[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