Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0062-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Posted Date: 2020-07-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45146-45154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15399]

[[Page 45146]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-10009-70-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; WA; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State 
of Washington (Washington) demonstrating that the SIP meets certain 
Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-
hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS). In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that 
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission as meeting the 
interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, EPA Region 10 Air and 
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206)-553-
1185, chi.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA. Information 
is organized as follows:

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. State Submission
IV. EPA's Analysis
    A. Prong 1 Evaluation
    B. Prong 2 Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    On June 2, 2010, 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.\1\ The CAA requires each state to submit, within 3 
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the 
applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One 
of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions 
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states 
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly 
referred to as prongs, that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The first two prongs, codified at CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 
other state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the 
NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). The remaining prongs, codified at 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions that prohibit emissions activity 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).
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2 
portions of the Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission because, 
based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking, 
Washington demonstrated that it will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS in any other state. All other applicable infrastructure SIP 
requirements for this SIP submission will be addressed in separate 
rulemakings.

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

    In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail 
in Section III of this preamble. For this reason, a brief summary of 
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is 
included here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While designations may provide useful information for 
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that 
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind 
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. 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, 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 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, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing 
designations by up to one year.
    EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 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

[[Page 45147]]

states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). EPA signed Federal Register actions of 
promulgation for a second round of designations \4\ (``round 2'') June 
30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 
89870 (December 13, 2016)), and a third round of designations (``round 
3'') on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round 
of designations.''
    \4\ 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 EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \5\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires EPA 
to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the 
Agency'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), 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 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. EPA expected that the information 
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    In ``round 3'' of designations, EPA designated Lewis and Thurston 
counties in Washington as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Washington selected the monitoring pathway 
pursuant to the DRR for the areas surrounding two sources in Chelan and 
Douglas, and Whatcom counties. These areas will be designated in a 
fourth round of designations (``round 4'') by December 31, 2020. The 
remaining counties in Washington were designated as attainment/
unclassifiable in round 3.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that EPA has 
adopted for ozone or 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, 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, 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.\7\ As such, 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 
EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate 
transport of SO2, see EPA's proposal on Connecticut's 
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. State Submission

    On February 7, 2018, the Washington State Department of Ecology 
(Ecology) submitted a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
prongs 1 and 2, of the ``good neighbor'' provisions, for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS.\8\ The submission concluded that SO2 
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS in any other state. Washington arrived at this conclusion after 
(1) reviewing SO2 emissions sources, (2) identifying 
downwind monitoring sites as potential receptors in neighboring states, 
(3) conducting an emissions over distance (Q/D) analysis, (4) 
evaluating available SO2 modeling results for specific 
sources, and (5) reviewing the current SIP for existing federally-
approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from existing and 
future sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The February 7, 2018 SIP submission also addressed the 2015 
ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the ozone-related portion of the SIP 
submission on September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47568).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions Sources

    Washington reviewed preliminary 2014 emissions inventory data (the 
most recent data available at the time the submission was 
developed).\9\ Point sources, including electrical utilities and 
industrial sources, account for the largest anthropogenic sources of 
SO2 emissions as shown in Table 1. Washington's port and 
shipping activities account for the second highest source category, 
after point sources. Washington's conclusions about this source sector 
are also further discussed in a later section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In Section III of this preamble, we have reviewed more 
recent data released as part of the 2017 National Emissions 
Inventory.

   Table 1--Preliminary 2014 Emissions Inventory of Anthropogenic SO2
                       Sources in Washington \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                     Source category                       (short tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources...........................................          14,510
Commercial marine vessels...............................          11,316
Silvicultural burning...................................           1,177
Industrial, commercial, institutional combustion........           1,095
On-road mobile..........................................             591
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Receptors in Neighboring States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The top five categories and emissions numbers in table 1 
are re-printed from page 9 (Table 5) of the Washington State 
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide 
and Ozone, February 2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission identified SO2 monitoring sites in Idaho 
and Oregon, which are the only two states that border Washington. These 
monitoring sites were selected as downwind receptors and further 
evaluated for

[[Page 45148]]

potential impacts from Washington SO2 sources. The 
submission included a table of downwind receptor monitored values for 
2012 through 2016 (the most recent data available at the time the 
submission was developed). The data presented in Table 2 is the 99th 
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average 
concentrations at the identified receptors, in parts per billion (ppb).

           Table 2--99th Percentile for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at Identified Downwind Receptors (ppb) \11\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                       Site ID        2012       2013       2014       2015       2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada County, ID...........................       160010010          6         11          5          3          4
Bannock County, ID.......................       160050004         73         40         38         45         33
Caribou County, ID.......................       160290031         35         31         23         23         32
Multnomah County, OR.....................       410510080         10          5          3          4          3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission included a spatial analysis of these receptor 
locations relative to the Washington State border, and relative to 
stationary sources in Washington that are located within 50 kilometers 
(km) of each receptor. After mapping the identified downwind receptors, 
the Washington Department of Ecology found that the Multnomah County, 
Oregon receptor (Site ID 41051008), which is the National Core (NCore) 
site located in the Portland metropolitan area, warranted further 
analysis because (1) it is within 50 km of the Washington border and 
because (2) four Washington SO2 point sources are within a 
50-km radius of the Multnomah County receptor. The submission states 
that the sources within the 50-km radius are small (three of the four 
sources emitted less than 10 tons SO2 in 2014, and the 
fourth source emitted 17 tons in 2014). In addition, the Multnomah 
County receptor has historically monitored low 1-hour SO2 
99th percentile values, as shown in the prior table.
    Washington identified two Washington SO2 sources with 
annual emissions greater than 100 tons within 50 km of the Washington 
border. These two sources, Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre, 
are pulp and paper plants. Washington further evaluated these sources 
to assess whether they may have a potential impact on the Multnomah 
County receptor. The State reviewed monitoring data, local weather 
data, and regional emissions modeling and found it is reasonable to 
conclude that most of the SO2 monitored at the Multnomah 
County receptor originates within the Portland metropolitan area of 
Oregon.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The values in table 2 are re-printed from page 8 (Tables 3 
and 4) of the Washington State Implementation Plan Revision 
Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018, 
publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action. These are 99th 
percentile values, rounded to the nearest whole number.
    \12\ See page 13-14 of the Washington State Implementation Plan 
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington proceeded to conduct an emissions-to-distance analysis 
of point sources (including Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre) 
as described in the following section. Washington also reviewed 
SO2 emissions from commercial marine vessels operating at 
several Washington ports. Washington asserted that SO2 
emissions from western-Washington ports are not likely to impact the 
Multnomah County receptor (nor the Idaho receptors) in part because the 
ports are located over 50 km from the Oregon border and also because 
the port emissions are spread across large areas, vessels, and 
operations, as opposed to emissions from stationary point sources.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ibid.
    \14\ Ibid. Table was from the SIP submittal with added sources.
    \15\ Most recent emissions data available at the time the State 
developed the submission. In Section III of this preamble, we have 
reviewed more recent data released as part of the 2017 National 
Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions-to-Distance Analysis

    The submission included an emissions-to-distance (Q/D) analysis 
used to prioritize point sources with potential impact on the closest 
receptor in a neighboring state. Q/D is a common screening technique 
used to estimate potential visibility impacts for purposes of Regional 
Haze planning and to analyze predicted air quality impacts in the 
context of major stationary source permitting in areas designated 
attainment and unclassifiable (Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permitting). The submission included the following table of Q/D 
results.

                                                    Table 3--Emissions-to-Distance (Q/D) Results \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Distance     Distance      2014 SO2
                Facility                              Type                       County             to border   to receptor   (short tons)       Q/D
                                                                                                       (km)         (km)          \15\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TransAlta Centralia General LLC.........  Electricity Generation via   Lewis.....................           68          141           3,037         21.5
                                           Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works......  Primary Aluminum Plant.....  Whatcom...................          292          373           4,794         12.9
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Works....  Primary Aluminum Plan......  Chelan....................          164          281           2,935         10.5
Weyerhaeuser NR Company.................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Cowlitz...................            1           76             440          5.8
BP Cherry Point Refinery................  Petroleum Refinery.........  Whatcom...................          296          377             917          2.4
Longview Fibre..........................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Cowlitz...................            1           72             141          2.0
Boise Paper.............................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Walla Walla...............          150          100             186         1.85
RockTenn Mill Tacoma....................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Pierce....................          131          197             261          1.3
Cosmo Specialty Fibers..................  Pulp and Paper Plant.......  Grays Harbor..............           75          185             237          1.3
Puget Sound Refining Company............  Petroleum Refinery.........  Skagit....................          255          331             347          1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 45149]]

    The TransAlta Centralia Generation facility was the only source 
that exceeded Washington's threshold ratio of 20 for the Q/D analysis 
(Q/D = 21.5). As a result, it was the only source that Washington 
evaluated further following the Q/D analysis.

Available SO2 Modeling Results

    In the SIP submission, Washington explained their review of 
published modeling data for the TransAlta facility and indicated that 
the modeling showed limited SO2 impact outside of the 
immediate area of the facility.\16\ Washington also provided plume 
modeling data that indicated the facility's SO2 plume 
distributes toward the south but would not be expected to reach the 
area near the Multnomah County receptor in any significant 
concentration.\17\ Washington further explained that the facility has 
SO2 emissions at the facility of less than 1,350 pounds per 
hour as of December 15, 2016.\18\ Based on this information, Washington 
concluded that the TransAlta facility does not significantly contribute 
to SO2 emissions at the Multnomah County Receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See page 12 of the Washington State Implementation Plan 
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
    \17\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/ecologytechnicalreporttransaltaso2modelingresults2017.pdf.
    \18\ http://www.swcleanair.org/docs/permits/prelim/16-3202ADP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existing and Future SO2 Controls

    Washington reviewed current and future enforceable emission limits 
and controls that apply to SO2 sources in Washington. Most 
of the limits and control requirements referenced have been approved 
into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 52, subpart 
WW, including the SIP and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
requirements related to Regional Haze best available retrofit 
technology (BART). These provisions and others listed below are 
designed to limit SO2 emissions from existing and future 
sources in the State:

 40 CFR 52.2470(c) reasonably available control technology 
requirements (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.94.154 and Chapter 
173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC))
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) kraft pulp mill regulations (173-405 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) sulfite pulp mill regulations (173-410 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) primary aluminum smelter regulations (173-
415 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) pre-construction permitting (WAC 173-400-111 
and 720)
 40 CFR 52.2470(c) gasoline vapor and volatile organic compound 
emission regulations (173-490 and 491 WAC)
 40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for TransAlta Centralia 
(coal units BW21 and BW22 will permanently cease burning coal and be 
decommissioned by December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2025, 
respectively) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The submission references Southwest Clean Air Agency 
Regulatory Order 16-32 dated December 15, 2016. This regulatory 
order was not submitted for approval and is therefore not addressed 
in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for BP Cherry Point 
Refinery
 40 CFR 52.2500 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals 
Intalco Works
 40 CFR 52.2501 BART requirements for Tesoro Petroleum Refinery
 40 CFR 52.2502 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals 
Wenatchee Works

    Based on their analysis of monitoring and emissions data, the Q/D 
analysis, and current and future SO2 controls, Washington 
concluded that SO2 emissions from sources in Washington will 
not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, Washington 
requested EPA approval of the submission for purposes of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

IV. EPA's Analysis

    EPA first reviewed the Washington submission to assess how the 
State evaluated interstate transport of SO2, the types of 
information Washington used in the analysis, and the conclusions drawn 
by the State. We then conducted a weight of evidence analysis to 
determine if we agree with the State's conclusion that SO2 
emissions from sources in Washington will not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

A. Prong 1 Evaluation

    Washington's submission focused on one downwind receptor and a 
relatively limited source-oriented and spatial evaluation of potential 
transport based on an emissions-to-distance analysis. As a result of 
the emissions-to-distance analysis, Washington reviewed one source, 
TransAlta, for potential transport. TransAlta is located approximately 
70 km from the state border with Oregon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As mentioned in Section I.B of this preamble, EPA 
designated the area containing TransAlta, Lewis and Thurston 
counties in Washington, as Unclassifiable in Round 3 of 
SO2 designations. Washington submitted modeling for the 
area, however, EPA identified deficiencies with the modeling as the 
basis for the Unclassifiable designation. This Unclassifiable area 
boundary is within 50 km of the Washington state border, however, 
the only source emitting over 100 tpy in the area, TransAlta, is 
located more than 50 km from the state border. Given the distance 
between TransAlta and the state border, EPA did not evaluate this 
source further for potential transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has performed a supplemental analysis to more fully evaluate 
sources in Washington for potential transport to neighboring states. In 
our analysis we reviewed: (1) Emissions inventory data and emissions 
trends for point sources in Washington emitting greater than 100 tpy; 
(2) SO2 ambient air quality data; and (3) spatial analysis 
of point sources located within 50 km of the Washington state border.
1. Point Source Emissions Inventory Data
    First, we compiled a list of Washington point sources emitting over 
100 tons per year of SO2 according to the 2017 NEI. Then, we 
added 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI data, for reference, as listed in Table 
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 2011, 2014, and 2017 National Emissions Inventory data for 
point sources available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.

             Table 4--Trends in SO2 Emissions (Tons per Year) From Point Sources in Washington \21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                    Type              County          2008       2011       2014       2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco    Primary Aluminum   Whatcom..........      4,523      4,538      4,794      3,987
 Works.                          Plant.
TransAlta Centralia             Electricity        Lewis............      2,318      1,136      3,037      1,689
 Generation, LLC.                Generation via
                                 Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee  Primary Aluminum   Chelan...........      1,810      2,906      2,935  .........
 Works*.                         Plant.
BP Cherry Point Refinery......  Petroleum          Whatcom..........      1,764      1,007        917        808
                                 Refinery.

[[Page 45150]]

 
Boise Paper...................  Pulp and Paper     Wallula..........        780        793        186        885
                                 Plant.
Weyerhaeuser NR Company         Pulp and Paper     Cowlitz..........        512        582        440        390
 (Nippon Dynawave).              Plant.
Puget Sound Refining Company..  Petroleum          Skagit...........        450        359        347        225
                                 Refinery.
Longview Fibre................  Pulp and Paper     Cowlitz..........        281        202        141        197
                                 Plant.
WestRock Tacoma Mill..........  Pulp and Paper     Pierce...........        635        349        261        189
                                 Plant.
Cosmo Specialty Fibers........  Pulp and Paper     Grays Harbor.....         --        214        237        242
                                 Plant.
Sea-Tac International Airport.  Airport..........  King.............        192        243        261        506
Chemtrade.....................  Chemical Plant...  Skagit...........        123        155        215        203
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  .................  .................     13,388     12,484     13,771      9,321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Curtailed since 2015.

    The NEI data from 2008 to 2017 show decreases in SO2 
emissions from certain sources, including two petroleum refineries: BP 
Cherry Point and Puget Sound Refining Company. The data in Table 4 also 
show a mix of slight increases and decreases at some large pulp and 
paper plants and other sources categories.
2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality Data
    Information from SO2 monitors near the borders between 
Washington and its neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon is also 
useful context for evaluating whether the SIP submission from 
Washington satisfies prong 1. Tables 5 and 6 below summarize this 
SO2 monitoring information for monitors in Washington and 
the bordering states of Idaho and Oregon. We note that there are only 
two monitors within approximately 50 km of the Washington State border, 
and both monitors are located outside of the State (in Idaho and 
Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Data obtained on 11/13/2019 at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
    \23\ Data obtained on 4/16/2020 at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
    \24\ Data obtained from EPA's Outdoor Air Quality Database (11/
13/2019).

              Table 5--Trends in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         ~ Distance  to
       Site ID            Site name        border (km)       2013-2015          2014-2016          2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011...........  Anacortes-202 O               263  5................  5................  4
                       Ave.
530090013...........  Cheeka Peak......             240  2................  2................  1
                                                         incomplete.......                     incomplete
530730013...........  Ferndale-                     293  invalid..........  invalid..........  invalid
                       Kickerville Rd.
530730017...........  Ferndale-Mountain             294  invalid..........  invalid..........  invalid
                       View Rd.
530070012...........  Malaga-Malaga                 228  invalid..........  invalid..........  invalid
                       Highway.
530330080...........  Seattle-Beacon                167  6................  5................  6
                       Hill.                             incomplete.......  incomplete.......  incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
invalid = Insufficient data collected to determine a valid 3-year design value.

               Table 6--Trends in 99th Percentile Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   ~ Distance to
         Site ID                 Site name          border (km)        2017            2018            2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011................  Anacortes-202 O Ave..             263               3               2               3
530090013................  Cheeka Peak..........             240               1               1               1
530730013................  Ferndale-Kickerville              293              70              74              70
                            Rd*.
530730017................  Ferndale-Mountain                 294             114             101             105
                            View Rd*.
530070012................  Malaga-Malaga                     228               1               1               1
                            Highway**.
530330080................  Seattle-Beacon Hill..             167               6               8               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These two monitors are source-oriented monitors that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
  around Alcoa Intalco Works.
** This monitor is a source-oriented monitor that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
  around Alcoa Wenatchee Works.

          Table 7--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors Surrounding Washington \24\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              ~ Distance to
        Site ID                County            Border           2013-2015          2014-2016       2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160010010.............  Ada County, Idaho..              55  7..................               4               3
                                                             incomplete.........
160050004.............  Bannock County,                 489  41.................              39              38
                         Idaho.

[[Page 45151]]

 
160290031.............  Caribou County,                 558  26.................              26              30
                         Idaho.
410510080.............  Multnomah County,                12  4..................               3               3
                         Oregon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.

    Except for the Anacortes monitor, Washington SO2 
monitors have either incomplete or invalid data during the last three 
design value periods.\25\ However, in Table 6 of this document, we've 
included the 99th percentile values for these monitors in Washington as 
additional evidence that, generally, statewide monitored values are 
below the level of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ To be comparable to the NAAQS, the design value must be 
valid according to appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 which specifies 
minimum data completeness criteria for the 1-hour 2010 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three new SO2 monitors were established in Washington in 
early 2017. These three monitors were established to characterize two 
sources for purposes of the SO2 Data Requirements Rule 
(DRR), namely Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works and Alcoa Wenatchee 
Works. These areas will be designated in Round 4 of SO2 
designations. The data from these monitors (Site IDs 530730013, 
530730017, and 530070012) was required to be certified by the State as 
valid, 3-year design values by May 1, 2020. One of these monitors is 
recording exceedances of the NAAQS. However, we note that all three 
monitors (and the sources they were sited to characterize) are over 200 
km away from the Washington border with neighboring states and are 
therefore not likely to have an adverse impact on air quality in the 
neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon.
    Valid, complete data is available for the SO2 monitors 
in Idaho and Oregon, and design values are well below the level of the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in Table 7 of this document. As 
described, there are no Washington monitors located within 50 km of a 
neighboring state's border, however, there are two monitors in 
neighboring states located within approximately 50 km of the Washington 
border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values well 
below the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the most recent 
valid design value periods. These monitored values do not, alone, 
indicate any particular location that would warrant further 
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that 
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring 
states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily 
designed to capture all locations of high SO2 
concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of 
impact at these locations and is insufficient to capture the impact at 
all locations in the neighboring states. Therefore, we have also 
conducted a source-oriented analysis.
3. Spatial Analysis of Point Sources
    As noted, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to examine the 
impacts of emissions from stationary sources 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. As a 
result, we evaluated point sources of up to 50 km from the state border 
for emissions trends and SO2 concentrations in areawide air 
quality. In the absence of special factors, for example the presence of 
nearby larger sources or unusual factors, sources emitting less than 
100 tons per year SO2 can be appropriately presumed to not 
be significantly contributing to SO2 concentrations above 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The list of sources emitting 100 tons 
per year or more of SO2, based on 2017 point source data, 
within 50 km of the Washington state border, are shown in Table 8.

       Table 8--Sources Within 50 km of the Washington State Border With SO2 Emissions Greater Than 100 tpy and Nearest Neighboring State Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             2017 SO2
                                             2017 SO2      Distance from                                       Neighboring State Source    Emissions of
                 Sources                     Emissions      the Border             Neighboring State             (Distance Between the      Neighboring
                                              (tons)           (km)                                                    Sources)            State Source
                                                                                                                                              (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser NR Company--Longview,                   390               1  Oregon............................  Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--               540
 Washington.                                                                                                   Clatskanie, Oregon (33
                                                                                                               km).
Longview Fibre--Longview, Washington....             197               1  Oregon............................  Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--               540
                                                                                                               Clatskanie, Oregon (38
                                                                                                               km).
Boise Paper--Wallula, Washington........             885              11  Oregon............................  PGE Boardman--Boardman,               3298
                                                                                                               Oregon (82 km).
Portland International Airport--                     215               2  Washington........................  Longview Fibre--Longview,              197
 Portland, Oregon.                                                                                             Washington (62 km).
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.--                118               4  Washington........................  Longview Fibre--Longview,              197
 Portland Oregon.                                                                                              Washington (66 km).
PGE Boardman--Boardman, Oregon..........            3298              17  Washington........................  Boise Paper--Wallula,                  885
                                                                                                               Washington (82).
Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--Clatskanie,                  540              <1  Washington........................  Weyerhaeuser NR Company--              390
 Oregon.                                                                                                       Longview, Washington (33).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 45152]]

    The Washington sources listed are of interest with respect to 
SO2 transport because of the possibility that they are 
causing a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in their locality 
that extends into a neighboring state. There is also the possibility of 
emissions from one or more of these sources in Washington and emissions 
from a source in a neighboring state interacting in such a way as to 
contribute significantly to a violation in the neighboring state. As 
such, we have also included sources in neighboring states within 50 km 
of the Washington state border as part of this analysis. The prior 
table shows the distance from each of the sources listed therein to the 
nearest source across the Washington state border emitting above 100 
tons per year of SO2. Generally, a greater distance between 
two sources reduces the likelihood that their emissions could interact 
in such a way as to contribute significantly to a violation in the 
neighboring state. Given the localized range of potential 1-hour 
SO2 impacts, sources which are greater than 50 km from each 
other would not warrant further investigation with respect to 
Washington SO2 emission sources that might contribute to 
problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 
neighboring states. As shown, there are two sources in Washington which 
are within 50 kilometers from a source in a neighboring state; 
Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington, 
located 33 and 38 km respectively, from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie, 
Oregon. Therefore, we have evaluated these sources further.
    Longview, Washington, and Clatskanie, Oregon, comprise a cross-
border, uncombined metropolitan area. Currently, EPA does not have 
monitoring or modeling information to indicate a violation or elevated 
SO2 concentrations in this area. Given the distance between 
the cross-state sources (over 30 km), the declining emissions at the 
sources in Longview, Washington, as demonstrated in Table 4 of this 
document, and the lack of evidence of violations or elevated 
SO2 concentrations in the area; it is unlikely that 
emissions from the two sources in Longview, Washington, could interact 
with emissions from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie, Oregon, in such a way 
as to adversely impact a violation of the SO2 NAAQS in 
Oregon. Based on these factors, we propose to concur with the state's 
conclusion that SO2 emissions from sources in Longview, 
Washington, will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring state of Oregon.
    EPA has also evaluated PGE Boardman, a DRR source located within 50 
km of the Washington border. PGE Boardman is located in Boardman, 
Oregon, and, as shown in Table 8 of this document, the nearest source 
in Washington is Boise Paper in Wallula, Washington. Although these 
sources are located 82 km apart, and it is unlikely that their 
emissions could interact in such a way as to contribute significantly 
to violations in the neighboring state, because emissions from PGE 
Boardman near the Washington border are over 3000 tons per year, we 
have further evaluated the source. The State of Oregon modeled the area 
surrounding the facility, and the details are summarized in Table 9.

               Table 9--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Modeled 99th
                                                 Approximate        Other          percentile
                                                Distance From     facilities    daily maximum 1-    Model grid
         DRR source            County (state)     Source to      included in        hour SO2       extends into
                                                 Washington        modeling      concentration    another state?
                                                 Border (km)                         (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGE Boardman \26\...........  Morrow (OR)....              17  11 sources in    73 (based on     Yes, into WA
                                                                Oregon:          PTE emissions).  (portions of
                                                                Columbia Ridge                    Benton,
                                                                Landfill, PGE                     Klickitat and
                                                                Boardman Carty                    Yakima
                                                                Plant, ConAgra                    Counties, WA).
                                                                Foods Lamb
                                                                Weston, Inc.,
                                                                TMF Biofuels,
                                                                LLC, Hermiston
                                                                Power LLC,
                                                                Hermiston
                                                                Generating
                                                                Company,
                                                                Perennial-
                                                                Windchaser
                                                                LLC, Oregon
                                                                Potato
                                                                Company,
                                                                Finley
                                                                BioEnergy LLC,
                                                                Gas
                                                                Transmission
                                                                Northwest LLC,
                                                                Finley Buttes
                                                                Landfill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State submitted the resulting model data to EPA and indicated 
that Oregon found no modeled exceedances of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman Plant. The State recommended EPA 
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment. EPA agreed and designated the entire State of Oregon 
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 
1098, January 9, 2018).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
    \27\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Oregon's SIP requires PGE Boardman to implement a 
phased reduction of operation and cease coal-fired operation by 
December 31, 2020. Based on this analysis, as well as the modeling 
results for the area around the Boardman plant and the federally 
enforceable emissions reductions planned for the facility, we propose 
to concur with the State's conclusion that SO2 emissions 
from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area in Oregon 
surrounding the PGE Boardman facility.
    This spatial analysis of point sources within 50 km of the 
Washington border, including available modeling results, weighed along 
with the other factors in this document, support EPA's proposed 
conclusion that sources in Washington will not adversely impact air 
quality so as to significantly contribute to

[[Page 45153]]

nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any violations of 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring states to which 
SO2 emissions from Washington could significantly 
contribute.
    Based on our review of the Washington submission and our weight of 
evidence analysis, we propose to conclude that sources in Washington 
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

B. Prong 2 Evaluation

    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 may have trouble attaining and maintaining the NAAQS in the 
future. Approval of a SIP for prong 2 requires a conclusion that 
SO2 emissions from the State's sources will not interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another 
state.
    Our prong 2 evaluation for Washington builds on our analysis 
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). 
Specifically, as explained in Section IV.A of this preamble, we have a 
sufficient basis to conclude that there are no NAAQS violations in 
other states near their shared borders with Washington (Idaho and 
Oregon) and accordingly, we are proposing that sources in Washington 
are not significantly contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in any 
of those states. As explained in this section, we also have a 
sufficient basis for concluding that SO2 emissions from 
sources in Washington and other states near their shared borders are 
highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this situation. 
Therefore, we are proposing to find that SO2 levels in 
neighboring states (Idaho and Oregon) near the Washington border will 
continue to be at or below the level of the SO2 NAAQS.
    As presented in Table 4 in Section IV.A of this preamble, 
SO2 emissions from larger point sources in Washington have 
decreased by approximately 30 percent between 2008 and 2017. This 
information on point source SO2 emissions trends does not by 
itself demonstrate that SO2 emissions in the near-border 
areas in Washington and neighboring states will not impact neighboring 
states. However, as a component of our weight of evidence analysis for 
prong 2, it provides an indication that such an increase is unlikely.
    As described in the Washington Department of Ecology submission and 
summarized in Section II of this preamble, there are multiple 
provisions in the Washington SIP designed to control and limit 
SO2 emissions from existing Washington sources. Future 
stationary sources of SO2 emissions are subject to 
Washington's SIP-approved pre-construction permitting program, also 
known as New Source Review. New Source Review for major stationary 
sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS is called nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and requires 
lowest achievable emission rates and offsets in accordance with the 
SIP-approved NNSR program for Washington State. New Source Review for 
major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas is 
called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and requires that 
best available control technology be applied to any new major source or 
major modification of a major source. Washington's SIP-approved PSD 
program requires that new or modified major sources in attainment and 
unclassifiable areas do not interfere with maintenance in any other 
state, in accordance with federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR 
51.165(b)(1). See 40 CFR 52.2497.
    Turning to minor sources, such sources are covered by the State's 
SIP-approved minor new source review permitting program. In accordance 
with 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, subject sources may not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. We note that the neighboring 
states of Idaho and Oregon also have SIP-approved PSD and minor source 
permitting programs. See 40 CFR 52.683 and 52.1987, respectively. The 
permitting regulations contained within these programs are designed to 
ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in the neighboring 
states of Idaho or Oregon are not exceeded as a result of new facility 
construction or modifications occurring in the near-border areas of 
these states.
    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has 
incorporated additional information about emissions trends as well as 
the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1, 
into our evaluation of Washington's submission, which did not include 
an independent analysis of prong 2. We find that the large distances 
between cross-state SO2 sources, combined with an overall 
reduction in SO2 emissions from larger Washington sources 
and SIP-approved measures designed to control and limit emissions from 
SO2 sources in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, taken along 
with the other factors considered in this document support EPA's 
proposed conclusion that there will be no interference with maintenance 
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states from sources in 
Washington. Based on our weight of evidence analysis, we propose to 
conclude that sources in Washington will not interfere with maintenance 
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section III of this preamble, Washington concluded 
that SO2 emissions from the State will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA's analysis, discussed in 
Section IV of this preamble, confirms this finding. Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

VI. 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.\28\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 actions such as 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

[[Page 45154]]

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 application of the requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 10, 2020.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-15399 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P