Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report, 24954-24960 [2018-11572]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
https://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
