84322 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—Continued 

Name Facility type Latitude Longitude 

F11 .................................................................................................................. WTG 40°17′49.988′′ N 73°25′10.306′′ W 

B12 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°20′35.896′′ N 73°24′14.694′′ W 

C12 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′55.236′′ N 73°24′15.652′′ W 

B13 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°20′25.860′′ N 73°23′23.192′′ W 

C13 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′45.200′′ N 73°23′24.159′′ W 

B14 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°20′15.817′′ N 73°22′31.694′′ W 

D14 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′54.499′′ N 73°22′33.644′′ W 

C15 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′25.110′′ N 73°21′41.185′′ W 

H15 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°16′19.659′′ N 73°21′45.664′′ W 

B16 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′55.714′′ N 73°20′48.712′′ W 

G16 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°16′32.420′′ N 73°20′53.667′′ W 

H16 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°15′57.881′′ N 73°20′54.528′′ W 

B17 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′45.652′′ N 73°19′57.228′′ W 

D17 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′24.335′′ N 73°19′59.229′′ W 

F17 .................................................................................................................. WTG 40°17′03.018′′ N 73°20′01.227′′ W 

C18 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′54.926′′ N 73°19′06.757′′ W 

D18 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′14.268′′ N 73°19′07.766′′ W 

E18 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°17′33.610′′ N 73°19′08.774′′ W 

F18 .................................................................................................................. WTG 40°16′52.952′′ N 73°19′09.781′′ W 

B19 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′25.511′′ N 73°18′14.273′′ W 

C19 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′44.853′′ N 73°18′15.290′′ W 

D19 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′04.195′′ N 73°18′16.307′′ W 

E19 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°17′23.537′′ N 73°18′17.324′′ W 

B20 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′15.431′′ N 73°17′22.802′′ W 

C20 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′34.773′′ N 73°17′23.828′′ W 

D20 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°17′54.115′′ N 73°17′24.853′′ W 

B21 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°19′05.344′′ N 73°16′31.335′′ W 

C21 ................................................................................................................. WTG 40°18′24.687′′ N 73°16′32.370′′ W 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the First Coast 

Guard District Commander in the 

enforcement of the safety zones. Local 

officer means any officer, agent, or 

employee of a unit of local government 

authorized by law or by a local 

government agency to engage in or 

supervise the prevention, detection, 

investigation, or prosecution of any 

violation of criminal law. 

(c) Regulations. No vessel may enter 

or remain in this safety zone except for 

the following: 

(1) An attending vessel as defined in 

33 CFR 147.20; 

(2) A vessel authorized by the First 

Coast Guard District Commander or a 

designated representative. 

(d) Request for Permission. Persons or 

vessels seeking to enter the safety zone 

must request authorization from the 

First Coast Guard District Commander 

or a designated representative. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with lawful 

instructions of the First Coast Guard 

District Commander or designated 

representative via VHF–FM channel 16 

or by phone at 866–842–1560 (First 

Coast Guard District Command Center). 

(e) Effective and enforcement periods. 

This section will be effective from 

March 1, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on 

February 29, 2028. But it will only be 

enforced during active construction or 

other instances which may cause a 

hazard to navigation deemed necessary 

by the First Coast Guard District 

Commander. The First Coast Guard 

District Commander will make 

notification of the exact dates and times 

in advance of each enforcement period 

for the safety zones in paragraph (a) of 

this section to the local maritime 

community through the Local Notice to 

Mariners and will issue a Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners via marine channel 

16 (VHF–FM) as soon as practicable in 

response to an emergency. If the project 

is completed before February 29, 2028, 

enforcement of the safety zones will be 

suspended, and notice given via Local 

Notice to Mariners. The First Coast 

Guard District Local Notice to Mariners 

can be found at: http://

www.navcen.uscg.gov. 

(f) Processing of violations. Violations 

of this section may be processed in 

accordance with 33 CFR 140.40 on civil 

and criminal penalty proceedings. 

M.E. Platt, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24393 Filed 10–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0372; FRL–12293– 

01–R10] 

Air Plan Approval; WA; Excess 

Emissions, Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Revisions, Energy Facility 

Site Evaluation Council 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

Washington State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions to the Energy Facility 

Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) air 

quality regulations submitted by the 

State of Washington, through the 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) on 

June 15, 2023. The revisions were 

submitted in response to EPA’s June 12, 

2015 ‘‘SIP call’’ in which the 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. The EPA 

is proposing approval of the SIP 

revisions and proposing to determine 

that removal of the substantially 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84323 

1See State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 

(February 22, 2013). 

2See SNPR (‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 

Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 

Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction; 

Supplemental Proposal To Address Affirmative 

Defense Provisions in States Included in the 

Petition for Rulemaking and in Additional States; 

Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking,’’ 79 

FR 55919, September 17, 2014). 

3Findings of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan Revisions in Response to the 

2015 Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP 

Calls To Amend Provisions Applying To Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, 

and Malfunction, 87 FR 1680 (January 12, 2022), 

available at Regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2021–0863. 

4See Environ. Comm. Fl. Elec. Power v. EPA, 94 

F.4th 77, 115 (D.C. Cir. 2024). 

5 Id. at 114–15. 

6As stated in our supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking 79 FR 55920 at 55929. See 

also 80 FR 33840 at 33853, 33870. 

7See 79 FR 55920 at 55952. See also 80 FR 33974. 

8See 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015. 

inadequate provision corrects the 

EFSEC deficiency identified in the 2015 

SSM SIP call and the EPA’s January 

2022 finding of failure to submit. 

Washington withdrew some portions of 

the revisions submitted that were not 

identified in the 2015 SSM SIP call and 

therefore the EPA is not proposing 

action on those withdrawn portions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 21, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2024–0372, 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 

electronically submit any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which 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://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall Ruddick, EPA Region 10 1200 

Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle, WA 

98101, (206) 553–1999; or email 

ruddick.randall@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ is used, it refers to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Analysis of SIP Submission 

A. The Provision Subject to the 2015 SSM 

SIP Call 

B. Additional SIP Revisions Submitted But 

Not Specified in the 2015 SSM SIP Call 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background 

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5), the EPA finalized 

‘‘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,’’ (80 FR 

33840, June 12, 2015), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP 

Action.’’ The 2015 SSM SIP Action 

clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s 

interpretation that SSM exemption and 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that 

certain SIP provisions in 36 states 

(including Washington State) were 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements and issued a SIP call to 

those states to submit SIP revisions to 

address the inadequacies. EPA 

established an 18-month deadline by 

which the affected states had to submit 

such SIP revisions. States were required 

to submit corrective revisions to their 

SIPs in response to the SIP calls by 

November 22, 2016. 

With regard to the Washington SIP, 

EPA determined that, to the extent that 

Wash. Admin. Code (WAC) 173–400– 

107 was intended to be an affirmative 

defense, it was not consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. Therefore, 

EPA issued a SIP call with respect to 

this provision. The detailed rationale for 

issuing the SIP call to Washington can 

be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action 

and preceding proposed actions.1 2

On January 12, 2022, the EPA issued 

Findings of Failure to Submit (FFS) to 

12 air agencies, including EFSEC, that 

had not submitted SIPs responding to 

the 2015 SSM SIP call by the November 

22, 2016, deadline per the requirements 

of section 110(k)(5) of the Act.3

On March 1, 2024, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a 

decision in Environ. Comm. Fl. Elec. 

Power v. EPA, No. 15–1239 (‘‘D.C. 

Circuit decision’’).4 The case was a 

consolidated set of petitions for review 

of the 2015 SSM SIP Action. The Court 

granted the petitions in part, vacating 

the SIP call with respect to SIP 

provisions that EPA identified as 

automatic exemptions, director’s 

discretion provisions, and affirmative 

defenses that are functionally 

exemptions; and denied the petitions as 

to other provisions that EPA identified 

as overbroad enforcement discretion 

provisions, or affirmative defense 

provisions that would preclude or limit 

a court from imposing relief in the case 

of violations, which the Court also refers 

to as ‘‘specific relief.’’ 

With respect to affirmative defense 

provisions against specific relief, the 

Court reaffirmed that states cannot limit 

courts’ discretion to determine and 

apply appropriate civil penalties for 

violations of SIPs and denied the 

petitions for review as to affirmative 

defenses against monetary damages.5

This is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA in our 2015 

SSM SIP Action that states do not have 

authority to create, and thus the EPA 

does not have authority to approve, SIP 

provisions that include an affirmative 

defense that would operate to alter the 

jurisdiction of Federal courts to assess 

penalties or other forms of relief 

authorized in sections 113 and 304.6 As 

explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, 

WAC 173–400–107 provides affirmative 

defenses that operate to limit the 

jurisdiction of the Federal court in an 

enforcement action to assess monetary 

penalties or impose injunctive relief 

under certain circumstances as 

contemplated in CAA sections 113 and 

304.7

By statute, EFSEC has jurisdiction for 

managing the air program with respect 

to major energy facilities in the State of 

Washington. See Chapter 80.50 of the 

Revised Code of Washington (RCW). 

EFSEC air quality regulations primarily 

adopt by reference Ecology’s general air 

quality regulations, including WAC 

173–400–107. Thus, in our 2015 SSM 

SIP Action, the EPA also issued a SIP 

call with respect to EFSEC’s adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–107 in WAC 

463–39–005.8

In response to the EPA’s 2015 SSM 

SIP call, Ecology removed WAC 173– 

400–107 from the SIP. The EPA 

approved this SIP revision, along with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84324 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9See 301_EFSEC SSM SIP Call FFS Completeness 

Letter.pdf, included in the docket for this action. 

10See 94 F.4th at 114–15. 

11See 201_state submittal supplement_EFSEC 

Partial Withdrawal Request Letter - Ecology.pdf and 

202_state submittal supplement_EFSEC Partial 

Withdrawal Request Letter - EFSEC.pdf included in 

the docket for this action. 

12For more details, see Chapter 2 of Washington’s 

November 12, 2019, submission, included in the 

docket for this action as 102_state submittal_SIP_

SSM_400_405_410_415.pdf. 

13EPA reviewed those definitions and approved 

them in a previous action (85 FR 4233, January 20, 

2020). 

14 Definition (96) was excluded for the same 

reasons in our January 20, 2020 approval (88 FR 

4233). 

15See Appendix C in 104_state submittal_

Publication 19-02-030.pdf, included in the docket 

for this action. 

others, on December 28, 2023 (88 FR 

89582). In its June 15, 2023 SIP 

submittal, Washington is, among other 

revisions, removing adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–107 in 

EFSEC’s regulations. 

II. Analysis of SIP Submission 

A. The Provision Subject to the 2015 

SSM SIP Call 

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA 

identified WAC 463–39–005 as 

inconsistent with CAA requirements 

because it contained adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–107. The 

EPA last approved EFSEC’s adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–107 on May 

23, 1996 (61 FR 25791). In 2015, EFSEC 

recodified 463–39 as 463–78 but 

otherwise retained the adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–107. The 

EPA approved this ministerial change, 

among other revisions, on May 30, 2017, 

(82 FR 24531) and January 24, 2020, (85 

FR 4233). Accordingly, the June 15, 

2023, SIP submittal references EFSEC’s 

adoptions by reference in WAC 463–78 

rather than the WAC 463–39 referenced 

in the 2015 SSM SIP call. 

Subsequent to the EPA’s January 2022 

FFS, Washington submitted a SIP 

revision on June 15, 2023, that removed 

the EFSEC’s adoption by reference of 

WAC 173–400–107 in its entirety and 

included additional revisions to the SIP 

for EFSEC’s jurisdiction. 

We reviewed Washington’s June 15, 

2023 SIP submittal and found the 

submission technically and 

administratively complete. We 

subsequently issued a completeness 

determination letter to Washington on 

August 8, 2023.9 This completeness 

determination stopped the 18-month 

sanctions clock for EFSEC’s jurisdiction 

that was started by the 2022 FFS. This 

completeness determination did not 

address the other SIP revisions included 

in the June 15, 2023 SIP submittal. 

The EPA has assessed the impact of 

the D.C. Circuit decision with respect to 

the removal of the specific affirmative 

defense provision at issue in WAC 173– 

400–107. We have concluded that the 

previously stated reasons for the 

proposed removal of these provisions, 

as articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action, are consistent with the recent 

D.C. Circuit decision. The Court upheld 

the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action with 

regard to affirmative defenses against 

specific relief, finding that because CAA 

304(a) and 113(b) authorize citizens and 

the EPA to seek injunctive relief and 

monetary penalties against sources that 

violate a SIP’s emission rules, such an 

affirmative defense would ‘‘block that 

aspect of the Act’s enforcement 

regime.’’ 10

We are proposing to find that the 

removal of EFSEC’s adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–107 in WAC 

463–78–005 from the Washington SIP 

will satisfy the 2015 SSM SIP call as it 

will no longer provide an affirmative 

defense that may operate to limit the 

jurisdiction of the Federal court in an 

enforcement action. 

B. Additional SIP Revisions Submitted 

But Not Specified in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Call 

Washington also included SIP 

revisions in the June 15, 2023 SIP 

submittal that are not subject to the 

2015 SSM SIP call. On July 26, 2024, 

Washington submitted a letter dated 

July 24, 2024, to the EPA withdrawing 

certain other SIP revisions not subject to 

the 2015 SSM SIP call.11 Therefore, the 

EPA is not proposing action on the 

withdrawn provisions and will not 

cover them in this analysis. The 

remaining SIP revisions for which we 

are proposing action: correct a 

typographical error; establish the 

process for defining facility-specific 

alternate emission standards; remove 

excess emission provisions not 

consistent with the EPA’s 2015 SSM 

policy; revise cross-references as 

necessary to align with updates to the 

analogous Federal laws or the EPA’s 

2015 SSM policy; and remove some 

provisions in deference to equally or 

more stringent relevant Federal laws. 

Many of the revisions are conditioned to 

only take effect upon the effective date 

of the EPA’s removal of WAC 173–400– 

107 from the Washington SIP. The EPA 

approved identical revisions to WAC 

173–400 applicable to Ecology’s 

jurisdiction on December 28, 2023 (88 

FR 89582). See the preamble to the 

EPA’s June 15, 2023, proposed rule for 

a full explanation of these rule 

revisions. Washington also requested 

the EPA correct a typographical error in 

the SIP regarding a state effective date. 

The additional revisions included in 

the June 15, 2023 SIP submittal that 

were not specified in the 2015 SSM SIP 

call or 2022 FFS were adopted in two 

different state rulemaking actions in 

2018 for provisions in WAC 173–400, 

General Air Regulations for Air 

Pollution Sources. 

WAC 173–400, General Air 

Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. In 

its June 15, 2023, SIP submittal, 

Washington requested approval of 

revisions to WAC 173–030, Definitions; 

WAC 173–400–070, Emission standards 

for certain source categories; WAC 173– 

400–081, Startup and Shutdown; WAC 

173–400–082, Alternative emission 

limit that exceeds an emission standard 

in the SIP; WAC 173–400–107, Excess 

emissions; WAC 173–400–136, Use of 

Emission Reduction Credits (ERC); and 

WAC 173–400–171, Public involvement. 

Many of the revisions are nonsubstantive changes. 

WAC 173–400–030, Definitions. As 

described in our most recent approval of 

WAC 173–400–030 (88 FR 89582, 

December 28, 2023) which EFSEC 

adopts by reference: Washington revised 

this section to aid in implementation of 

provisions such as those addressing 

transient (short-term) modes of 

operation, including startup and 

shutdown, and to clarify commonly 

used ‘terms of art’ (such as ‘‘hog 

fuel’’).12 Most definitions in WAC 173– 

400–030 remain unchanged since our 

last approval; 13 however, the addition 

of new definitions resulted in changes 

to the numbering sequence. Even 

though the text of those definitions 

remains as approved, the state effective 

date changed to reflect the numbering 

sequence changes. Therefore, 

Washington requested the EPA approve 

all of WAC 173–400–030 as submitted 

on June 15, 2023, except definition (96) 

related to toxic air pollutants or odors, 

because it is outside the scope of CAA 

section 110 requirements for SIPs.14 A 

complete redline/strikeout analysis of 

the updated definitions in WAC 173– 

400–030 is included in the docket for 

this action.15 Updating the state 

effective date for those definitions in 

WAC 173–400–030 previously approved 

into Washington’s SIP that remain 

unchanged will have no effect on 

emissions. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84325 

16 ‘‘Excess Emissions’’ was previously codified as 

WAC 173–400–030(30), state effective December 29, 

2012. EPA approved the December 29, 2012 

versions of Washington’s definitions of ‘‘excess 

emissions’’ and ‘‘federally enforceable’’ in a May 

30, 2017 action (82 FR 24533). Since that action, 

EPA has approved more recent versions of 

Washington’s definitions rule, but explicitly 

excluded the definitions for ‘‘excess emissions’’ and 

federally enforceable’’ from those actions. This 

means the 2012 versions of these definitions are 

currently effective for purposes of EFSEC’s 

jurisdiction in the Washington SIP, and it is those 

versions that EPA is proposing to revise in this 

action—the same as we did for Ecology’s and 

Benton Clean Air Agency’s jurisdiction in our 

December 28, 2023 approval (88 FR 89582). 

17See 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015, specifically 

page 33842. 

18 ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ was previously 

codified as WAC 173–400–030(36), state effective 

December 29, 2012. 

19See 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015, especially page 

33912. 

20See specifically 40 CFR 63.7575. 

21 40 CFR 63.7575. 

22See specifically 40 CFR 63.7575 and 63.11237. 

23Adding these definitions to WAC 173–400–030 

does not constitute a prohibition, rather it is for 

clarification purposes as the terms were not defined 

elsewhere in WAC 173–400. However, the terms are 

used in WAC 173–400–070(1) which previously 

allowed the use of these units for disposal burning 

of waste wood. Revisions in the June 15, 2023 SIP 

submittal prohibit their use as of January 1, 2020. 

24EPA approved removal of WAC 173–400– 

070(5) Catalytic Cracking Units on December 28, 

2023, (88 FR 89582) because the Federal rule (40 

CFR 60.102a) Washingtons adopts by reference in 

WAC 173–400–115 has more stringent requirements 

for catalytic cracking units than the requirements in 

the deleted rule. This Federal rule (40 CFR 60.102a) 

sets a particulate matter emission standard of 0.040 

grains/dscf standard, which is significantly more 

stringent than the deleted rule that sets it at 0.20 

grains/dscf. Similarly, 40 CFR 60.102a (d) provides 

a formula for setting site-specific opacity limits 

based on the PM emission rate measured during a 

source test. We expect this to be lower because of 

the more stringent PM standard. We deleted this 

subsection to simplify compliance by reducing 

duplication of the Federal requirements in our rule. 

The two revisions to existing 

definitions in WAC 173–400–030 were 

to: 

(32) 16 ‘‘Excess emissions’’: to clarify 

that the term also includes emissions 

above limits established in permits or 

orders, including alternative emission 

limits. This definition comports with 

our 2015 SSM SIP Action;17 and 

(38) 18 ‘‘Federally enforceable’’: to 

include emission limitations during 

startup and shutdown. 

Washington also adopted several new 

definitions which are discussed below: 

(6) ‘‘ ‘Alternative emission limit’ or 

‘limitation’ ’’: to clarify implementation 

of the provisions for transient (shortterm) modes of operation such as 

startup and shutdown provisions in 

WAC 173–400–040(2), 081 and 082, 

107, 108 and 109. This definition is 

defined substantively the same as in our 

2015 SSM SIP Action; 19

(45) ‘‘Hog fuel’’: to define what has 

been used as a 1term of art’ for wood 

waste, especially hogged wood waste, 

utilized for burning and to clarify 

implementation of emissions standards 

for boilers in WAC 173–400–040(2) and 

WAC 173–400–070(2). This definition, 

while narrower in scope, is generally in 

keeping with the Federal defintion for 

biomass or bio-based solid fuel for 

boilers and process heaters in the EPA’s 

National Emission Standard for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters, codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

‘‘Subpart DDDDD’’); 20

(83) ‘‘Shutdown’’ and (89) ‘‘Startup’’: 

to clarify the general meanings of the 

terms 21 for purposes of implementation 

of WAC 173–400. 

(97) ‘‘Transient code of operation’’: to 

include short-term operating periods, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown. This term is used for 

facilitating development of alternative 

emission limitations (AELs) for startup 

and shutdown periods, as well as other 

short-term modes of operation such as 

soot blowing (also known as boiler 

lancing), grate cleaning, and refractory 

curing, during which a source is unable 

to meet otherwise applicable emissions 

limits; 

(100) ‘‘Useful thermal energy’’: to 

clarify the general meanings of the terms 

for purposes of implementation of WAC 

173–400. The definition is nearly 

verbatim from, and is substantively the 

same as, the EPA’s Boiler NESHAP.22

(103) ‘‘Wigwam’’ or ‘‘silo burner’’: 

This definition clarifies the types of 

units that are now prohibited under 

WAC 173–400–070(1).23

(104) ‘‘Wood-fired boiler’’: to clarify 

implementation of regulations tailored 

specifically for this unique subset of 

boilers. This definition is similar to, but 

more narrowly defined than, ‘‘boiler’’ in 

40 CFR 63.7575 and in as much as it is 

used to regulate boilers, comports with 

the Federal CAA. 

For the reasons stated above, the EPA 

is proposing to approve the above 

changes to Washington’s definitions 

under WAC 173–400–030 for EFSEC’s 

jurisdiction. We approved identical 

revisions to WAC 173–400 applicable to 

Ecology’s jurisdiction on December 28, 

2023 (88 FR 89582). 

WAC 173–400–070, Emission 

standards for certain source categories. 

Most subsections apply to source 

categories not regulated by EFSEC, the 

EPA previously only approved 

subsection (5) Catalytic Cracking Units 

into the SIP for EFSEC’s jurisdiction (82 

FR 24533, May 30, 2017). EFSEC is now 

requesting removal of their adoption by 

reference of WAC 173–400–070 in the 

SIP because subsection (5) is obsolete 

and to reduce unnecessary duplication 

of Federal requirements as 

corresponding Federal regulations, 

which the State adopts by reference, 

have more stringent requirements.24 For 

these reasons, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the removal of WAC 173–400– 

070 for EFSEC’s jurisdiction. 

WAC 173–400–081, Emission limits 

during startup and shutdown. As 

described in our most recent approval of 

WAC 173–400–081 (88 FR 89582, 

December 28, 2023) which EFSEC 

adopts by reference: this section 

establishes a case-by-case technologybased permitting pathway for 

establishing startup and shutdown 

AELs. Numerous non-substantive 

changes were made to clarify 

applicability and requirements 

associated with establishing AELs. The 

most substantive change is the addition 

of (4)(b) which requires the permitting 

authority comply with the applicable 

requirements in WAC 173–400–082. 

Under WAC 173–400–081(4)(a), if an 

emission limitation or other parameter 

created increases allowable emissions 

over levels already authorized in 

Washington’s SIP, it will not take effect 

unless it is approved by the EPA as a 

SIP amendment. For these reasons, EPA 

is proposing to approve the submitted 

revisions to WAC 173–400–081 for 

EFSEC’s jurisdiction. 

WAC 173–400–082 Alternative 

emission limit that exceeds an emission 

standard in the SIP. As described in our 

most recent approval of WAC 173–400– 

082 (88 FR 89582, December 28, 2023) 

which EFSEC adopts by reference: this 

is an entirely new section establishing a 

process for an owner or operator to 

request—and the State to approve via a 

regulatory order—an alternative 

emission limit that would apply during 

a specified transient mode of operation. 

This process was designed to establish 

AELs that meet the seven criteria 

discussed above. Any AEL established 

under this section only applies to the 

specified emissions units at the facility 

requesting the regulatory order. 

Moreover, any such AEL only goes into 

effect if the EPA approves the new limit 

into the SIP. For these reasons, the EPA 

is proposing to approve the submitted 

revisions to WAC 173–400–082 for 

EFSEC’s jurisdiction. 

WAC 173–400–136 Use of Emission 

Reduction Credits (ERC). The EPA’s 

May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24531) approval of 

EFSEC’s adoption by reference errantly 

listed April 1, 2011, as the state effective 

date. The EPA is proposing to correct 

the state effective date to read December 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84326 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

25See 201_state submittal supplement_EFSEC 

Partial Withdrawal Request Letter - Ecology.pdf and 

202_state submittal supplement_EFSEC Partial 

Withdrawal Request Letter - EFSEC.pdf included in 

the docket for this action. 

29, 2012, consistent with our November 

7, 2014 (79 FR 66291) approval for 

Ecology’s direct jurisdiction. 

WAC 173–400–171 Public notice and 

opportunity for public comment. As 

described in our most recent approval of 

WAC 173–400–171 (88 FR 89582, 

December 28, 2023) which EFSEC 

adopts by reference: while many 

changes were made to this section, the 

only substantive change is the addition 

of (3)(o) which requires mandatory 

public comment periods for orders 

(permits) establishing AELs under WAC 

173–400–081 or –082 that exceed 

otherwise SIP applicable limits. For 

these reasons, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the submitted revisions to WAC 

173–400–171 for EFSEC’s jurisdiction. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve and 

incorporate by reference into the 

Washington SIP the revisions 

Washington submitted on June 15, 2023, 

except for those withdrawn by 

Washington.25 This action includes 

removal of WAC 173–400–107—the 

provision identified as inconsistent with 

CAA requirements in our 2015 SSM SIP 

call—from the Washington SIP for 

EFSEC’s jurisdiction, as well as 

incorporate by reference at 40 CFR 

52.2470(c)—Table 3—Additional 

Regulations Approved for the Energy 

Facilities Site Evaluation Council 

(EFSEC) Jurisdiction, the following 

revised regulations: 

• WAC 173–400–030, Definitions, 

(state effective September 16, 2018); 

• WAC 173–400–070, Emission 

standards for certain source categories, 

(state effective September 16, 2018); 

• WAC 173–400–081 Emission limits 

during startup and shutdown, (state 

effective September 16, 2018); 

• WAC 173–400–082 Alternative 

emission limit that exceeds an emission 

standard in the SIP, (state effective 

September 16, 2018); 

• WAC 173–400–136 Use of Emission 

Reduction Credits (ERC), (state effective 

December 29, 2012); and 

• WAC 173–400–171 Public Notice 

and Opportunity for Public Comment, 

(state effective September 16, 2018). 

The proposed revisions, upon 

finalization, will apply specifically to 

the jurisdiction of the Washington State 

Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA proposes to 

include in a final rule, regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

provisions described in sections II and 

III of this document. EPA is also 

proposing to remove regulatory text as 

described in sections II and III of this 

document that includes incorporation 

by reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA 

proposes to remove WAC 173–400–107 

from the incorporation by reference at 

40 CFR 52.2470. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

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). 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed 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 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• 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 CAA. 

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 communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 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.’’ 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 CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action 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 E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84327 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 11, 2024. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24211 Filed 10–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1