[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29369-29377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10228]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0057; FRL-10007-86-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate
Transport Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Oregon as meeting
certain Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA proposes to find that
emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0057 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.)
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments
or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on
the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on
[[Page 29370]]
making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires that, after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states
must submit SIPs to meet applicable infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these elements, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will cause
certain impacts on other states. These interstate transport
requirements of the CAA are also known as ``good neighbor''
requirements.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components,
commonly referred to as prongs. The first two prongs, codified at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions
which prohibit emissions in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in any other state (prong 1) and
from interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in any other
state (prong 2). The second two prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions which
prohibit emissions in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other state
(prong 3) and from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
any other state (prong 4).
On October 20, 2015, Oregon submitted a SIP to address prongs 1 and
2 of the good neighbor requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS along with the other infrastructure requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA approved the October 20, 2015 Oregon submission as
it relates to other requirements in final rulemakings published May
16, 2016 (81 FR 30181), May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24034), and September
18, 2018 (83 FR 47073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
In this action, the EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, discussed in more
detail in section III of this document. For this reason, we have
included a brief summary of the EPA's designations process for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, the EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. The EPA has
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states,
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar
formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment
areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule,
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility
in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to
issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within
two years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the
Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations
by that deadline, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for
completing designations by up to one year.
The EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA completed the first
round of designations (``round 1'') \3\ for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). The EPA signed Federal Register documents
of promulgation for round 2 designations \4\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR
45039, July 12, 2016) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870, December
13, 2016), and round 3 designations \5\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR
1098, January 9, 2018).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
\4\ The EPA and state documents and public comments related to
the round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov
with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at the EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\5\ The EPA and state documents and public comments related to
round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at the EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\6\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires the
EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the
EPA's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31,
2020 (``round 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), the EPA separately promulgated
air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by the EPA or state air
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. The EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by
December 31, 2020 (``round 4'').
In round 3 of designations, the EPA designated Morrow County and
all other areas in Oregon as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.\7\ There are no remaining areas within
Oregon that have yet to be designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/34-or-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29371]]
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike
the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone,
in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to
the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in
localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However,
ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly
with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties
and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of
SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches adopted by the EPA
for ozone and PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused and
the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the
source to serve as a model for SO2 transport. SO2
transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, the EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the
physical properties of SO2, the EPA selected the ``urban
scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources--given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.\8\ As such,
the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order
to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III of this document, the EPA first
reviewed Oregon's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the
transport of SO2 to other states, the types of information
used in the analysis and the conclusions drawn by the State. The EPA
then conducted a weight of evidence analysis, including review of
Oregon's submission and other available information, including air
quality, emission sources and emission trends within the State and in
bordering states to which it could potentially contribute or
interfere.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality
status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any
NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the
EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times.
Future available information may include, and is not limited to,
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the
SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015)
and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and
third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
On May 12, 2015, Oregon submitted a revision to the Oregon SIP
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Oregon conducted a weight of evidence
analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the State
adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Oregon's analysis included a
review of: SO2 emissions source categories; downwind
monitoring sites that are potential receptors in neighboring states;
industrial point sources located near the border with neighboring
states; and SIP-approved controls that limit SO2 emissions
from existing and future Oregon sources. Oregon concluded that
SO2 emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
The EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining
which sources and emissions activities in Oregon are likely to impact
downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources,
that is updated every three years using information provided by the
states and other information available to the EPA. The EPA evaluated
data from the 2014 NEI, the most recently available, complete, and
quality assured dataset of the NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the submission, Oregon assessed SO2 emissions source
categories in the State using 2011 NEI data, which was the most recent,
complete data at the time the submission was developed. Oregon found
that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust fossil
fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State. Smaller
sources include processes to extract metal from ore and the combustion
of sulfur-containing fuels in locomotives, ships, and non-road
equipment.\11\ Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial
facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for
SO2 emissions from industrial point sources in the State to
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See page 26 of the Oregon State Implementation Plan
Revision, Attachment C, Addressing the Interstate Transport of
Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead, Fine Particulate Matter,
dated May 12, 2015, in the docket for this action (the submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's review of more recent NEI data confirms the State's
findings. We note that the EPA released a complete set of NEI data for
2014 addressing all source categories. However, the EPA has, to date,
released a limited set of emissions data for 2017 addressing stationary
sources only. Because the data for 2014 are complete, we reviewed and
summarized 2014 NEI data in Table 1 of this document. The data indicate
that the majority of SO2 emissions in Oregon originate from
fuel combustion at either electric utilities or other stationary
sources such as industrial boilers, in addition to industrial and other
processes. These source categories account for approximately 90% of
SO2 emissions in 2014, therefore, we find it reasonable to
focus our evaluation on potential downwind impacts of SO2
emissions from stationary fuel combustion or industrial point sources
in Oregon, consistent with the State's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We derived the emissions information from the EPA's web
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Oregon \12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
Source category (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile--non-road........................................ 471
Mobile--on-road......................................... 307
Fuel combustion--electric generation.................... 7,535
Fuel combustion--other.................................. 2,607
[[Page 29372]]
Industrial and other processes.......................... 1,604
---------------
Total............................................... 12,524
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information detailed in sections III.C.1 through 3 and
III.D of this document (available data on emissions sources and
emissions trends, ambient air quality data, and permit requirements,
available dispersion modeling results, and enforceable regulations) we
propose that it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 sources
in Oregon will not contribute significantly to nonattainment (prong 1
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). We
evaluate each prong separately, as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires SIPs to prohibit
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another state. Oregon asserts in its SIP submission that
emissions from Oregon will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard. To evaluate Oregon's satisfaction of prong 1,
the EPA assessed the State's SIP submission with respect to the
following information: (1) SO2 emissions information from
Oregon and neighboring state sources; (2) SO2 ambient air
quality for Oregon and neighboring states; and (3) Analysis of Permit
Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and Source-Specific Controls. A
detailed discussion of Oregon's SIP submission with respect to each of
these points follows.\13\ As a result of our analysis of this
information, we believe that the following factors indicate emissions
from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in any other state and
thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state: (1) The
combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Oregon
and neighboring states and the downward trend in monitored
concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of
the identified sources of SO2 emissions in Oregon and
neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2 emissions
from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for specific
SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls
that limit SO2 emissions from current and future sources.
The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the time of
this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA's
proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon's sources
emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state
are at distances that make it unlikely that these SO2
emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the
neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the
downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for
air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting
SO2 emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's
proposed conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The EPA has reviewed Oregon's submission, and where new or
more current information has become available, is including this
information as part of the EPA's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
As discussed in section II of this document, Oregon assessed
SO2 emissions source categories using 2011 NEI data. Oregon
found that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust
fossil fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State.
Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial facilities,
Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for SO2
emissions from industrial point sources in the State to contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
Oregon's submission also included an analysis of specific sources
located near the Oregon border. The State focused its evaluation on
three large facilities located near the border with Washington, that
are also listed in Table 3 of this document: The Boardman Plant, the
Wauna Mill, and the Owens-Brockway Glass facility.
b. EPA Analysis
The EPA also analyzed SO2 emissions trends in Oregon.
Between 2002 and 2014, SO2 emissions from Oregon sources
were reduced significantly. NEI data summarized in Table 2 of this
document illustrate this trend. SO2 emissions from Oregon
sources fell approximately 72% overall, and emissions from specific
source categories also declined over this time period. These trends are
due in part to the combustion of lower sulfur content fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We derived the emissions trends information from the EPA's
web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
Table 2--SO2 Emission Trends in Oregon (tons) \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
Source category 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2002-2014 (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile--non-road........................................ 12,470 5,746 2,058 340 471 96
Mobile--on-road......................................... 3,760 1,796 532 333 307 92
Fuel combustion--electric generation.................... 12,344 452 11,410 13,169 7,535 40
Fuel combustion--other.................................. 10,142 12,911 1,739 3,164 2,607 74
Industrial and other processes.......................... 6,341 14,103 3,573 4,046 1,604 75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 45,057 35,008 19,312 21,052 12,524 72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29373]]
Emissions trends, while important, do not by themselves demonstrate
that sources in Oregon will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in neighboring states.
As discussed in section II of this document, the EPA finds it
appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources
in Oregon in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility,
based on the ``urban scale'' definition contained in appendix D to 40
CFR part 58, section 4.4. Therefore, we reviewed NEI data for Oregon
point sources with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy \15\
in 2017 that are located up to 50 km from State borders, as summarized
in the following table, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We have limited our analysis to Oregon sources emitting at
least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of special
factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or
unusual physical factors, Oregon sources emitting less than 100 tpy
can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.
Table 3--SO2 Emissions Trends at Oregon Sources Within 50 km of Border \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance *
Source name (km) 2008 (tons) 2011 (tons) 2014 (tons) 2017 (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Power 17 11,303 13,103 7,439 3,298
Plant (Boardman Plant).........
Georgia-Pacific Consumer 1 858 707 571 540
Products LP (Wauna Mill).......
Portland International Airport.. 2 96 115 125 215
EP Minerals, LLC................ 33 1 141 66 182
Owens-Brockway Glass Container 4 142 119 119 118
Inc. (Owens-Brockway Glass)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.
The EPA assessed this information to evaluate whether the
SO2 emissions from these sources could interact with
SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring state
in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. The following Table 4 lists the
five sources in Oregon that emitted greater than 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State's
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ We derived the emissions information from the EPA's web
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Table 4--Oregon SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 tpy Near Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearest
Approximate neighboring
2017 annual Approximate Closest distance to state SO2
Oregon source SO2 emissions distance to neighboring nearest source & 2017
(tons) Oregon Border state neighboring emissions
(km) state SO2 (>100 tons SO2)
source (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric 3,298 17 Washington...... 83 Boise Paper
Power Plant (Boardman Plant). (885 tons).
Georgia-Pacific Consumer 540 1 Washington...... 33 Nippon Dynawave
Products LP (Wauna Mill). Packaging Co.
(390 tons).
Portland International 215 2 Washington...... 61 Longview Fibre
Airport.. Paper and
Packaging,
Inc. (198
tons).
EP Minerals, LLC............. 182 33 Idaho........... 286 The Amalgamated
Sugar Company
LLC--Twin
Falls (635
tons).
Owens-Brockway Glass 118 4 Washington...... 66 Longview Fibre
Container Inc. (Owens- Paper and
Brockway Glass). Packaging,
Inc.
(198 tons).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only one source emitting greater than 100 tpy in Oregon located
within 50 km of the State border is also within 50 km of a source also
emitting greater than 100 tpy in a neighboring state. The Georgia
Pacific Wauna Mill facility (discussed in the following paragraphs) is
located 1 km from the State border and 33 km from the nearest out-of-
state source emitting greater than 100 tpy, Nippon Dynawave Packaging
in Washington. The EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km
between all remaining Oregon sources and the nearest out-of-state
source make it unlikely that SO2 emissions from these Oregon
sources could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-
state sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Washington and Idaho. Further discussion of all Oregon
sources in Table 4 can be found in section III.C.2.b of this document.
2. Ambient Air Quality Data Analysis
a. State Submission
In its submission, Oregon identified SO2 monitoring
sites in the neighboring states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and
Washington that are most likely to be impacted by SO2
emissions from sources in Oregon. The submission lists each
SO2 monitoring site considered to be a potential downwind
receptor and the most recent monitoring data at the receptor.\17\
Oregon found that the 2011-2013 design value \18\ at each identified
receptor was well below the 2010 1-
[[Page 29374]]
hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb) and that SO2 emissions
from Oregon were therefore not significantly contributing to
nonattainment in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See page 14 (Table 2) of the submission.
\18\ The design value is a statistical representation of
SO2 in ambient air based on the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations,
measures in parts per billion (ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
The EPA also evaluated ambient air quality data in Oregon and
neighboring states to determine whether there were any monitoring
sites, particularly near the Oregon border, with elevated
SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission
sources in Oregon. We reviewed the most recent SO2
monitoring data available from the EPA's Air Quality System for the
following set of receptors: (1) All monitors in Oregon; (2) the monitor
with the highest design value in each neighboring state; (3) the
monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Oregon border;
and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the
Oregon border.
The following table, Table 5, shows that the Multnomah County,
Oregon monitoring site is the only SO2 monitor in Oregon and
is within 50 km of the Oregon border. The most recent design value at
this monitor, for the years 2016-2018, is 3 ppb. This design value is
well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb). In addition,
all monitors identified in neighboring states are below the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ We compiled the monitoring data from the EPA's web page
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
Table 5--SO2 Design Values for Monitors in Oregon and Neighboring States \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance * 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018
State/county Site ID (km) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California/Contra Costa......... 060131001 433 14 14 16
California/Humboldt............. 060231004 135 1 1 1
Idaho/Ada....................... 160010010 55 4 3 3
Idaho/Pocatello................. 160050004 366 39 38 38
Nevada/Clark.................... 320030540 668 7 6 6
Nevada/Washoe................... 320310016 275 5 5 5
Oregon/Multnomah................ 410510080 12 3 3 3
Washington/Skagit............... 530570011 327 5 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.
These air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any
particular location that would warrant further investigation with
respect to SO2 emissions sources that might contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the neighboring states. Because the
monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of
high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an
absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient
evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the
neighboring states.
3. Analysis of Permit Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and Source-
Specific Controls
As previously discussed, Oregon identified three sources (Boardman
Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the Owens-Brockway Glass facility), for
which the State reviewed existing permitting information and available
dispersion modeling, in addition to SIP-approved controls that apply to
the sources to limit SO2 emissions. In the following
paragraphs, we have summarized the source-specific analysis in the
State's submission followed by the EPA's supplemental analysis where
necessary or where new information became available after the
submission was developed.
a. State Submission
i. Boardman Plant
The Boardman Plant is a 575-megawatt coal-fired power plant
operated by Portland General Electric, located approximately 17 km from
the border with Washington. In its submission, Oregon stated that the
Boardman Plant is subject to SIP-approved SO2 controls
established to meet regional haze planning requirements for Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (76 FR 38997, July 5, 2011). The
SIP requires the Boardman Plant to cease burning coal by December 31,
2020 and requires the use of dry sorbent injection controls to further
limit SO2 emissions from the plant during the time period
leading up to the shutdown date (2018 through 2020). Based on this
information, Oregon concluded that SO2 emissions from the
Boardman Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
In its submission, Oregon evaluated permit information for the
Wauna Mill including the air quality analysis conducted during the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting process for
the facility. A PSD air quality analysis assesses the predicted impacts
to ambient air associated with the construction and operation of a
proposed major source or major modification. The analysis is designed
to determine whether new emissions from a proposed major stationary
source or major modification, in conjunction with other applicable
emissions from existing sources (competing sources), will or will not
cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS. PSD
dispersion modeling is conducted at a 50 km range and includes any
portion of the range that may extend into neighboring states. In its
submission, Oregon stated that a review of the modeling concluded
predicted impacts from the Wauna Mill to ambient air were not expected
to cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS within
Oregon or in neighboring states.
iii. Owens-Brockway Glass
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon,
4 km from the border with Washington. Oregon's submission stated that
Owens-Brockway Glass was evaluated during PSD analyses for other major
source permitting actions.\20\ Oregon reviewed the permitting analyses
and stated that the analyses demonstrated the proposed source's
emissions considered in conjunction with the emissions from Owens-
Brockway Glass and other
[[Page 29375]]
sources in the area do not cause or contribute to a violation of any
applicable NAAQS within the 50-km area evaluated. Oregon concluded that
this source will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See page 26 of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
i. Boardman Plant
In accordance with the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule,
Oregon characterized the Boardman Plant by conducting air dispersion
modeling. Oregon modeled the area using a receptor grid that extended
50 km from the source (which extended into the neighboring State of
Washington). Oregon's modeling accounted for allowable potential
emissions from the Boardman Plant and 11 other Oregon SO2
emissions sources in the area. The State submitted the resulting model
data to the EPA and indicated that Oregon found no modeled exceedances
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman
Plant. The maximum modeled concentration was found to be 73 ppb and was
projected to occur southeast of the Boardman Plant, in the opposite
direction of the border with Washington. The State recommended the EPA
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment.\21\ The EPA agreed and designated the entire State of
Oregon attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See designation technical support document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\22\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by the State and the additional
information available to the EPA, specifically the modeling results for
the area around the Boardman Plant, we propose to concur with the
State's conclusion that SO2 emissions from the Boardman
Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
The Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill) is in
Clatskanie, Oregon and is located within 50 km of the Oregon border and
within 50 km of two SO2 sources emitting greater than 100
tpy in Longview, Washington. Elevated levels of SO2, to
which SO2 emitted in Oregon may have a downwind impact, are
most likely to be found near such sources. Therefore, we believe it is
appropriate to further review permit information for the Wauna Mill and
SIP-approved provisions that limit SO2 emissions from the
Wauna Mill, which we have summarized in the following paragraphs.
In 2010, the Wauna Mill was evaluated as part of the Oregon
Regional Haze Plan and determined to be a BART-eligible source. The
Wauna Mill underwent BART analysis by Oregon and elected to take
federally enforceable SO2 limits to comply with BART
requirements promulgated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and
approved by the EPA as part of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.\23\ The
limits were added to the facility's title V operating permit, and to
achieve the limits, the mill permanently reduced the use of fuel oil
and limited production rates.\24\ Emissions at the Wauna Mill, as shown
in Table 3 of this document, are declining. Based on this information
and the information provided by the State, the EPA believes it is
reasonable to conclude that the Wauna Mill will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in Washington or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Oregon Regional Haze Plan submitted on December 20,
2010, approved by the EPA on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38897).
\24\ See title V operating permit number 04-0004-TV-01, issued
June 18, 2009 and modified on December 2, 2010, available online at:
https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Portland International Airport
The Portland International Airport is located approximately 2 km
from the border with Washington. Oregon's submission did not
specifically address the airport; therefore, we have conducted our own
evaluation. In 2017, SO2 emissions at the airport totaled
approximately 215 tons, as shown in Table 4 of this document. While
these emissions are greater than some of the industrial point sources
evaluated, it is important to distinguish SO2 emissions at
an airport from those at a typical industrial point source, in part
because airport-related emissions tend to be spread across large areas
and operations, including emissions from airplanes departing from and
arriving at the airport and support vehicles that service airplanes and
transport passengers.
The distance between Portland International Airport and the nearest
out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tons, Longview Fibre
Paper and Packaging, Inc. in Longview, Washington, is 61 km. In 2017,
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., emitted 198 tons of
SO2. Based on the distance between these sources, it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from Portland International
Airport could interact with SO2 emissions from Longview
Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., in such a way as to impact a violation
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from
Portland International Airport will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington or
any other state.
iv. EP Minerals Inc.
EP Minerals Inc. operates a diatomaceous earth processing plant in
Vale, Oregon, approximately 33 km from the Idaho border. The source
emitted approximately 182 tons of SO2 in 2017, as shown in
Table 4 of this document. The State submission did not address this
source therefore, we have supplemented the State's review with the
following assessment. EP Minerals Inc. is a title V major stationary
source with kilns and dryers subject to SO2 emission
limits.\25\ The source is subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, as a condition of operating the source. In
addition, SIP-approved sulfur-in-fuel limits apply, as well as Federal
Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Title V operating permit number 23-0032-TV-01, issued
September 29, 2017, available online at: https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The distance between EP Minerals Inc., and the nearest out-of-state
source emitting greater than 100 tons, the Amalgamated Sugar Company in
Twin Falls, Idaho, is 286 km. In 2017, the Amalgamated Sugar Company--
Twin Falls emitted 635 tons of SO2. Based on the distance
between these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions
from EP Minerals Inc., could interact with SO2 emissions
from the Amalgamated Sugar Company--Twin Falls in such a way as to
impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that
state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from EP Minerals Inc., will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in Idaho or any other state.
v. Owens-Brockway Glass
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon,
4 km from the border with Washington. The distance between Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc., and the nearest out-of-state source
emitting greater than 100 tons, the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., in Longview, Washington, is 66 km. In 2017, the Longview Fibre
Paper and Packaging,
[[Page 29376]]
Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on the distance between
these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc., could interact with SO2
emissions from the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc in such a
way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state.
vi. TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant
The TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant (TransAlta) in Lewis
County, Washington, is located approximately 66 km from the Oregon-
Washington state border. TransAlta is located approximately 78 km from
the nearest source in Oregon emitting greater than 100 tons, the Wauna
Mill, which was further discussed earlier. In 2017, TransAlta emitted
1,689 tons of SO2. TransAlta was required to be
characterized pursuant the DRR by the State of Washington. The State of
Washington elected to characterize the area around TransAlta through
air dispersion modeling. In Round 3 of SO2 designations, the
EPA determined the modeling supplied by Washington was not sufficient
to determine the area as in attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
designated Lewis and Thurston Counties in Washington as
unclassifiable.\26\ This unclassifiable area is approximately 22 km
from the Oregon-Washington border. Due to the distance between the
Wauna Mill and TransAlta, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions
from Wauna Mill could interact with SO2 emissions from
TransAlta in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from Wauna Mill
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Washington or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-wa-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, for prong 1, we believe that the following factors
indicate emissions from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in
any other state and thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend
in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative
analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions in
Oregon and neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2
emissions from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for
specific SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved
controls that limit SO2 emissions from current and future
sources. The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the
time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support
the EPA's proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in another state. In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for
Oregon's sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km
of another state are at distances that make it unlikely that these
SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions
from the neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the
downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for
air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting
SO2 emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's
proposed conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 for
purposes of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
1. Summary
Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of
the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas in other states
that are not violating the NAAQS. This evaluation is not limited to
only former nonattainment areas with EPA-approved maintenance plans,
but rather it focuses on any areas that may have trouble attaining and
maintaining the standard in the future. Our prong 2 evaluation for
Oregon builds on our analysis in the prior prong 1 evaluation,
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
Specifically, as described in our prong 1 evaluation and summarized in
Table 3 of this document, we have a sufficient basis to conclude that
there are no 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS violations in other
states near their shared borders with Oregon. Moreover, we have a
sufficient basis to conclude that SO2 emissions from sources
in Oregon are highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this
situation, given the SIP-approved controls limiting emissions from
large sources near the border.
2. Emissions Trends
Statewide SO2 emissions from Oregon sources have
decreased substantially over time, as shown in the preceding Table 2 of
this document.\27\ From 2002 to 2014, total statewide SO2
emissions decreased by approximately 72 percent. This trend of
decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that
areas in Oregon and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this
weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication
(when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states)
that such maintenance issues are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See additional emissions trends data at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. SIP-Approved New Source Review Program
The EPA notes that any future major sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by Oregon's SIP-approved PSD program.\28\
Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by
Oregon's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.\29\ The
EPA believes that the permitting regulations contained within these
programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of
SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of
new facility construction or modification occurring in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The EPA recently approved revisions to the Oregon new
source review permitting programs on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122).
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, for prong 2, we reviewed the technical information
considered for interstate transport prong 1, additional information
about emission trends, as well as the requirements of Oregon's SIP-
approved new source review program. We believe that the following
factors indicate emissions from Oregon will not interfere
[[Page 29377]]
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend
in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative
analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions; (3) the
downward trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon sources; (4)
available modeling information for specific SO2 point
sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls that limit
SO2 emissions from current and future sources. The EPA
proposes, based on the information available at the time of this
rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA's
proposed determination that Oregon will not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In
addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon's sources emitting
over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at
distances that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions
could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring
states' sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the downward trends in
SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for air quality
monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with federal
regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2
emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's proposed
conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 for purposes of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the October 20, 2015, Oregon SIP
submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing this approval based on our review of the
information and analysis provided by Oregon in the State's submission,
as well as additional relevant information, which indicates that in-
State air emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it 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 proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 7, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-10228 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P