89582 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1The term ‘‘SIP call’’ refers to the requirement for 

a revised SIP in response to a finding by the EPA 

that a SIP is ‘‘substantially inadequate’’ to meet 

CAA requirements pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(5), titled ‘‘Calls for plan revisions.’’ 

2See 104_state submittal_Withdrawal Letter 12– 

14–2023.pdf which is included in the docket for 

this action. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0647; FRL–10975– 

02–R10] 

Air Plan Approval; WA; Excess 

Emissions, Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Washington, 

through the Department of Ecology on 

November 12, 2019. The revisions were 

submitted by Washington in response to 

EPA’s June 12, 2015 ‘‘SIP call’’ in which 

EPA found a substantially inadequate 

Washington SIP provision providing 

affirmative defenses that operate to limit 

the jurisdiction of the Federal court in 

an enforcement action related to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA’s 

approval of the SIP revisions removes 

the substantially inadequate provision 

which corrects the deficiency identified 

in the 2015 SSM SIP call. Washington 

withdrew some portions of the revisions 

submitted that were not identified in the 

2015 SSM SIP call and therefore EPA is 

not taking final action on those 

withdrawn portions. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0647. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall Ruddick, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle WA, 

98101, (206) 553–1999, 

ruddick.randall@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it means the 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

A. Removal of WAC 173–400–107 

B. WAC 173–400–040, General Standards 

for Maximum Emissions 

C. WAC 173–400–081, Emission limits 

during startup and shutdown 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On June 15, 2023 (88 FR 39210), EPA 

proposed to approve several SIP 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Washington, through the Washington 

State Department of Ecology on 

November 12, 2019. In that proposal, we 

also proposed to determine that one of 

the SIP revisions, the removal of WAC 

173–400–107, corrects the deficiency 

with respect to Washington that we 

identified in our June 12, 2015 action 

entitled ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 

Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM 

Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction’’ (‘‘2015 

SSM SIP call’’) (80 FR 33839, June 12, 

2015).1 The remaining SIP revisions 

submitted with the request to remove 

WAC 173–400–107 on November 12, 

2019, were not subject to the 2015 SSM 

SIP call. The reasons for our proposed 

approval and determination can be 

found in the proposed action and will 

not be fully restated here (88 FR 39210, 

June 15, 2023). 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period which 

ended on July 17, 2023. We received 

one set of comments from the public 

signed by representatives of the Sierra 

Club and Environmental Integrity 

Project. The full text of the comments is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Issues raised in the 

comments, and our responses are 

summarized below. 

A. Removal of WAC 173–400–107 

WAC 173–400–107 was the only 

provision identified as deficient for 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology in the 2015 SSM SIP call. The 

commenters agreed that removal of 

WAC 173–400–107 from the SIP would 

satisfy the 2015 SSM SIP call. EPA 

acknowledges the commenter’s support 

and is finalizing the removal of WAC 

173–400–107 in this action. As stated in 

our proposed approval (88 FR 39210, 

June 15, 2023), EPA’s removal of the 

provision providing for an affirmative 

defense corrects the deficiency 

identified in our 2015 SSM SIP call 

regarding the Washington State 

Department of Ecology. The remaining 

SIP revisions submitted with the request 

to remove WAC 173–400–107 on 

November 12, 2019, were not subject to 

the 2015 SSM SIP call. 

B. WAC 173–400–040, General 

Standards for Maximum Emissions 

The commenters ‘‘generally agree that 

Washington’s proposal is generally an 

improvement over the current SSM 

exemptions’’ but also raised several 

concerns regarding the revisions to 

WAC 173–400–040 that we proposed to 

approve. On December 12, 2023, the 

State withdrew those revisions from its 

November 12, 2019, submittal via letter 

to EPA.2 Accordingly, EPA is not taking 

final action on those revisions and 

therefore is not responding to the 

portions of the comment regarding WAC 

173–400–040 in this action. 

Washington also withdrew three 

analogs to WAC 173–400–040, 

specifically: WAC 173–405–040(6)(b), 

WAC 173–410–040(3)(b), and WAC 

173–415–030(3)(b). Accordingly, EPA is 

not finalizing the proposed approval of 

these withdrawn provisions. Should 

these or other revisions be submitted to 

EPA for approval, EPA will publish an 

additional proposed rule and provide an 

opportunity for public comment prior to 

taking any final action on them. 

The 2015 SSM SIP call did not 

obligate Washington to make or submit 

any revisions other than removing WAC 

173–400–040. Accordingly, approval of 

the remaining revisions as well as the 

withdrawal of some of them do not 

affect the disposition of Washington’s 

obligation under the 2015 SSM SIP call. 

As stated above and in our proposed 

approval, the portion of the November 

12, 2019, removing WAC 173–400–107 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89583 

3 2015 SSM SIP call, 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015. 

4See 87 FR 78617, December 22, 2022. 5See 87 FR 78620, December 22, 2022. 

from the SIP and the State regulations 

is fully responsive to the 2015 SSM SIP 

call and no further action is required to 

satisfy the 2015 SSM SIP call. 

C. WAC 173–400–081, Emission Limits 

During Startup and Shutdown 

Comment. The commenters claim that 

this provision does not comport with 

‘‘[t]he first criterion of EPA’s seven for 

approving AELs [alternative emission 

limitations]’’ as it is not ‘‘limited to 

specific, narrowly defined source 

categories using specific control 

strategies.’’ 3 The commenters assert 

‘‘[s]ource-specific alternative emission 

limitations, generally, are not proper.’’ 

The commenters also assert ‘‘the sourceby-source approach that Washington is 

taking here ‘could lead to inconsistent 

alternative limits for sources that should 

probably have similar alternative limits 

for startup or shutdown,’’’ citing a 

Federal Register notice in which EPA 

proposed disapproval of AELs 

submitted for approval into the West 

Virginia SIP.4 The commenters also 

assert that ‘‘a source-by-source approach 

makes it difficult to consider the 

cumulative impact of all the sourcespecific emission limitations on air 

quality.’’ 

Response. As stated in the 2015 SSM 

SIP call, EPA believes there will be 

limited cases where it may be necessary 

to develop source-specific emission 

requirements for startup and or 

shutdown. WAC 173–400–081 merely 

establishes a pathway for such limited 

cases as may be necessary. Any sourcespecific emission limits developed 

pursuant to this provision must go 

through the SIP approval process and 

any comments on actual emissions 

limits could be raised during those 

individual rulemaking actions. 

Therefore, EPA believes the 

commenters’ concerns are premature 

regarding whether any future AELs 

submitted through this process would 

meet the recommended criteria in the 

2015 SSM SIP call. Moreover, EPA has 

acknowledged that source-specific AELs 

could be appropriate in some limited 

circumstances, so we disagree that 

merely establishing a pathway for 

developing such AELs and revising the 

SIP accordingly is inconsistent with the 

2015 SSM SIP Call. 

We also disagree that EPA’s prior 

disapproval of West Virginia’s AELs, as 

referenced by the commenters, supports 

disapproval here. EPA disapproved 

West Virginia’s submittal primarily 

because the provisions at issue would 

have provided the State with discretion 

to create source-specific AELs without 

submitting those AELs to EPA for 

approval into the SIP. EPA further 

identified the concern that West 

Virginia’s AEL process ‘‘could lead to 

inconsistent alternative limits for 

sources that should probably have 

similar alternative limits for startup and 

shutdown.’’ 5 However, in light of the 

fact that the SIP revision process for the 

AELs created pursuant to WAC 173– 

400–081 allows both EPA and any 

concerned members of the public an 

opportunity to identify any alleged 

inconsistencies, those concerns are not 

applicable here. For the aforementioned 

reasons and those stated in our 

proposed approval, EPA is finalizing 

approval of this provision. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving and incorporating 

by reference in the Washington SIP at 40 

CFR 52.2470(c) revisions to WAC 173– 

400–030, 173–400–070, 173–400–081, 

and 173–400–171 (State effective 9/16/ 

2018); revisions to 173–405–040, 173– 

410–040, and 173–415–030 (State 

effective 5/24/2018); the addition of 

WAC 173–400–082 (State effective 9/16/ 

2018); and the removal of 173–405–077, 

173–410–067, and 173–415–070. This 

approval is consistent with the 

exceptions requested by the State in the 

November 5, 2019, submittal as 

described in the proposal for this action 

and set forth in the amendments to 40 

CFR part 52 below. This approval is also 

consistent with the State’s withdrawal 

of certain revisions as described in the 

State’s December 14, 2023, letter. In 

addition, this action removes provision 

WAC 173–400–107—identified as 

inconsistent with CAA requirements— 

from the Washington SIP thereby 

correcting the deficiency identified in 

our 2015 SSM SIP call with respect to 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology. 

Once this approval becomes effective, 

changes to WAC 173–400 will apply 

specifically to the jurisdictions of 

Washington Department of Ecology and 

Benton Clean Air Agency. Under the 

applicability provisions of WAC 173– 

405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 

173–415–012, BCAA does not have 

jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite 

pulping mills, and primary aluminum 

plants. For these sources, Washington 

Department of Ecology retains 

statewide, direct jurisdiction over these 

sources. 

Once this approval becomes effective, 

the Washington SIP will include the 

following regulations: 

• WAC 173–400–030, Definitions 

(State effective 9/16/2018)—Establishes 

definitions used throughout Chapter 

173–400 WAC; 

• WAC 173–400–070, Emission 

Standards for Certain Source Categories 

(State effective 9/16/2018)—sets forth 

maximum allowable standards for 

emissions units within the categories 

listed; 

• WAC 173–400–081, Emission 

Limits during Startup and Shutdown 

(State effective 9/16/2018)—establishes 

pathway for developing emissions limits 

that apply during startup and shutdown; 

• WAC 173–400–082, Alternative 

Emission Limit That Exceeds an 

Emission Standard in the SIP (State 

effective 9/16/2018)—establishes 

pathway for an owner or operator to 

request an alternative emissions limit; 

• WAC 173–400–171 Public 

Involvement (State effective 9/16/ 

2018)—sets forth certain requirements 

for public involvement; 

• WAC 173–405–040, Emission 

Standards (State effective 5/24/2018)— 

sets forth certain emission standards for 

kraft pulping mills; 

• WAC 173–410–040, Emission 

Standards (State effective 5/24/2018)— 

sets forth certain emission standards for 

sulfite pulping mills; 

• WAC 173–415–030, Emission 

Standards (State effective 5/24/2018)— 

sets forth certain emission standards for 

primary aluminum plants. 

Once this approval becomes effective, 

the Washington SIP will no longer 

include the following regulations: 

• WAC 173–400–107, Excess 

Emissions—established a pathway to 

determine excess emissions 

unavoidable, excuse them from penalty, 

and certain instances preclude them 

from being considered violations; 

• WAC 173–405–077, Report of 

Startup, Shutdown, Breakdown or Upset 

Conditions—established applicability of 

WAC 173–400–107 for kraft pulping 

mills; 

• WAC 173–410–067, Report of 

Startup, Shutdown, Breakdown or Upset 

Conditions—established applicability of 

WAC 173–400–107 for sulfite pulping 

mills; 

• WAC 173–415–070, Report of 

Startup, Shutdown, Breakdown or Upset 

Conditions—established applicability of 

WAC 173–400–107 for primary 

aluminum plants. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of regulatory provisions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
89584 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

6 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

described in section II of this preamble 

and set forth in the amendments to 40 

CFR part 52 in this document. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these materials generally available 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by the EPA for inclusion in 

the SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by the EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air 

Act as of the effective date of the final 

rule of the EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.6

VII. 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. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The air agency did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the Clean Air 

Act and applicable implementing 

regulations neither prohibit nor require 

such an evaluation. The EPA did not 

perform an EJ analysis and did not 

consider EJ in this action. Due to the 

nature of this action, it is expected to 

have a neutral to positive impact on the 

air quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of Executive Order 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

in Washington except as specifically 

noted below and is also not approved to 

apply in any other area where the EPA 

or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 

a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Washington’s SIP is approved to apply 

on non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided State and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the 

EPA provided a consultation 

opportunity to potentially affected tribes 

in a letter dated May 24, 2022. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 26, 

2024. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: December 18, 2023. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart WW—Washington 

■ 2. In § 52.2470: 

■ a. Amend paragraph (c), table 1 by: 

■ i. Revising entries ‘‘173–405–040’’ and 

‘‘173–410–040’’; 

■ ii. Removing entries ‘‘173–405–077’’ 

and ‘‘173–410–067’’; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89585 

■ iii. Revising entry ‘‘173–415–030’’; 

and 

■ iv. Removing entry ‘‘173–415–070’’. 

■ b. Amend paragraph (c), table 2 by: 

■ i. Revising entry ‘‘173–400–030’’; 

■ ii. Removing entry ‘‘173–400–030 (30) 

and (36)’’; 

■ iii. Revising entries ‘‘173–400–070’’ 

and ‘‘173–400–081’’; 

■ iv. Adding entry ‘‘173–400–082’’ in 

numerical order; 

■ v. Removing entry ‘‘173–400–107’’; 

and 

■ vi. Revising entry ‘‘173–400–171’’; 

and 

■ c. Amend paragraph (c), table 4 by: 

■ i. Revising entry ‘‘173–400–030’’; 

■ ii. Removing entry ‘‘173–400–030 (30) 

and (36)’’; 

■ iii. Revising entries ‘‘173–400–070’’ 

and ‘‘173–400–081’’; 

■ iv. Adding entry ‘‘173–400–082’’ in 

numerical order; 

■ v. Removing entry ‘‘173–400–107’’; 

and 

■ vi. Revising entry ‘‘173–400–171’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—REGULATIONS APPROVED STATEWIDE

[Not applicable in Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation) and any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.] 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–405—Kraft Pulping Mills 

*******

173–405–040 ..... Emissions Standards ............ 5/24/19 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–405–040(1)(b); 173–405– 

040(1)(c); 173–405–040(3)(b); 173–405– 

040(3)(c); 173–405–040(4); 173–405– 

040(6)(b). 

* * * * * * * 

Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–410—Sulfite Pulping Mills 

173–410–040 ..... Emissions Standards ............ 5/24/19 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–410–040(3)(b); 173–410– 

040(5). 

*******

Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–415—Primary Aluminum Plants 

173–415–030 ..... Emissions Standards ............ 5/24/19 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–410–030(1); 173–410– 

030(3)(b). 

*******

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) DIRECT

JURISDICTION

[Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, 

San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities 

subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–400–700, 173–405–012, 173–410–012, and 173–415–012.] 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources 

*******

173–400–030 ..... Definitions ............................. 9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–400–030(96). 

* * * * * * * 

173–400–070 ..... Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories.9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–400–070(5); 173–400–070(6). 

* * * * * * * 

173–400–081 ..... Emissions Limits During 

Startup and Shutdown.

9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
89586 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) DIRECT

JURISDICTION—Continued 

[Applicable in Adams, Asotin, Chelan, Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, 

San Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations (excluding non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation), and any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. These regulations also apply statewide for facilities 

subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–400–700, 173–405–012, 173–410–012, and 173–415–012.] 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

173–400–082 ..... Alternative Emissions Limit 

That Exceeds an Emission 

Standard in the SIP.

9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

173–400–171 ..... Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: The part of 173–400–171(3)(b) that 

says, 

• ‘‘or any increase in emissions of a 

toxic air pollutant above the acceptable source impact level for that toxic 

air pollutant as regulated under chapter 173–460 WAC’’; 173–400– 

171(12). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

TABLE 4—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR THE BENTON CLEAN AIR AGENCY (BCAA) JURISDICTION

[Applicable in Benton County, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations 

and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and facilities subject to the applicability 

sections of WAC 173–400–700, 173–405–012, 173–410–012, and 173–415–012.] 

State/local 

citation Title/subject State/local effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Washington Department of Ecology Regulations 

Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources 

*******

173–400–030 .......................... Definitions .............................. 9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–400–030(40); 

173–400–030(41); 173– 

400–030(96). 

* * * * * * * 

173–400–070 .......................... Emission Standards for General Process Units.9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: 173–400–070(5); 

173–400–070(6). 

* * * * * * * 

173–400–081 .......................... Emissions Limits During 

Startup and Shutdown.

9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

173–400–082 .......................... Alternative Emissions Limit 

That Exceeds an Emission 

Standard in the SIP.

9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

173–400–171 .......................... Public Notice and Opportunity 

for Public Comment.

9/16/18 12/28/2023, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except: The part of 173–400– 

171(3)(b) that says, 

• ‘‘or any increase in 

emissions of a toxic air 

pollutant above the acceptable source impact 

level for that toxic air 

pollutant as regulated 

under chapter 173–460 

WAC’’; 173–400– 

171(12). 

* * * * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89587 

1 88 FR 48406 (July 27, 2023). 

2 In addition to other supporting documents, the 

submittal package included the following 

documents: ‘‘San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol,’’ 

Revised: February 26, 2020; ‘‘Amended and 

Restated Memorandum of Understanding Between 

the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and 

the Sacramento Area Council of Governments,’’ 

(September 11, 2018); and a letter dated May 6, 

2021, (submitted electronically May 17, 2021), from 

Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX, Subject: San Francisco Bay Area 

State Implementation Plan Amended 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol. 

These documents are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

3 72 FR 58013 (October 12, 2007). 

4See ‘‘Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

Resolution No. 2611. Revised, MTC/Sacramento 

Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Air 

Quality Planning in Eastern Solano County’’ and 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

Resolution No. 3757, ‘‘Re: Approval of San 

Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality 

Conformity Protocol,’’ which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28294 Filed 12–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0203; FRL–10757– 

02–R9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan; 

San Francisco Bay Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

to approve a revision to the San 

Francisco Bay Area portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision consists of updated 

transportation conformity procedures 

related to the interagency coordination 

on project-level conformity and 

exchange of travel data for emissions 

inventories developed for air quality 

plans and regional transportation 

conformity analyses. This action 

updates the transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures in the California 

SIP. 

DATES: This action is effective January 

29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0203. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

a disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Dorantes, Geographic Strategies 

and Modeling Section (AIR–2–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3934, 

dorantes.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On July 27, 2023, the EPA proposed 

to approve a revision to the California 

SIP concerning transportation 

conformity procedures for the San 

Francisco Bay Area.1 The California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

‘‘The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures’’ and 

‘‘The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Interagency Consultation 

Procedures,’’ on May 17, 2021. We refer 

to these documents together as the ‘‘San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP 

submittal.’’ 2 CARB submitted a prior 

version of the San Francisco Bay Area 

conformity SIP to the EPA for approval 

on December 20, 2006. The EPA 

approved this SIP revision on October 

12, 2007.3 The agencies responsible for 

developing and updating the San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP—the 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC), the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), and the Association of Bay 

Area Governments (ABAG), in 

consultation with the Sacramento Area 

Council of Governments (SACOG)— 

have since further amended the roles 

and responsibilities for implementing 

the transportation conformity 

interagency consultation process and for 

coordinating travel activity data sharing. 

The San Francisco Bay Area conformity 

SIP submittal also reflects an update to 

a memorandum of understanding that 

exists between MTC and SACOG as an 

agreement regarding federal conformity 

procedures and programming of federal 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

funds in Solano County.4

In our proposal, we evaluated the San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP 

submittal against the statutory and 

regulatory requirements of the CAA, 40 

CFR part 93, and 40 CFR 51.390, which 

govern state procedures for 

transportation conformity and 

interagency consultation and concluded 

that the submittal meets these 

requirements. Furthermore, the 

comment period and public hearing 

held by MTC for this SIP revision satisfy 

the requirements of CAA section 110(l) 

and 40 CFR 51.102. A technical support 

document (TSD) is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. Specifically, 

in our TSD, we identify how the 

submitted procedures satisfy 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for 

interagency consultation with respect to 

the development of transportation plans 

and programs, SIPs, conformity 

determinations, the resolution of 

conflicts, the provision of adequate 

public consultation, and our 

requirements under 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for 

enforceability of control measures and 

mitigation measures. Please refer to our 

TSD and notice of proposed rulemaking 

for additional information regarding the 

content of the revised San Francisco Bay 

conformity SIP submittal and our 

review. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The 30-day public comment period 

for the notice of proposed rulemaking 

closed on August 28, 2023. During this 

period, a member of the public 

submitted two identical comments to 

the EPA in support of the proposed 

approval. The full text of these 

comments is available for viewing in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

III. EPA Action 

In accordance with section 110(k)(3) 

of the Act, and for the reasons discussed 

in our proposed rulemaking and 

summarized in this document, we are 

finalizing our approval of the San 

Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP 

submittal as a revision to the California 

SIP. The revision will be incorporated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES