Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23721 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 16, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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. 

■ 2. In § 52.770, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA Approval Explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS.

12/12/2011 4/29/2015, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) except visibility, (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and (M). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–09883 Filed 4–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0755; FRL–9926–95– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Visibility Protection 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Washington State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) on 

January 27, 2014. These revisions 

implement the preconstruction 

permitting regulations for large 

industrial (major source) facilities in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas, 

called the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD 

program in Washington has been 

historically operated under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). This 

approval of Ecology’s PSD program 

narrows the FIP to include only those 

few facilities, emission sources, 

geographic areas, and permits for which 

Ecology does not have PSD permitting 

jurisdiction or authority. The EPA is 

also approving Ecology’s visibility 

protection permitting program which 

overlaps significantly with the PSD 

program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0755. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) 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 either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Unit, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The 

EPA requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, 

hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by using the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials ‘‘Act’’ or 

‘‘CAA’’ mean or refer to the Clean Air 

Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The words ‘‘EPA’’, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or 

‘‘our’’ mean or refer to the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials ‘‘SIP’’ mean or refer 

to State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words ‘‘Washington’’ and 

‘‘State’’ mean the State of Washington. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On January 27, 2014, Ecology 

submitted revisions to update the 

general air quality regulations contained 

in Chapter 173–400 of the Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC) that apply 

to sources within Ecology’s jurisdiction, 

including minor new source review, 

major source nonattainment new source 

review (major NNSR), PSD, and the 

visibility protection (visibility) program. 

On October 3, 2014, the EPA finalized 

approval of provisions contained in 

Chapter 173–400 WAC that apply 

generally to all sources under Ecology’s 

jurisdiction, but stated that we would 

act separately on the major sourcespecific permitting programs in a 

phased approach (79 FR 59653). On 

November 7, 2014, the EPA finalized the 

second phase in the series, approving 

the major NNSR regulations contained 

in WAC 173–400–800 through 173–400– 

860, as well as other parts of Chapter 

173–400 WAC that support major NNSR 

(79 FR 66291). 

On January 7, 2015, the EPA proposed 

approval of the remainder of Ecology’s 

January 27, 2014 submittal, covering the 

PSD and visibility requirements for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Note that one commenter refers to the 

exemption in RCW 70.235.020(3) as applying to 

‘‘forest biomass’’ and points to the definition of that 

term in RCW 79.02.010(7)(a). RCW 70.235.020(3), 

however, uses the term ‘‘biomass,’’ not ‘‘forest 

biomass,’’ and nothing in RCW Ch. 70.235 indicates 

that the definitions in RCW Ch. 79.02 are to be used 

in interpreting RCW Ch. 70.235. We therefore 

continue to use the terminology in RCW Ch. 79.02 

in describing the scope of the remaining Federal 

Implementation Plan for PSD in Washington. 

major stationary sources under 

Ecology’s jurisdiction (80 FR 838). An 

explanation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements, submitted revisions, and 

the EPA’s reasons for and limitations of 

the proposed approval are provided in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

which, together with this document, 

provides the basis for our final action. 

The public comment period for this 

proposed rule ended on February 6, 

2015. The EPA received two sets of 

similar comments on the proposal. 

Before addressing the public 

comments, the EPA is clarifying its 

discussion in the January 7, 2015 

proposal, regarding two important 

distinctions between the applicability of 

Ecology’s minor NSR program and its 

PSD program. These differences arise 

from the State’s definitions of the terms 

‘‘modification’’ in WAC 173–400– 

030(48) and ‘‘major modification’’ in 

WAC 173–400–710 and –720, which 

adopt the Federal definitions in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(2) for Ecology’s PSD program. 

See 80 FR at 840. The proposal first 

noted that the applicability test for 

‘‘modifications’’ under Ecology’s minor 

NSR program is based on the definition 

of modification in CAA section 111(a)(4) 

and the EPA’s implementing rules at 40 

CFR 60.14, and specifically, that a 

modification is an increase in the 

emission rate of an existing facility in 

terms of kilograms per hour. See WAC 

173–400–030(48). The proposal then 

noted that the applicability test under 

the Federal PSD program is based on 

tons per year. The EPA is clarifying here 

that under Washington’s PSD program, 

the determination of whether a project 

(as that term is defined in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(52) and which is adopted by 

reference at WAC 173–400– 

720(4)(a)(vi)) is a ‘‘major modification’’ 

is, consistent with the Federal PSD 

program, based on whether the project 

results in both a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase in terms of tons per year. See 

WAC 400–173–720(4)(a)(vi) (which 

adopts by reference the Federal PSD 

applicability test and definitions in 40 

CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b)(2), respectively); 

see also WAC 173–400–710(a). 

Therefore, as stated in the proposal, for 

any physical or operational change at an 

existing stationary source, regulated 

sources and permitting authorities will 

need to calculate emission changes in 

terms of both kilograms per hour and 

tons per year to determine whether 

changes are subject to minor NSR, PSD, 

or both. 

Second, the proposal discussed a 

difference in minor NSR versus PSD 

review in Washington that arises from a 

limitation on the scope of the review of 

a modification under Ecology’s minor 

NSR program. The EPA first noted that, 

under Ecology’s minor NSR program, 

new source review of a modification is 

limited to the emission unit or units 

proposed to be modified and the air 

contaminants whose emissions would 

increase as a result of the modification. 

See WAC 173–400–110(1)(d) (‘‘New 

source review of a modification is 

limited to the emission unit or units 

proposed to be modified and the air 

contaminants whose emissions would 

increase as a result of the 

modification.’’). In contrasting this 

minor NSR provision with the 

requirements of Ecology’s PSD program 

(and the Federal PSD program), the EPA 

incorrectly used the phrase ‘‘new and 

modified units’’ rather than the terms 

‘‘new emissions units’’ and ‘‘existing 

emissions units,’’ the terminology used 

in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2), which is 

incorporated into Washington’s PSD 

regulations and the subject of this final 

SIP approval. The EPA is emphasizing 

here that, under Ecology’s PSD program 

(as under the Federal PSD program), 

review of a project that is a ‘‘major 

modification’’ must be done in 

accordance with the provisions of WAC 

173–400–700 through 173–400–750, and 

that the limitation in WAC 173–400– 

110(1)(d) on the review of a 

‘‘modification’’ does not apply to a 

‘‘major modification.’’ See WAC 173– 

400–110(1)(d) (‘‘Review of a major 

modification must comply with WAC 

173–400–700 through 173–400–750 or 

173–400–800 through 173–400–860, as 

applicable.’’). 

II. Response to Comments 

The EPA received two sets of similar 

comments from the Northwest Pulp & 

Paper Association and the Washington 

Forest Protection Association regarding 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

industrial combustion of biomass. 

A. CO2 Emissions From Industrial 

Combustion of Both Fossil Fuel and 

Biomass 

Comment: The EPA must clearly 

explain in the final approval that, due 

to the limitations imposed by Revised 

Code of Washington (RCW) 

70.235.020(3) concerning the industrial 

combustion of biomass,1 the EPA is 

retaining the authority to conduct the 

best available control technology 

(BACT) analysis for PSD permits only 

for biogenic CO2 emissions from 

biomass and will coordinate its 

processing and issuance of PSD permits 

with the Department of Ecology. One of 

the commenters specifically requests 

clarity regarding situations where there 

are multiple combustion fuels 

producing CO2 from a source and 

whether Ecology would retain PSD 

permitting authority for CO2 emissions 

resulting from the industrial combustion 

of non-biomass fuels from such a 

source. 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposal of this rule, RCW 70.235.020(3) 

statutorily bars Ecology from regulating 

CO2 under Ecology’s PSD program in 

some circumstances. That statute 

provides that ‘‘[e]xcept for purposes of 

reporting, emissions of carbon dioxide 

from industrial combustion of biomass 

in the form of fuel wood, wood waste, 

wood by-products, and wood residuals 

shall not be considered a greenhouse gas 

as long as the region’s silvicultural 

sequestration capacity is maintained or 

increased.’’ The EPA has been actively 

examining whether under Federal law 

CO2 emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass may be exempt 

from the PSD permitting requirements 

in a manner similar to RCW 

70.235.020(3). In 2011, the EPA adopted 

a rule that deferred, for a period of three 

years, the application of the PSD and 

Title V permitting requirements to CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources (biogenic 

CO2). 76 FR 43490 (July 20, 2011) 

(Biomass Deferral Rule). During the 

three-year deferral period, the EPA 

conducted a detailed examination of the 

science associated with biogenic CO2

emissions from stationary sources and 

developed a document entitled 

‘‘Accounting Framework for Biogenic 

CO2 Emissions from Stationary 

Sources,’’ which the Agency submitted 

to the EPA Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) for peer review. 

On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit issued a decision overturning 

the Biomass Deferral Rule. Center for 

Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 

421 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Although this 

decision has not yet taken effect because 

of matters still pending in the courts, 

the Biomass Deferral Rule expired on its 

own terms on July 21, 2014. The EPA 

was not able to issue an additional rule 

before this date addressing the 

regulation of biogenic CO2 emissions 

from stationary sources in the PSD 

permitting program. However, the EPA 

plans to propose revisions to the PSD 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23723 

2See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’). 

3Under this decision, the Supreme Court held 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant 

for purposes of determining whether a source is a 

major source (or major modification thereof) 

required to obtain a PSD permit, but that the EPA 

could continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants 

other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of BACT. See 

80 FR at 842. 

4PSD permitting of CO2 emissions from such 

sources was also excluded from the 2013 Delegation 

Agreement between the EPA and Washington. 

rules to include an exemption from the 

BACT requirement for GHGs from 

waste-derived feedstocks and from nonwaste biogenic feedstocks derived from 

sustainable forest or agricultural 

practices. For all other biogenic 

feedstocks, the EPA intends to propose 

that biogenic CO2 emissions would 

remain subject to the GHG BACT 

requirement at this time. See 

Memorandum from Janet McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Air and Radiation, to EPA Air 

Division Directors, Regions 1–10, 

‘‘Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 

(Nov. 19, 2014). In addition, to continue 

advancing our understanding of the role 

biomass can play in reducing overall 

GHG emissions, the EPA has developed 

a second draft of the Framework for 

Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from 

Stationary Sources, and is initiating a 

second round of targeted peer review 

through its SAB. 

Although the EPA is planning to 

initiate the rulemaking described above 

that would enable states to avoid 

applying BACT to GHG emissions from 

combustion of biogenic feedstocks 

derived from sustainable forest or 

agricultural practices, the CAA and EPA 

regulations presently require that PSD 

permitting programs address CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass. CO2 is a gas 

included in the definition of 

‘‘greenhouse gas’’ used in the Federal 

PSD program.2 Because GHGs are a 

pollutant subject to regulation under the 

CAA, section 165 of the Act requires 

GHG emissions from a major source 

obtaining a PSD permit to be subject to 

PSD requirements, particularly the 

requirement to meet emission 

limitations based on application of 

BACT. After the expiration of the threeyear period in the EPA’s Biomass 

Deferral Rule, there is presently no EPA 

rule in place that exempts the CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass from the 

requirements of the PSD permitting 

program. As discussed in our January 7, 

2015 proposal (80 FR 838), because of 

the Supreme Court decision in Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427, the 

EPA is not applying the requirement 

that a state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) 

that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a physical change or change in the 

method of operation of a major 

stationary source.3 However, the BACT 

requirement remains applicable to 

GHGs from a source that is subject to 

PSD because it is major for another 

regulated NSR pollutant (what is known 

as an ‘‘anyway source’’) and which 

would emit a significant amount of 

GHGs (i.e., more than 75,000 tons per 

year CO2 equivalent emissions, CO2e, as 

defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)). Absent 

an EPA rule establishing an exemption 

for CO2 emissions from biomass 

combustion, the determination of BACT 

for a regulated NSR pollutant must 

consider all of the emissions of each 

pollutant subject to regulation under the 

Act. Because RCW 70.235.020(3) 

prohibits Ecology from establishing 

BACT limits for such sources that 

include CO2 emissions resulting from 

the industrial combustion of biomass, 

Washington law is inconsistent with the 

EPA’s current regulations implementing 

the PSD provisions in the CAA in that 

regard. 

As a result, the EPA must retain a FIP 

under 40 CFR 52.21 and issue partial 

PSD permits to ensure that major 

sources in Washington have a means to 

satisfy the CAA construction permit 

requirements for GHGs when CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass in Washington 

cannot be considered or regulated by 

Ecology under its PSD rules.4 Because 

Ecology does have authority to carry out 

all PSD requirements for GHGs except 

for sources permitted to engage in the 

industrial combustion of biomass, the 

EPA is approving Ecology’s regulations 

as part of the Washington PSD SIP for 

such purposes. 

For sources subject to the FIP, the 

EPA is retaining the authority to 

conduct the BACT analysis for all GHGs 

when necessary, not just the biogenic 

CO2 emissions not covered by the 

Washington permitting program under 

RCW 70.235.020(3). Because the 

regulated NSR pollutant is GHGs and 

not CO2, the Federal PSD permit issued 

by the EPA under the FIP will contain 

a BACT limit covering all GHG 

emissions from a subject emission unit 

when that unit is permitted to emit 

biogenic CO2 not covered by the 

Washington permitting program. The 

EPA believes it should retain authority 

over all GHG emissions at such sources 

to avoid difficulties that could arise if 

Ecology and the EPA each separately 

evaluated BACT for only a portion of 

the GHG emissions from an emission 

unit. For example, each agency could 

end up calculating cost values that 

would not reflect the true cost of the 

control options for GHG emissions 

because not all GHGs, as defined under 

the Federal PSD program, would be 

considered by either agency. 

Thus, the EPA FIP addresses the 

impact of the Washington statutory 

provision in two ways. First, the 

Ecology and the EPA definitions of 

GHGs are effectively different, with the 

EPA’s definition being more inclusive 

(i.e., it does not exclude CO2 emissions 

from the industrial combustion of 

biomass) so an ‘‘anyway source’’ could 

be subject to PSD for GHGs under the 

FIP when it would not be subject to PSD 

under the SIP. In this situation, the EPA 

will issue a Federal PSD permit under 

40 CFR 52.21 for the new major 

stationary source or major modification 

that would require BACT for GHGs for 

all subject emission units at the source, 

regardless of whether CO2 emissions 

were from the industrial combustion of 

biomass or from other sources of GHG 

emissions at the facility. Second, if an 

‘‘anyway source’’ is subject to PSD for 

GHG emissions under both the SIP and 

the FIP, but there are CO2 emissions 

from the industrial combustion of 

biomass that cannot be addressed in the 

Ecology PSD permit, the EPA will issue 

a Federal PSD permit under 40 CFR 

52.21 requiring BACT for GHGs for each 

subject emissions unit with CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass. Note that the 

Ecology PSD permit issued under the 

SIP will address all other subject 

emission units that do not have CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass. We have revised 

the language of 40 CFR 52.2497 to 

reflect this clarification. 

Given this dual CAA PSD permitting 

authority in situations where there are 

multiple combustion fuels producing 

CO2 from a source engaged in the 

industrial combustion of biomass in 

Washington, the EPA will coordinate 

closely with Ecology during the PSD 

permit issuance process. 

B. EPA Guidance 

Comment: The EPA should also 

clarify that it will follow the EPA’s 

existing guidance on BACT for biogenic 

emissions, ‘‘Guidance for Determining 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5The EPA previously approved these regulations 

as part of our October 3, 2014 approval of Ecology’s 

minor new source review (NSR) program. Approval 

of these regulations for purposes of implementing 

the PSD and visibility programs is subject to the 

exceptions and explanations described in the EPA’s 

July 10, 2014 proposed (79 FR 39351) and October 

3, 2014 final action (79 FR 59653), and the January 

7, 2015 proposed action (80 FR 838) on the general 

air quality regulations contained in WAC 173–400– 

036, WAC 173–400–110, WAC 173–400–111, WAC 

173–400–112, WAC 173–400–113, WAC 173–400– 

171, and WAC 173–400–560. 

Best Available Control Technology for 

Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

from Bioenergy Production’’ (March 

2011 guidance). 

Response: The March 2011 guidance 

is the EPA’s most recent guidance on 

the topic of BACT determinations for 

bioenergy production and the EPA will 

consider it, as appropriate, in issuing 

PSD permits under the FIP. The EPA 

will also consider prior BACT 

determinations for GHGs at biomass 

facilities, such as the one reflected in 

the permit EPA Region 9 issued to 

Sierra Pacific Industries. In the 

November 19, 2014 Memorandum cited 

above, the EPA has also stated that the 

Agency anticipates providing additional 

guidance to sources undergoing BACT 

analyses involving biogenic feedstocks. 

To the extent that guidance is available 

at the time the EPA issues permits 

under the FIP discussed in this rule, the 

EPA will consider that guidance as well. 

C. The EPA’s Next Steps on Biogenic 

CO2 Emissions From Stationary Sources 

Comment: One commenter referenced 

the EPA’s memorandum, ‘‘Addressing 

Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

from Stationary Sources,’’ from Janet 

McCabe, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1—10, November 19, 

2014, regarding biogenic CO2 emissions 

and urged the EPA to complete 

rulemaking regarding this issue in an 

expeditious manner. 

Response: The EPA will endeavor to 

complete this rulemaking in a timely 

manner. After considering public 

comments on the proposal for that rule, 

if the final rule contains an exemption 

that aligns with the scope of RCW 

70.235.020(3), the EPA will reevaluate 

the extent to which the FIP established 

in this rule should remain applicable to 

Washington facilities with CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass. To enable the 

EPA to remove such sources from the 

FIP, Washington may need to consider 

whether an amendment to RCW 

70.235.020(3) is appropriate to match 

the scope of any final rule adopted by 

the EPA. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons set forth in our 

proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 838, 

January 7, 2015, as further discussed 

above, the EPA is approving and 

incorporating by reference the PSD and 

visibility permitting regulations 

submitted by Ecology on January 27, 

2014. This action is the third and final 

in a series approving the remaining 

elements contained in Ecology’s January 

27, 2014 submittal. The previous two 

actions consisted of the EPA’s October 

3, 2014 (79 FR 59653) approval of 

general provisions that apply to all air 

pollution sources and the EPA’s 

November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66291) 

approval of requirements that 

implement major source NNSR. 

A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by 

Reference Into the SIP 

The EPA is approving and 

incorporating by reference into 

Washington’s SIP at 40 CFR part 52, 

subpart WW, the PSD and visibility 

permitting regulations listed in the table 

below. A full copy of the regulations is 

included in the docket for this action. 

The EPA has also determined that the 

general air quality regulations at WAC 

173–400–036, WAC 173–400–110, WAC 

173–400–111, WAC 173–400–112, WAC 

173–400–113, WAC 173–400–171, and 

WAC 173–400–560, to the extent they 

relate to implementation of Ecology’s 

PSD and visibility programs, also meet 

the EPA’s requirements for subject 

sources.5

REGULATIONS APPROVED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date Explanation 

Chapter 173–400 WAC, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources 

173–400–036 Relocation of Portable Sources ...... 12/29/12 

173–400–110 New Source Review (NSR) for 

Sources and Portable Sources.

12/29/12 Except: 

173–400–110(1)(c)(ii)(C); 173–400–110(1)(e); 173–400–110(2)(d); 

The part of WAC 173–400–110(4)(b)(vi) that says, 

• ‘‘not for use with materials containing toxic air pollutants, as listed in 

chapter 173–460 WAC,’’; 

The part of 400–110 (4)(e)(iii) that says, 

• ‘‘where toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173–460 WAC are 

not emitted’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(e)(f)(i) that says, 

• ‘‘that are not toxic air pollutants listed in chapter 173–460 WAC’’; 

The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xviii) that says, 

• ‘‘, to the extent that toxic air pollutant gases as defined in chapter 

173–460 WAC are not emitted’’; 

The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that says, 

• ‘‘where no toxic air pollutants as listed under chapter 173–460 WAC 

are emitted’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that says, 

• ‘‘, or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173– 

460 WAC’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxv) that says, 

• ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that says, 

• ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 173–460 

WAC’’; 

400–110(4)(h)(xl) , second sentence; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23725 

REGULATIONS APPROVED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE—Continued 

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date Explanation 

The last row of the table in 173–400–110(5)(b) regarding exemption 

levels for Toxic Air Pollutants. 

173–400–111 Processing Notice of Construction 

Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable 

Sources.

12/29/12 Except: 

173–400–111(3)(h); 

173–400–111(3)(i); 

The part of 173–400–111(8)(a)(v) that says, 

• ‘‘and 173–460–040,’’; and 173–400–111(9). 

173–400–112 Processing Notice of Construction 

Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable 

Sources.

12/29/12 Except: 

173–400–112(8). 

173–400–113 New Sources in Attainment or 

Unclassifiable Areas—Review for 

Compliance with Regulations.

12/29/12 Except: 

173–400–113(3), second sentence. 

173–400–116 Increment Protection ....................... 9/10/11 

173–400–117 Special Protection Requirements for 

Federal Class I Areas.

12/29/12 

173–400–171 Public Notice and Opportunity for 

Public Comment.

12/29/12 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’’; and 

173–400–171(12). 

173–400–560 General Order of Approval .............. 12/29/12 Except: 

The part of 173–400–560(1)(f) that says, 

‘‘173–460 WAC’’. 

173–400–700 Review of Major Stationary Sources 

of Air Pollution.

4/1/11 

173–400–710 Definitions ........................................ 12/29/12 

173–400–720 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).12/29/12 Except: 

173–400–720(4)(a)(i through iv); 173–400–720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173– 

400–720(4)(a)(vi) with respect to the incorporation by reference of the 

text in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.21(i)(5)(i), and 52.21(k)(2). 

173–400–730 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Application Processing Procedures.12/29/12 

173–400–740 PSD Permitting Public Involvement 

Requirements.

12/29/12 

173–400–750 Revisions to PSD Permits ............... 12/29/12 Except: 

173–400–750(2) second sentence. 

B. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD 

Permits 

As discussed in the proposal, Ecology 

requested approval to exercise its 

authority to fully administer the PSD 

program with respect to those sources 

under Ecology’s permitting jurisdiction 

that have existing PSD permits issued 

by the EPA since August 7, 1977. 80 FR 

843, January 7, 2015. Upon the effective 

date of this approval of Ecology’s PSD 

program into the SIP, we transfer the 

EPA-issued PSD permits issued on and 

after August 7, 1977 to Ecology. The 

EPA retains authority to administer PSD 

permits issued by the EPA in 

Washington prior to August 7, 1977. Id. 

C. Scope of Final Action 

1. WAC 173–400–700 Through 173– 

400–750 

Under WAC 173–400–700, Ecology’s 

PSD regulations contained in WAC 173– 

400–700 through 173–400–750 apply 

statewide, except where a local clean air 

agency has received delegation of the 

Federal PSD program from the EPA or 

has a SIP-approved PSD program. At 

this time, no local clean air agencies in 

Washington have a delegated or SIPapproved PSD program. For the reasons 

provided in the preambles to the 

proposed and final notices of 

rulemaking, the EPA is therefore 

approving WAC 173–400–700 through 

173–400–750 to apply statewide, with 

the three exceptions described below. 

For the following exceptions, the PSD 

FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 40 

CFR 52.21 will continue to apply, and 

the EPA will retain responsibility for 

issuing PSD permits to and 

implementing the Federal PSD program 

for such sources: 

a. Sources Under the Energy Facilities 

Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) 

Jurisdiction 

By statute, Ecology does not have 

authority to issue PSD permits to 

sources under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. 

See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code 

of Washington (RCW). Therefore, the 

EPA’s approval of Ecology’s PSD 

program, under WAC 173–400–700 

through 173–400–750, excludes projects 

under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. Such 

sources will continue to be subject to 

the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 

and 40 CFR 52.21, until such time that 

EFSEC’s PSD rules are approved into 

the SIP. 

b. CO2 Emissions From Industrial 

Combustion of Biomass 

As discussed above, under a provision 

contained in RCW 70.235.020, 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Reductions—Reporting Requirements, 

Ecology is statutorily barred from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

regulating certain GHG emissions. As a 

result, the EPA is retaining a FIP under 

40 CFR 52.21 and will issue partial PSD 

permits to ensure that major sources in 

Washington have a means to satisfy the 

CAA construction permit requirements 

for GHGs when CO2 emissions from the 

industrial combustion of biomass in 

Washington are not being considered or 

regulated by Ecology under its PSD 

rules. Because Ecology does have 

authority to carry out all PSD 

requirements for GHGs except for 

sources permitted to engage in the 

industrial combustion of biomass, the 

EPA is approving Ecology’s regulations 

as part of the Washington PSD SIP for 

such purposes. 

c. Sources in Certain Areas of Indian 

Country 

Excluded from the scope of this final 

approval of Ecology’s PSD program are 

all Indian reservations in the State, 

except as specifically noted below, and 

any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. Sources on such 

lands will continue to be subject to the 

PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2497 and 

40 CFR 52.21. 

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 exterior boundaries of the Puyallup 

Indian Reservation (also known as the 

1873 Survey Area) and the EPA is 

therefore proposing to approve 

Ecology’s PSD regulations into the SIP 

with respect to such lands. 

d. Scope of PSD FIP in Washington 

Consistent with the limitations on the 

scope of the EPA’s final approval of 

WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400– 

750 in the Washington SIP, the EPA 

retains, but significantly narrows, the 

scope of the current PSD FIP codified at 

40 CFR 52.2497. The EPA will continue 

to implement the current PSD FIP as 

provided in III.C.1.a., b., and c. of this 

document. 

2. WAC 173–400–116 and 173–400–117 

With respect to the EPA’s approval of 

WAC 173–400–116 and WAC 173–400– 

117, the SIP-approved provisions of 

WAC 173–400–020 govern jurisdictional 

applicability for those sections. WAC 

173–400–020 states, ‘‘[t]he provisions of 

this chapter shall apply statewide, 

except for specific subsections where a 

local authority has adopted and 

implemented corresponding local rules 

that apply only to sources subject to 

local jurisdiction as provided under 

RCW 70.94.141 and 70.94.331.’’ Because 

Ecology will be the only authority in 

Washington with a SIP-approved PSD 

program that would implement WAC 

173–400–116, Increment Protection, the 

EPA’s approval of WAC 173–400–116 

applies statewide, with the two 

exceptions discussed below. Similarly, 

the scope of our approval of WAC 173– 

400–117, Special Protection 

Requirements for Federal Class I Areas, 

applies statewide for PSD permits 

issued by Ecology under WAC 173–400– 

700 through 173–400–750, noting the 

two exceptions discussed below. 

However, for visibility-related elements 

associated with permits issued under 

the major NNSR program, the 

applicability of WAC 173–400–117 is 

more complicated because local clean 

air agencies have the authority under 

state law to have alternative, but no less 

stringent, permitting requirements. 

Therefore, consistent with the EPA’s 

November 7, 2014 approval of Ecology’s 

major NNSR program, our approval of 

WAC 173–400–117, as it relates to 

NNSR permits issues under WAC 173– 

400–800 through 173–400–860, is 

limited to only those counties or sources 

where Ecology has direct jurisdiction. 

The counties where Ecology has direct 

jurisdiction are: Adams, Asotin, Chelan, 

Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, 

Garfield, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, 

Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, San 

Juan, Stevens, Walla Walla, and 

Whitman Counties, with the two 

exceptions discussed below. The EPA 

also notes that under the SIP-approved 

provisions of WAC 173–405–012, WAC 

173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012, 

Ecology has statewide, direct 

jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite 

pulping mills, and primary aluminum 

plants, excluding certain areas of Indian 

country as discussed further. The EPA 

is therefore approving WAC 173–400– 

117 in all areas of the state under 

Ecology’s jurisdiction for those specified 

source categories. 

For the following exceptions the 

visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2498 

will continue to apply and the EPA will 

retain responsibility for issuing 

visibility permits for such sources: 

a. Sources Under the Energy Facilities 

Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) 

Jurisdiction 

By State statute, Ecology does not 

have authority to issue permits to 

sources under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. 

See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code 

of Washington (RCW). Therefore, the 

EPA’s approval of WAC 173–400–116 

and 173–400–117 excludes projects 

under the jurisdiction of EFSEC. Such 

sources will continue to be subject to 

the visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR 

52.2498, until such time that EFSEC’s 

corollaries to WAC 173–400–116 and 

173–400–117 are approved into the SIP. 

b. Sources in Certain Areas of Indian 

Country 

Excluded from the scope of this final 

approval of the visibility permitting 

program are all Indian reservations in 

the State, except as specifically noted 

below, and any other area where the 

EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 

that a tribe has jurisdiction. Sources on 

such lands will continue to be subject 

to the visibility FIP codified at 40 CFR 

52.2498. 

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 exterior boundaries of the Puyallup 

Indian Reservation (also known as the 

1873 Survey Area) and the EPA is 

therefore proposing to approve 

Ecology’s visibility regulations into the 

SIP with respect to such lands for those 

facilities where Ecology has direct 

jurisdiction. 

c. Scope of Visibility FIP in Washington 

Consistent with the limitations on the 

scope of our approval of Ecology’s major 

NNSR program (79 FR at 43349), the 

EPA retains, but significantly narrows, 

the scope of the current visibility FIP 

codified at 40 CFR 52.2498. 

D. The EPA’s Oversight Role 

As discussed in the proposal, 80 FR 

at 845, in approving state new source 

review rules into SIPs, the EPA has a 

responsibility to ensure that all states 

properly implement their SIP-approved 

preconstruction permitting programs. 

The EPA’s approval of Ecology’s PSD 

rules does not divest the EPA of the 

responsibility to continue appropriate 

oversight to ensure that permits issued 

by Ecology are consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA, Federal 

regulations, and the SIP. The EPA’s 

authority to oversee permit program 

implementation is set forth in sections 

113, 167, and 505(b) of the CAA. For 

example, section 167 provides that the 

EPA shall issue administrative orders, 

initiate civil actions, or take whatever 

other action may be necessary to 

prevent the construction or modification 

of a major stationary source that does 

not ‘‘conform to the requirements of’’ 

the PSD program. Similarly, section 

113(a)(5) of the CAA provides for 

administrative orders and civil actions 

whenever the EPA finds that a state ‘‘is 

not acting in compliance with’’ any 

requirement or prohibition of the CAA 

regarding the construction of new 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23727 

sources or modification of existing 

sources. Likewise, section 113(a)(1) 

provides for a range of enforcement 

remedies whenever the EPA finds that 

a person is in violation of an applicable 

implementation plan. 

In making judgments as to what 

constitutes compliance with the CAA 

and regulations issued thereunder, the 

EPA looks to (among other sources) its 

prior interpretations regarding those 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

and policies for implementing them. It 

follows that state actions implementing 

the Federal CAA that do not conform to 

the CAA may lead to potential oversight 

action by the EPA. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology regulations listed in section 

II.A. Rules Approved and Incorporated 

by Reference into the SIP of this 

preamble. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES 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 

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 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 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); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 the Puyallup Tribe in a 

letter dated February 25, 2014. The EPA 

did not receive a request for 

consultation. 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 29, 2015. 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 13, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons stated 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. Section 52.2470 is amended in 

paragraph (c), Table 2—Additional 

Regulations Approved for Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) Direct 

Jurisdiction by: 

■ a. Revising the heading; 

■ b. Revising the entries 173–400–036, 

173–400–110, 173–400–111, 173–400– 

112, and 173–400–113; 

■ c. Adding in numerical order entries 

for 173–400–116 and 173–400–117; 

■ d. Revising the entries 173–400–171 

and 173–400–560; 

■ e. Adding in numerical order entries 

for 173–400–700, 173–400–710, 173– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

400–720, 173–400–730, 173–400–740, 

and 173–400–750; and 

■ f. Removing the footnote at end of 

Table 2. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

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, WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 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 

*******

173–400–036 .. Relocation of Portable Sources.12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

*******

173–400–110 .. New Source Review 

(NSR) for Sources 

and Portable 

Sources.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

173–400–110(1)(c)(ii)(C); 

173–400–110(1)(e); 173–400–110(2)(d); 

The part of WAC 173–400–110(4)(b)(vi) that says, 

• ‘‘not for use with materials containing toxic air pollutants, as 

listed in chapter 173–460 WAC,’’; 

The part of 400–110 (4)(e)(iii) that says, 

• ‘‘where toxic air pollutants as defined in chapter 173–460 WAC 

are not emitted’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(e)(f)(i) that says, 

• ‘‘that are not toxic air pollutants listed in chapter 173–460 

WAC’’; 

The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xviii) that says, 

• ‘‘, to the extent that toxic air pollutant gases as defined in 

chapter 173–460 WAC are not emitted’’; 

The part of 400–110 (4)(h)(xxxiii) that says, 

• ‘‘where no toxic air pollutants as listed under chapter 173–460 

WAC are emitted’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxiv) that says, 

• ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 

173–460 WAC’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxv) that says, 

• ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants’’; 

The part of 400–110(4)(h)(xxxvi) that says, 

• ‘‘or ≤ 1% (by weight) toxic air pollutants as listed in chapter 

173–460 WAC’’; 

400–110(4)(h)(xl), second sentence; and 

The last row of the table in 173–400–110(5)(b) regarding exemption levels for Toxic Air Pollutants. 

173–400–111 .. Processing Notice of 

Construction Applications for 

Sources, Stationary Sources 

and Portable 

Sources.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

173–400–111(3)(h); 

173–400–111(3)(i); 

The part of 173–400–111(8)(a)(v) that says, 

• ‘‘and 173–460–040,’’; and 

173–400–111(9). 

173–400–112 .. Requirements for 

New Sources in 

Nonattainment 

Areas—Review for 

Compliance with 

Regulations.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

173–400–112(8). 

173–400–113 .. New Sources in Attainment or 

Unclassifiable 

Areas—Review for 

Compliance with 

Regulations.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

173–400–113(3), second sentence. 

173–400–116 .. Increment Protection 9/10/11 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23729 

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, WAC 173–405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC 173–415–012] 

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

173–400–117 .. Special Protection 

Requirements for 

Federal Class I 

Areas.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

*******

173–400–171 .. Public Notice and 

Opportunity for 

Public Comment.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [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’’; and 

173–400–171(12). 

*******

173–400–560 .. General Order of Approval.12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

The part of 173–400–560(1)(f) that says, 

‘‘173–460 WAC’’. 

173–400–700 .. Review of Major Stationary Sources of 

Air Pollution.

4/1/11 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

173–400–710 .. Definitions ................ 12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

173–400–720 .. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD).

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

173–400–720(4)(a)(i–iv); 173–400–720(4)(b)(iii)(C); and 173– 

400–720(4)(a)(vi) with respect to the incorporation by reference of the text in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), 52.21(i)(5)(i), and 

52.21(k)(2). 

173–400–730 .. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Application Processing Procedures.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

173–400–740 .. PSD Permitting Public Involvement 

Requirements.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

173–400–750 .. Revisions to PSD 

Permits.

12/29/12 04/29/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Except: 

173–400–750(2) second sentence. 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2497 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2497 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

(a) The requirements of sections 160 

through 165 of the Clean Air Act are not 

fully met because the plan does not 

include approvable procedures for 

preventing the significant deterioration 

of air quality from: 

(1) Facilities subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site 

Evaluation Council pursuant to Chapter 

80.50 Revised Code of Washington 

(RCW); 

(2) Facilities with carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass in the following 

circumstances: 

(i) Where a new major stationary 

source or major modification would be 

subject to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements for 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) under § 52.21, 

but would not be subject to PSD under 

the state implementation plan (SIP) 

because CO2 emissions from the 

industrial combustion of biomass are 

excluded from consideration as GHGs as 

a matter of state law under RCW 

70.235.020(3); or 

(ii) Where a new major stationary 

source or major modification is subject 

to PSD for GHGs under both the 

Washington SIP and the FIP, but CO2

emissions from the industrial 

combustion of biomass are excluded 

from consideration in the Ecology PSD 

permitting process because of the 

exclusion in RCW 70.235.020(3); 

(3) Indian reservations in Washington, 

except for non-trust land within the 

exterior boundaries of the Puyallup 

Indian Reservation (also known as the 

1873 Survey Area) as provided in the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement 

Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction; and 

(4) Sources subject to PSD permits 

issued by the EPA prior to August 7, 

1977, but only with respect to the 

general administration of any such 

permits still in effect (e.g., 

modifications, amendments, or 

revisions of any nature). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Regulations for preventing 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

The provisions of § 52.21, except 

paragraph (a)(1), are hereby 

incorporated and made a part of the 

applicable plan for Washington for the 

facilities, emission sources, geographic 

areas, and permits listed in paragraph 

(a) of this section. For situations 

addressed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 

section, the EPA will issue a Federal 

PSD permit under § 52.21 to the new 

major stationary source or major 

modification addressing PSD 

requirements applicable to GHGs for all 

subject emission units at the source, 

regardless of whether CO2 emissions 

resulted from the industrial combustion 

of biomass or from other sources of 

GHGs at the facility. For situations 

addressed in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section, the EPA will issue a Federal 

PSD permit under § 52.21 addressing 

PSD requirements applicable to GHGs 

for each subject emissions unit that is 

permitted to emit CO2 from the 

industrial combustion of biomass. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 52.2498 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2498 Visibility protection. 

(a) The requirements of section 169A 

of the Clean Air Act are not fully met 

because the plan does not include 

approvable procedures for visibility new 

source review for: 

(1) Facilities subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site 

Evaluation Council pursuant to Chapter 

80.50 Revised Code of Washington; 

(2) Sources subject to the jurisdiction 

of local air authorities; 

(3) Indian reservations in Washington 

except for non-trust land within the 

exterior boundaries of the Puyallup 

Indian Reservation (also known as the 

1873 Survey Area) as provided in the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement 

Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. 

(b) Regulations for visibility new 

source review. The provisions of § 52.28 

are hereby incorporated and made a part 

of the applicable plan for Washington 

for the facilities, emission sources, and 

geographic areas listed in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–09889 Filed 4–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0418; FRL–9925–78] 

Phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6- 

dodecyl-4-methyl-; Exemption From 

the Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of phenol, 2-(2Hbenzotriazol-2-yl)-6-dodecyl-4-methyl- 

(CAS Reg. No. 23328–53–2) to allow its 

use on all growing crops as an inert 

ingredient (ultraviolet (UV) stabilizer) at 

a maximum concentration of 10% in 

pesticide formulations, Loveland 

Products Inc., submitted a petition to 

EPA under the Federal Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation 

eliminates the need to establish a 

maximum permissible level for residues 

of phenol, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6- 

dodecyl-4-methyl-. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

29, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 29, 2015, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0418, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Director, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (703) 305–7090; 

email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.

gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/

ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g), 

21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2014–0418 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before June 29, 2015. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2014–0418, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES