Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 34821

RHODE ISLAND NON REGULATORY—Continued

Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/

effective date EPA approved date Explanations 

Letter from RI DEM submitting 

revision—Rhode Island’s 15 Percent Plan and Contingency Plan.

Statewide .......................................... Submitted 03/15/94 04/17/97, 62 FR 

18712 

The revisions consist of the State’s 

15 Percent Plan and Contingency 

Plan. EPA approved only the following portions of these 

submittals: 

15 Percent Plan—the EPA approved 

the calculation of the required 

emission reductions, and the 

emission reduction credit claimed 

from surface coating, printing operations, marine vessel loading, 

plant closures (0.79 tons per day 

approved out of 0.84 claimed), 

cutback asphalt, auto refinishing, 

stage II, reformulated gas in onroad and off-road engines, and tier 

I motor vehicle controls. 

Contingency Plan—the EPA approved the calculation of the required emission reduction, and a 

portion of the emission reduction 

credits claimed from Consumer 

and Commercial products (1.1 

tons per day approved out of 1.9 

tons claimed), and architectural 

and industrial maintenance (AIM) 

coatings (1.9 tons per day approved out of 2.4 tons claimed). 

EPA concurrently disapproved portions of these SIP submissions, as 

discussed within Section 

52.2084(a)(2). 

Letter from RI DEM submitting revision for Clean Fuel Fleet Substitution Plan.

Providence (all of Rhode Island) 

nonattainment area.

10/05/94 03/09/00, 65 FR 

12476

Letter outlining commitment to national LEV.Statewide .......................................... 02/22/99 03/09/00, 65 FR 

12476

Includes details of the State’s commitment to National LEV. 

Negative Declaration for Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry (SOCMI) Distillation and 

Reactor Processes Control Techniques Guidelines Categories.

Statewide .......................................... Submitted 04/05/95 12/02/99, 65 FR 

67495. 

October 1, 1999, letter from Rhode 

Island Department of Environmental Management.

Statewide .......................................... Submitted October 1, 

1999

12/27/2000, 

65 FR 81748

Submitted Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 14, ‘‘NOX Budget Trading Program,’’ and the ‘‘NOX State 

implementation Plan (SIP) Call 

Narrative.’’

‘‘NOX State implementation Plan 

(SIP) Call Narrative,’’ September 

22, 1999.

Statewide .......................................... Submitted October 1, 

1999

12/27/2000, 65 FR 

81748

November 9, 1999, letter from Rhode 

Island Department of Environmental Management.

Statewide .......................................... Submitted November 

9, 1999

12/27/2000, 

65 FR 81748

Stating RI’s intent to comply with applicable reporting requirements. 

Negative Declaration for Aerospace 

Coating Operations Control Techniques Guideline Category.

Statewide .......................................... Submitted 03/28/00 07/10/00, 65 FR 

42292

[FR Doc. 03–14572 Filed 6–10–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket # WA–70–7148; FRL–7493–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; 

Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving most, but 

not all of the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions for visibility submitted 

by the State of Washington on 

November 5, 1999. The significant 

provisions of this SIP revision that we 

are approving include an improved 

smoke management plan and the 

Southwest Air Pollution Control Agency 

(SWAPCA) emission limitations on the 

Centralia Power Plant located in central 

western Washington.

DATES: This action is effective on July 

11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s SIP 

revision and other information 

supporting this action are available for 

inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, EPA Region 10, Office 

of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, or 

at (206) 553–0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supplementary information is organized 

in the following order:

Background 

I. Background on this Action 

II. Background on Visibility 

34822 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

A. What is visibility protection and why do 

we have it? 

B. What are the main visibility protections 

provided by Federal rules? 

C. How has visibility been protected in 

Washington? 

III. What are the required provisions of a 

visibility SIP? 

A. Long-Term Strategy 

B. Monitoring 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

IV. What does this proposed Visibility SIP 

revision change and how do these changes 

compare to the Federal requirements? 

A. Provisions to revise the protection of 

Integral Vistas 

B. Provisions to revise the Smoke 

Management Plan 

i. What is Washington’s Smoke 

Management Plan? 

ii. How does Washington’s 1999 SIP 

Revision change the Plan? 

iii. How does the Smoke Management Plan 

compare to Federal requirements? 

C. Provisions to include the SWAPCA 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Emission Limitations for 

Centralia Power Plant 

D. Provisions to revise the State’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology and New 

Source Review Rules 

V. Response to Public Comments 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Background 

I. Background on This Action 

On October 23, 2002, EPA proposed 

in the Federal Register, approving 

certain portions of the proposed 

Washington Visibility SIP revision and 

taking no action on other provisions of 

the proposed SIP revisions. See 67 FR 

65077, October 23, 2002. In that notice, 

EPA provided a 30 day review and 

comment period and solicited 

comments on our proposal. EPA 

received no comments. EPA is now 

taking final action on the SIP revision 

consistent with the published proposal. 

II. Background on Visibility 

A. What Is Visibility Protection and Why 

Do We Have It? 

Section 169A of the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requires States to 

protect visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas. Mandatory Class I Federal 

areas are specified large National Parks 

or Wilderness Areas. In Washington, 

there are 8 mandatory Class I Federal 

areas; the Mount Rainier National Park, 

North Cascades National Park, Olympic 

National Park, Alpine Lakes Wilderness 

Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, 

Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Mount 

Adams Wilderness Area, and Pasayten 

Wilderness Area. See 40 CFR 81.434. 

The Federal rules regulating visibility 

protection are set out in 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart P. 

B. What Are the Main Visibility 

Protections Provided by the Federal 

Rules? 

The Clean Air Act sets out a goal of 

preventing any future and remedying 

any existing impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. See 42 

U.S.C. 7491. Employing a close 

coordination process among the state 

and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs), 

the Federal rules require monitoring of 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas, as well as the development of a 

long-term strategy for making reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goal. The visibility protection rules also 

provide for an assessment of visibility 

impacts from any new or major 

modification to a major stationary 

source that may affect mandatory Class 

I Federal areas. Additionally, in the 

event that a FLM certifies impairment of 

visibility in a mandatory Class I Federal 

area that could be caused, or 

contributed to, by an existing stationary 

facility, emission limitations 

representing Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) may be imposed on 

the facility. 

The Federal visibility rules were 

modified in 1999 to include provisions 

for addressing regional haze. See 64 FR 

35714, July 1, 1999. Regional haze is 

visibility impairment which results 

from the cumulative impact of 

emissions from many point and nonpoint sources. All states are currently in 

the process of developing revisions to 

their SIPs to address the regional haze 

provisions. Therefore, the SIP 

submission under discussion in this 

action is not required to comply with 

the regional haze provisions of 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart P. 

C. How Has Visibility Been Protected in 

Washington? 

The initial proposed Visibility SIP for 

Washington was submitted by the State 

and approved in part by EPA on May 4, 

1987, (52 FR 16243). EPA approved the 

Washington State Visibility Protection 

Program (with exceptions described 

below), certain provisions of 173–403 

Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) Implementation of Regulations 

for Air Contaminant Sources, and the 

1983 Smoke Management Program. EPA 

disapproved section V.B., the new 

source review program, Appendix A, 

the Proposed Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) rule, and the 

Proposed New Source Review 

Regulations. 

III. What Are the Required Provisions 

of a Visibility SIP? 

40 CFR 51.302 provides the 

requirements for Visibility SIPs. These 

requirements and how the Washington 

Visibility SIP meets these requirements 

are summarized below. 

A. Long-Term Strategy 

The SIP needs to include a long-term 

(10–15 year) strategy that includes 

emission limitations, schedules of 

compliance, and other measures as 

deemed necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward the national goal. See

40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(i). In general, 

Section VI of the proposed 1999 SIP 

revision provides a discussion of the 

long-term strategy, including measures 

for stationary sources, mobile sources, 

area sources, and interstate 

coordination. The long-term strategy 

must include: 

• A strategy for evaluating visibility 

in mandatory Class I Federal areas by 

visual observation or other appropriate 

monitoring techniques. See 40 CFR 

51.305(a). Section V of the proposed 

1999 SIP revision provides for 

monitoring through the IMPROVE 

monitoring network and an assessment 

strategy. 

• A provision for the available 

visibility data and a mechanism for its 

use in decisions required by the 

regulations. See 40 CFR 51.305(b). 

Section IX of the proposed 1999 SIP 

revision provides for the development 

and use of available data for SIP review 

and development. 

• A strategy to address any existing 

impairment the FLM certifies to the 

State and integral vista of which the 

FLM notifies the State at least 6 months 

prior to plan submission. See 40 CFR 

51.306(a)(1). Section I of the proposed 

1999 SIP revision discusses certification 

of impairment in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas. Section III of the 

proposed 1999 SIP revision discusses 

integral vistas.

• A discussion, with reasonable 

specificity, why the long-term strategy is 

adequate for making reasonable 

progress. See 40 CFR 51.306(a)(3). 

Section VI of the proposed 1999 SIP 

revision discusses all source categories, 

the control measures that apply to them, 

and a qualitative assessment of how 

these are adequate for making 

reasonable progress. Section IX of the 

proposed 1999 SIP revision discusses 

the evaluation of progress toward 

achieving the national visibility goal. 

• Coordination of the long-term 

strategy with other existing plans and 

goals, including those provided by 

affected FLMs. See 40 CFR 51.306(a)(3). 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 34823

Section IV of the proposed 1999 SIP 

revision provides for the consultation 

with FLMs for the review and revision 

of the visibility SIP and New Source 

Review rules. 

• Provisions for periodic review and 

revision as appropriate of not less than 

every three years. See 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

This review must include: 

(1) Progress achieved in remedying 

existing impairment; 

(2) The ability of the long-term 

strategy to prevent future impairment; 

(3) Any change in visibility since the 

last report; 

(4) Additional measures, including 

the need for SIP revisions that may be 

needed to assure reasonable progress; 

(5) The progress achieved in 

implementing BART and meeting other 

schedules set forth in the long-term 

strategy; and 

(6) The impact of any exemption 

granted under 40 CFR 51.303. 

(7) The need for BART to remedy 

existing visibility impairment of any 

integral vista. 

Section IV of the proposed 1999 SIP 

revision provides for the review of the 

visibility SIP. 

• Provisions for review of the impacts 

of any new or modified major stationary 

source. See 40 CFR 51.306(d). The 

Washington Department of Ecology has 

a fully delegated Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. 

The Department of Ecology was notified 

of this delegation by letter dated 

February 7, 2002. 

B. Monitoring 

The plan must contain an assessment 

of visibility impairment and a 

discussion of how each element of the 

plan relates to preventing future or 

remedying existing impairment. See 40 

CFR 51.302(c)(2)(ii). Section V of the 

proposed 1999 SIP revision provides for 

visibility monitoring of the mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. Section IV of the 

proposed 1999 SIP revision provides a 

general discussion of the effect of 

measures on preventing future and 

remedying existing impairment. 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

The State must identify and analyze 

for BART each existing stationary 

facility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area where 

the impairment is reasonably 

attributable to that existing stationary 

facility. See 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4). The 

plan must also contain emission 

limitations representing BART for any 

existing stationary facility identified 

according to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4). 

The State has not determined that 

existing impairment in any mandatory 

Class I Federal area for which 

impairment has been certified can be 

reasonably attributed to a specific major 

stationary source. 

IV. What Does This Proposed Visibility 

SIP Revision Change and How Do 

These Changes Compare to the Federal 

Requirements? 

A. Provisions To Revise the Protection of 

Integral Vistas 

The 1987 SIP included a list of 

‘‘Preliminary Integral Vistas’’ that were 

proposed by the National Park Service 

(NPS). The 1987 SIP provides that until 

the NPS finalizes the list of vistas in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.304, the 

panoramas listed in the January 15, 

1981, Federal Register (Table III–2) will 

be protected under the visibility SIP. 

These integral vistas were never 

finalized by the NPS. Thus, there are no 

federally recognized integral vistas to be 

protected. In the interim, no emission 

limitation was established for a source 

that specifically protected an integral 

vista, nor is the State proposing to revise 

and relax an emission limitation 

established for integral vista protection. 

The 1999 proposed SIP revision 

removes the provisions that would have 

continued these protections. The 

Federal visibility regulations (40 CFR 

51.304(d)) indicate that a state need not 

in its implementation plan list any 

integral vista the identification of which 

was not made in accordance with the 

criteria in 40 CFR 51.304(a). Since no 

integral vistas have been identified by 

the FLM, there is no relaxation of SIP 

emission requirements and since the 

1999 proposed SIP revision meets the 

applicable requirements for visibility 

protection in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas, EPA proposes approval of this 

revision. 

B. Provisions To Revise the Smoke 

Management Plan 

i. What Is Washington’s Smoke 

Management Plan? 

Washington’s Smoke Management 

Plan (SMP) is a program designed to 

manage smoke impacts from the burning 

of silviculture and agriculture wastes. 

The SMP balances forest and 

agricultural land burning with 

preventing smoke from being carried to, 

or accumulating in, designated areas 

and other areas sensitive to smoke. 

ii. How Does Washington’s 1999 

Proposed SIP Revision Change the Plan?

The SMP of 1998 submitted in the 

proposed 1999 Visibility SIP revision 

significantly improves the 1983 SMP 

included in the 1987 SIP. The 1983 SMP 

provided for reduced emissions from 

prescribed fires through optimization of 

fuel conditions (i.e. dry fuel), improves 

ventilation and dispersion through 

meteorology, and minimizes impact by 

controlling smoke drift into populated 

areas. There was no consideration for 

protection of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. 

The 1998 SMP requires approval from 

the Resource Protection Division 

Manager, Department of Natural 

Resources for all prescribed fires. 

Approval requirements differ depending 

whether the fire is a ‘‘large fire’’

involving over 100 tons of fuel or a 

small fire. Large fire burn approval 

considers a number of factors including 

likelihood of smoke intrusion into 

populated areas or mandatory Class I 

Federal areas, air quality regulations, 

violation of emission reductions targets, 

violation of another state’s air quality 

standards, and whether smoke will 

disperse within given timeframes. 

Operators of small fires (less than 100 

tons of fuel) must call a toll-free phone 

number and follow the instructions that 

apply for that day and location of the 

proposed fire. 

The SMP further requires emissions 

from prescribed fires be reduced by 20% 

from baseline levels (defined in the 

SMP) by December 1994 and until 

December 2000. Emissions from burning 

must be permanently reduced by 50% 

from baseline levels by December 2000. 

iii. How Does the Smoke Management 

Plan Compare to Federal Requirements? 

The visibility protection provisions at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P suggest that 

states consider SMPs in developing 

long-term strategies for visibility 

protection. However, there are no 

specific Federal requirements for states 

to develop and adopt SMPs. In 

September 1992, the Environmental 

Protection Agency published The 

Prescribed Burning Background 

Document and Technical Information 

Document for Best Available Control 

Measures to assist states in the 

development of Smoke Management 

Plans [EPA–450/2–92–003]. 

C. Provisions To Include the SWAPCA 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Emission Limits for 

Centralia Power Plant 

The Centralia Power Plant (CPP) is a 

coal-fired electrical generating station 

that has a potential to emit (PTE) 90,000 

t/yr Sulfur dioxide (SO2). It is a BART 

eligible source as defined by 40 CFR 

51.301. It is located near the mandatory 

Class I Federal area, Mt. Rainier 

National Park in Washington state. The 

34824 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

NPS has certified visibility impairment 

at Mt. Rainier National Park. The State 

of Washington has not determined that 

this visibility impairment is reasonably 

attributable to the CPP. 

The SIP must contain emission 

limitations representing BART and 

schedules for compliance with BART 

for each existing stationary facility 

identified according to 40 CFR 51.302 

(c)(4). The state needs to identify each 

existing facility which may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal areas where 

the impairment in the mandatory Class 

I Federal area is reasonably attributable 

to that existing stationary facility. The 

State has not identified CPP, or any 

other source or group of small sources 

as an existing facility that may 

reasonably be expected to contribute to 

visibility impairment to mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. Therefore, under 

40 CFR 51.302(c)(4), a BART analysis is 

not required for CPP. In the future 

regional haze SIP, a BART analysis may 

be required for the CPP under 40 CFR 

51.308(e). 

In a separate activity, the State, 

SWAPCA, the NPS and U.S. Forest 

Service, owners of the CPP, and EPA 

entered into a negotiated agreement to 

establish emission limits for SO2, 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers 

(PM–10) for the CPP. The SWAPCA, 

who has regulatory authority over the 

CPP, issued the CPP a Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

order under state law that contain the 

negotiated emission limitations. This 

RACT Order is included in the proposed 

1999 Visibility SIP revision. 

Both SWAPCA in their Technical 

Support Document for the RACT Order 

and EPA Region 10 have independently 

conducted an analysis of the emission 

limits in the RACT Order comparing 

them against what would have been 

required using the Clean Air Act 

definition of BART and EPA BART 

guidelines. Additional details on this 

analyses can be found in the Technical 

Support Document in the docket of this 

action. The conclusion of both analyses 

is that the RACT Order emission limits 

for SO2 and PM–10 represent BART. 

EPA is approving these emissions 

limitations as meeting the BART 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(c)(4). 

Additionally, while the NOX emission 

limitation may have represented BART 

when the emission limits in the RACT 

Order were negotiated, recent 

technology advancements have been 

made. EPA cannot now say that the 

emission limitations in the SWAPCA 

RACT Order for NOX represent BART. 

However EPA is approving the emission 

limits for NOX as a strengthening of the 

SIP for visibility purposes. 

D. Provisions To Revise the State’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology and New 

Source Review Rules. 

The proposed 1999 SIP revision also 

included revised BART rules (WAC 

173–400–151) and New Source Review 

(NSR) (WAC 173–400–110, 112, 113, & 

141). Subsequent to the submittal in 

1999, the State has verbally indicated 

that new rules are being developed and 

the rules in this submittal will soon be 

obsolete. Therefore EPA is taking no 

action on these rules.

V. Response to Comments 

EPA solicited comments on the 

proposed action in the October 23, 2002, 

Federal Register document (67 FR 

65077). EPA received no comments. 

Therefore, there is no response to 

comments. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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 August 11, 2003. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 34825

not affect the finality of this rule 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 24, 2003. 

L. John Iani, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW—Washington

■ 2. Amend § 52.2470 by adding 

paragraph (c)(82) to read as follows:

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(82) On November 5, 1999, the State 

of Washington, Department of Ecology 

submitted a revision to the Visibility 

SIP. EPA approves all provisions to the 

November 5, 1999 Visibility SIP 

revision including, but not limited to 

the 1998 Smoke Management Plan, and 

South West Air Pollution Control 

Agency, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology order on the Centralia 

Power plant. EPA is taking no action on 

Section VIII. Identification and Analysis 

for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) and Section X, New Source 

Review, of the November 5, 1999, 

Visibility SIP revision. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) South West Air Pollution Control 

Agency (SWAPCA) regulatory order, 

SWAPCA 97–2057R1, Regulatory Order 

to Establish RACT Limits and Order of 

Approval, Adopted February 26, 1998. 

(B) [Reserved]

■ 3. Amend § 52.2475 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 52.2475 Approval of plans.

* * * * *

(g) Visibility. 

(1) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Washington State Implementation Plan, 

the November 5, 1999, Visibility SIP 

revision, except that EPA is taking no 

action on Section VIII. Identification 

and Analysis for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART), and Section X, 

New Source Review of the November 5, 

1999, Visibility SIP revision. 

(2) [Reserved]

■ 4. In § 52.2479, the table is amended by 

revising the entries under Section 5 to 

read as follows:

§ 52.2479 Contents of the Federally 

approved, State submitted implementation 

plan.

* * * * *

WASHINGTON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AIR QUALITY STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS—TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 5—Federally Mandated Programs [Dates in brackets indicate EPA effective date]

5.BAP—Business Assistance Program [5/8/95] 

5.IM—Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Program [9/25/96] 

5.OXY—Oxygenated Gasoline Program [3/21/94] 

5.SMP—Smoke Management Program [7/6/87] 

5.VIS—Washington State Visibility Protection Program [7/6/87] 

5.VIS.NSR—Visibility New Source Review (NSR) for nonattainment areas for Washington [7/28/86] 

Supplemental Section A—Reference Material [Date in brackets indicate EPA effective date]

A.1—Description of Source test Program for the State Implementation Plan [10/24/84] 

Supplemental B—Administrative and Procedural Material [Dates in brackets indicate EPA effective date]

B.3—Correspondence 

B.3.1—Legal Authority [6/05/80] 

B.3.2—Correspondence prior to 1991 

B.3.2.1—New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Tri-Counties [9/23/81] 

[FR Doc. 03–14573 Filed 6–10–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2003–0159; FRL–7309–5] 

Methoprene, Watermelon Mosaic 

Virus-2 Coat Protein, and Zucchini 

Yellow Mosaic Virus Coat Protein; 

Final Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the text of 

the exemption from the requirement of 

a tolerance for methoprene and is 

revoking all of the tolerances for 

residues for methoprene because a 

recent EPA review finds that no harm is 

expected to the public from exposure to 

residues of methoprene. Therefore, 

these tolerances are no longer needed 

and their associated uses are covered by 

tolerance exemptions. Also, EPA is 

revoking the exemptions for watermelon 

mosaic virus-2 coat protein, and 

zucchini yellow mosaic virus coat 

protein and specific portions of the viral 

genetic material when used as plantincorporated protectants in squash, 

because these exemptions are covered in 

later sections of 40 CFR part 180. 

Because methoprene’s 35 tolerances and 

the 2 exemptions from the virus 

materials were previously reassessed, 

the regulatory actions taken in this 

document do not contribute toward the 

Agency’s tolerance reassessment 

requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 

408(q), as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, 

EPA is required by August 2006 to 

reassess the tolerances in existence on 

August 2, 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

11, 2003. Objections and requests for 

hearings, identified by docket ID