     Current period  2018 RPGs (dv)
                                                           Baseline (dv)       (dv)                        Baseline (dv)       (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1..........................  Olympic Nat'l Park.....            16.7            13.8            16.4             6.0             3.7             6.0
NOCA1..........................  North Cascades National            16.0            13.0            15.6             3.4             2.7             3.4
                                  Park, Glacier Peak
                                  Wilderness.
SNPA1..........................  Alpine Lakes Wilderness            17.8            15.6            16.3             5.5             3.4             5.5
MORA1..........................  Mount Rainier National             18.2            15.2            16.7             5.5             3.9             5.5
                                  Park.
WHPA1..........................  Goat Rocks Wilderness,             12.8            11.8            11.8             1.7             0.9             1.7
                                  and Mount Adams
                                  Wilderness.

[[Page 24958]]

 
PASA1..........................  Pasayten Wilderness....            15.2            13.1            15.1             2.7             1.8             2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington's progress report included an analysis of progress and 
impediments to progress. With respect to impediments to progress, 
Washington cited wildfire smoke originating in the state or transported 
from outside the state, offshore and ocean-going vessel emissions, 
mobile source emissions (on-road and non-road sources under federal 
emission control), and international emissions as factors largely 
beyond state control that can interfere with progress toward improved 
visibility in Class I areas. Further detail on many of these source 
categories is included in the emissions inventory discussion below.
    The progress report also contained a review of Washington's 
visibility monitoring strategy, concluding that the IMPROVE network 
continues to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional 
Haze Rule. Washington will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network to 
collect and analyze the visibility data and suggested additional sites 
for consideration should additional federal or state funding become 
available. These proposed sites include the southwest portion of 
Olympic National Park, and Stevens Pass or Stehekin to better reflect 
conditions at Glacier Peak Wilderness.

C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Washington progress report also included a summary of the 
emissions reductions achieved throughout the state from the control 
measures discussed above. The progress report included the 2002 WRAP 
inventory used for baseline condition modeling, Ecology's periodic 
comprehensive inventory submitted to the EPA for the national emission 
inventories for the years 2005 and 2011, and the WRAP's projected 
emissions inventory for 2018. The progress report highlighted 
significant differences between the inventories due to methodology 
changes over the years. First, mobile source emission estimates are not 
directly comparable because they are based on different emissions 
models. Starting in 2007, the EPA required the use of the MOVES model 
for mobile source emissions modeling. The progress report noted that 
the model transition resulted in significant changes, especially for 
NOX emissions when comparing prior year estimates and 
projections based on those estimates, including the WRAP's 2018 
projections calculated with Mobile 6.2. Second, the WRAP did not 
estimate direct PM2.5 from mobile sources, only dust from 
road surfaces, representing a large difference between the WRAP 
inventories and Ecology's 2005 and 2011 inventories. Third, the WRAP 
emission inventories did not separately report emissions from 
locomotives or marine vessels. These emissions are included in the 
mobile source segment. Lastly, the progress report noted that 
Washington recently updated its inventory to reflect revised emission 
factors for some area source categories and fires, compared to what was 
used by the WRAP. Factoring in these differences in the emissions 
inventory methodology, Washington concluded that emissions have 
declined for most source categories.

                                  Table 3--Sulfur Oxides Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         WRAP 2002         2005            2011          WRAP 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary sources..............................          52,885          23,367          13,832          37,444
Area sources....................................           7,311           1,562           1,472           8,667
Wildfires.......................................           1,641           1,563             348           1,641
Anthropogenic fires.............................           1,411  ..............  ..............           1,043
Mobile sources..................................          19,436           7,505           1,059             941
Locomotives.....................................  ..............           1,546              95  ..............
Marine vessels..................................  ..............          15,774          11,529  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          82,684          51,317          28,335          49,736
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 4--Nitrogen Oxides Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         WRAP 2002         2005            2011          WRAP 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary sources..............................          43,355          43,386          26,565          49,456
Area sources....................................          17,587           8,581           8,599          22,746
Wildfires.......................................           5,997           5,714             679           5,997
Anthropogenic fires.............................           6,821  ..............  ..............           4,971
Mobile sources..................................         286,701         198,168         202,436         102,440
Locomotives.....................................  ..............          18,973          15,026  ..............
Marine vessels..................................  ..............          29,142          20,486  ..............
Biogenic........................................          17,923  ..............  ..............          17,923
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         378,384         303,964         273,791         203,533
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24959]]


                                  Table 5--Fine Particle Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         WRAP 2002         2005            2011          WRAP 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary sources..............................           2,257           5,773           3,958           2,625
Area sources....................................          12,708          39,822          55,060          17,234
Wildfires.......................................           1,139          22,196           3,706           1,139
Anthropogenic fires.............................           3,869  ..............  ..............           2,691
Mobile sources..................................           2,819           6,944           8,757           2,910
Locomotives.....................................  ..............             583             428  ..............
Marine vessels..................................  ..............           1,440           1,021  ..............
Fugitive and windblown dust.....................          18,358  ..............  ..............          22,767
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          41,150          76,758          72,930          49,366
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report, Washington concluded that the state is 
making adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of control 
measures in the regional haze implementation plan. The state also 
identified more recent federal and international control measures not 
included in 2018 emission projections. These measures include the 
International Maritime Organization NOX and fuel sulfur 
requirements, the more stringent Emission Control Area (ECA) 
requirements for the United States and Canadian west coasts, updated 
federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and 
more stringent federal mobile source standards promulgated since 
Washington's submission of the original regional haze SIP.

D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines 
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive 
revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for 
visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide 
to the EPA a negative declaration that further revision of the existing 
implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress 
report, Washington provided a negative declaration stating that further 
revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis 
for the state's negative declaration is the finding that visibility on 
the 20% most and least impaired days has improved, and Washington has 
attained the 2018 RPGs at all Washington IMPROVE monitors. Accordingly, 
the EPA proposes to find that Washington adequately addressed the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing 
Washington regional haze implementation plan requires no substantive 
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I 
areas.

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state provided the Federal 
Land Managers with an opportunity for consultation at least 60 days 
prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan 
revision). The state also included a description of how it addressed 
the comments provided by the Federal Land Managers, presented in 
Appendix E of the progress report. The EPA proposes to find that 
Washington has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress 
Report, submitted by Washington to the EPA on November 6, 2017, as 
meeting the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional 
Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find 
that the existing regional haze implementation plan is adequate to meet 
the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at 
this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that 
Washington fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding 
state coordination with Federal Land Managers.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 
and applicable federal regulations.\13\ Thus, in reviewing SIP 
submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that 
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 
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 proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are 
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     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 rulemaking 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).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of

[[Page 24960]]

Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nevertheless, 
the EPA offered consultation and coordination to Washington tribes in 
letters dated July, 6, 2017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-11572 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P