Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0669-0042
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Washington; Wallula Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2020-05-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25303-25307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08123]

[[Page 25303]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0669, FRL-10007-28-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington; Wallula Second 10-Year Maintenance 
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a plan 
for the Wallula area in Washington State that addresses the second 10-
year maintenance period for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 
(PM10). This plan relies upon the control measures contained 
in the first 10-year maintenance plan, with revisions to reflect 
updated permits and agreements, also approved in this action. 
Concurrently, we are taking final agency action on high wind and 
wildfire exceptional events associated with the Wallula area.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0669. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure 
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256, or 
hunt.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

I. Background

    The Wallula area was designated nonattainment for the 24-hour 
PM10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and 
classified as a Moderate area upon enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The Washington 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted a Moderate area attainment 
plan for the Wallula area on November 13, 1991, and a Serious area plan 
on November 30, 2004. The EPA acted on the plans on January 27, 1997 
and May 2, 2005, respectively (62 FR 3800 and 83 FR 22597). During the 
planning process, the EPA determined that the area attained the 
PM10 NAAQS based on 1999 through 2001 air quality monitoring 
data (67 FR 64815, October 22, 2002).
    The PM10 emissions inventory for the Wallula area has 
remained relatively consistent over time, with agricultural dust and 
point sources contributing the bulk of anthropogenic impact within the 
area. As discussed in more detail in the proposal and later in this 
preamble, high wind events carrying dust from both within and outside 
the Wallula area play a significant role on days that exceed the 
PM10 NAAQS. On-road motor vehicles make up only 
approximately 1% of the overall inventory. The transportation 
conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.109(f) allows areas to forego 
establishment of motor vehicle emissions budgets where it is 
demonstrated that the regional motor vehicle emissions for a particular 
pollutant or precursor are an insignificant contributor to the air 
quality problem in an area. The EPA's rationale for providing for 
insignificance determinations may be found in the July 1, 2004, 
revision to the Transportation Conformity Rule (69 FR 40004). As 
provided in 40 CFR 93.109(f), the general criteria for insignificance 
determinations are based on a number of factors, including the 
percentage of motor vehicle emissions in the context of the total SIP 
inventory; the current state of air quality as determined by monitoring 
data for the relevant NAAQS; the absence of SIP motor vehicle control 
measures; and the historical trends and future projections of the 
growth of motor vehicle emissions in the area. Using these regulatory 
criteria, the EPA granted Washington's request for an exemption from 
conducting a regional emissions analysis for transportation conformity 
because motor vehicles were an insignificant source of PM10 
emissions (70 FR 5085, 5092, February 1, 2005 (proposed action); 70 FR 
22597, May 2, 2005 (final action)).
    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), specific exceedances due to natural 
events, such as unusually high winds, may be discounted or excluded 
entirely from decisions regarding an area's air quality status in 
appropriate circumstances. From 1996 to 2007, EPA's Natural Events 
Policy \1\ governed the process by which states could request exclusion 
of monitored values that exceeded the NAAQS due to ``natural events'' 
in making attainment determinations. As part of the EPA's finding of 
attainment for the Wallula area in 2002, the EPA determined that all 
exceedances that occurred in 1999 through 2001 qualified as high wind 
natural events under the EPA's Natural Events Policy. (67 FR 64815, 
October 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum from the EPA's Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation to EPA Regional Air Directors entitled ``Areas 
Affected by Natural Events,'' dated May 30, 1996 (EPA's Natural 
Events Policy), in effect at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Ecology conducted a final review of high wind natural 
events for the area. Ecology found that there had been nine reported 
PM10 exceedances in the Wallula area since January 1, 1995, 
and all but one was reasonably attributed to dust raised by unusually 
high winds.\2\ On March 29, 2005, Ecology submitted the state's plan to 
maintain the PM10 NAAQS in the Wallula area for 10 years, in 
accordance with section 175A of the CAA, and requested that the EPA 
redesignate the Wallula area to attainment for the PM10 
NAAQS. The EPA approved Ecology's submitted maintenance plan and 
redesignation request on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50212).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The one exceedance not attributed to high winds occurred on 
July 3, 1997, and was attributed to an unusual and nonrecurring 
activity involving the transport of multiple loads of composting 
material near the monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 22, 2019, Ecology submitted a maintenance plan to cover 
the second 10-year maintenance period, asserting that existing control 
measures were adequate to maintain the PM10 NAAQS, after 
excluding specific exceptional events documented in the submission. On 
December 20, 2019, we proposed to approve the second 10-year 
maintenance plan as satisfying the requirements of section 175A of the 
CAA (84 FR 70130).

II. Response to Comments

    The public comment period for our proposed rule ended on January 
21, 2020. We received one comment letter from the J.R. Simplot Company 
(Simplot), the owner and operator of the Simplot Feeders cattle 
feedlot, a facility located in the Wallula area and identified in the 
state's second 10-year maintenance plan. The comment letter generally 
supported approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 
the Wallula area. However, Simplot's letter also requested 
clarification on the following three

[[Page 25304]]

issues: The feedlot Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), the emissions 
inventory, and the projected future design value concentrations used in 
the maintenance demonstration.
    Comment 1: ``Simplot offers clarifications to EPA's summary of the 
FDCP provided in the FR notice (84 FR 70132). Simplot's FDCP does not 
`prevent dust from any fugitive or point source from crossing the 
Simplot property line,' nor does it `require road dust suppression, 
better staff training, etc.' The FDCP meets the WAC requirements for 
fugitive dust and `fall-out' and identifies best management practices 
(BMPs) that have been found to be the most effective in minimizing 
fugitive dust emissions from the facility. Examples of those BMPs that 
are implemented as appropriate include water application to pens and 
roads, application of dust suppression on facility roads, as well as 
pen cleaning and maintenance. The FDCP also identifies the training 
provided to facility employees who have responsibility with 
implementing BMPs.''
    Response 1: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The Simplot 
Feeders' cattle feedlot is subject to a federally-enforceable new 
source review permit (Approval Order No. 18AQ-E018, issued March 5, 
2018) that specifically requires Simplot to have and implement a 
fugitive dust control plan. Specifically, facility-wide permit 
condition 2.2.1. states, ``During operation of the feedlot, Simplot 
shall follow the fugitive dust control plan submitted to Ecology, and 
modified annually in accordance with the facility Operations and 
Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Fugitive dust control measures shall be 
sufficient to prevent dust from any fugitive or point sources from 
crossing the Simplot property line.'' Additionally, permit condition 9 
states, ``A site-specific O&M manual for the hay processing filters, 
any feedlot sprinklers or cross fencing systems or other feedlot Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring equipment, monitoring 
procedures, and monitoring schedules for the feedlot control (BMPs) 
measures shall be developed and followed . . . The O&M manual shall at 
a minimum include: . . .9.4 The current Fugitive Dust Control Plan 
(FDCP).'' Simplot's FDCP, in turn, specifically provides for road dust 
suppression, better staff training, daily observations, and daily 
adaptive best management practices to control fugitive dust.\3\ 
Therefore, the language in the proposal accurately reflects Simplot's 
legal obligations with respect to Simplot's FDCP and no clarification 
is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Road dust suppression (see FDCP ``Water Trucks'' and ``Road 
Treatment'' page 7); staff training (see FDCP ``Training'' page 9); 
daily observations (see FDCP ``Sprinkler System'' page 6, ``Water 
Trucks'' page 7, ``Daily Adaptive Management'' pages 8-9); and daily 
adaptive management (see FDCP ``Daily Adaptive Management'' pages 8-
9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: ``Simplot appreciates EPA's recognition that Ecology's 
revised emission factor for the cattle feedlots is a conservative 
approach (84 FR 70132); however, Simplot believes use of Ecology's 
updated emission factor mischaracterizes the change in emissions 
between baseline years presented in the SIP.
    Specifically, Ecology failed to provide context regarding the 
effect of the new emission factor with respect to the 2002 emission 
inventory in the SIP. During the public comment period of the draft 
SIP, Simplot provided comments to Ecology (Attachment 2) that the 
activity levels, including cattle headcount was higher at the feedlot 
in 2002 than in 2014. As such, the relative emissions for the feedlot 
were higher in 2002 than in 2014. Simplot identified that applying the 
updated emission factor to the 2002 data would show a relative decrease 
rather than the increase Ecology presented in Table 7 of the SIP.''
    Response 2: Simplot's clarification is noted. However, we believe 
this issue was already adequately addressed in our proposed rulemaking 
when we stated, ``The overall source mix and emissions levels are 
generally consistent with the 2002 attainment emissions inventory 
contained in the first 10-year maintenance plan. While there has been 
some increase in emissions activity since 2002, Ecology explained and 
the EPA verified that much of the difference between the 2002 and 2014 
inventories is due to revised emissions inventory methodology. For 
example, Ecology revised the emissions factor for cattle feedlots by 
increasing it approximately eightfold, a conservative approach.'' See 
page 70131.
    We note two factors related to Simplot's comment. First, it is not 
unusual for emissions inventory methodologies or emissions factors to 
change over time at the state or federal level with additional research 
or source test data. Second, the conservative methodology used by 
Ecology yielded a 2025 projected design value concentration of 145 
[mu]g/m\3\, below the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold for demonstrating 
continued attainment the PM10 NAAQS in the Wallula area. Any 
argument for using a less conservative approach, yielding a lower 
projected design value concentration, would therefore not change the 
EPA's approval of Ecology's maintenance demonstration because the 
worst-case scenario is already below 150 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Comment 3: ``Simplot agrees with EPA's position that Ecology took a 
conservative approach for emission projections (years 2025 and 2030) by 
including highest actual emissions, potential to emit, and maximum 
permitted capacity (84 FR 70132). EPA discusses that Ecology used the 
most conservative methodology in determining the 2025 design 
concentration, where the design concentration was determined to be 145 
[mu]g/m\3\, below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 ug/m\3\. EPA 
goes on to state that using `a less conservative methodology factoring 
the natural events and using maximum 5-year actual rather than maximum 
allowable permit limits, the projected 2025 design concentration would 
be 82 [mu]g/m\3\' (84 FR 70132) . . . There is no additional value to 
including an analysis of Simplot's actual maximum head count for an 
alternative 2025 Design Value. Simplot recommends that EPA, in its 
final action on the Wallula SIP, drop the alternative 2025 Design Value 
based on Simplot's actual maximum heat count.''
    Response 3: As discussed previously, Ecology used a generally 
conservative, worst-case scenario methodology in projecting potential 
future emissions and PM10 concentrations. Specifically, as 
it relates to Simplot, the 2025 projected future design concentration 
of 145 [mu]g/m\3\ represented no consideration of potential natural 
events and assumed the Simplot facility would be operating at maximum 
permitted capacity (80,000 head of cattle). Because of concerns that 
the general public might not understand the worst-case scenario 
methodology, Ecology provided supplemental future design concentrations 
using less conservative methodologies for informational, rather than 
regulatory purposes. These supplementary projected concentrations 
ranged from 71 [mu]g/m\3\ to 132 [mu]g/m\3\, more consistent with 
historical and current concentrations monitored in the Wallula area if 
potential natural events are considered. However, the EPA's proposed 
approval was based on our determination that the 2025 projected future 
design concentration of 145 [mu]g/m\3\, calculated in the maintenance 
demonstration, was below the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold for demonstrating 
continued attainment the PM10 NAAQS in the Wallula area.
    We have determined the commenter's requested clarifications are not 
warranted at this time because we have explained our rationale for 
approval in

[[Page 25305]]

our proposed rule and in the response to comments provided in this 
preamble, and the additional analysis is not necessary in light of our 
approval at the higher projected emissions levels. Therefore, we are 
finalizing our action as proposed.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Ecology's second 10-year maintenance plan for 
the Wallula area as satisfying the requirements of section 175A of the 
CAA. We are taking final agency action on Ecology's request to exclude 
wildfire and high wind event-influenced data from August 14, 2015, and 
September 5 and 6, 2017, with the determination that the 
PM10 exceedances on the identified dates were due to 
exceptional events and can be excluded in determining the attainment 
status of the area.
    We are also approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP 
at 40 CFR 52.2470(d), updated source-specific requirements for Tyson 
Fresh Meats, Boise White Paper, now known as Packaging Corporation of 
America (Wallula Mill),\4\ and Simplot Feeders. In addition, we are 
updating the list of supplementary documents in 40 CFR 52.2470(e) to 
include the 2003 ``Columbia Plateau Windblown Dust Natural Events 
Action Plan'' and Ecology's 2018 update of the ``Fugitive Dust Control 
Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots and Best Management Practices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that, subsequent to EPA's proposed action, Ecology 
submitted a modified air operating permit for the Wallula Mill, 
which was issued on December 9, 2019. The only changes to the permit 
relevant for purposes of this action are that the name of the 
permittee was changed from Boise White Paper L.L.C. to Packaging 
Corporation of America and that Permit Condition Q.1, which we had 
proposed to approve into the SIP, is now numbered Condition P.1. No 
substantive changes have been made to the provision proposed for 
incorporation by reference into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In taking final action to approve Ecology's second 10-year 
maintenance plan for the Wallula area, we note, as discussed 
previously, that the first 10-year maintenance plan for the area did 
not contain any control measures on direct PM10 emissions 
from on-road vehicles because the emissions inventory was so heavily 
dominated by direct PM10 emissions from agricultural dust 
sources and a small set of point sources. In comparing the 2002 
inventory used in the first 10-year maintenance plan to the 2014 
inventory used in the second 10-year maintenance plan, mobile source 
emissions continued to remain steady at 1% of the overall emissions 
inventory. Because on-road emissions of direct PM10 continue 
to be insignificant, a regional emissions analysis is not required as 
part future transportation conformity determinations. However, a 
conformity determination that meets other applicable criteria in Table 
1 of 40 CFR 93.109(b) is still required (e.g., consultation). Hot-spot 
requirements for projects in PM10 areas in 40 CFR 93.116 
must also be satisfied, subject to certain exceptions. See 40 CFR 
93.109(f). In 2017, the boundaries of the Walla Walla Valley 
Metropolitan Planning Organization were modified to include the Wallula 
PM10 maintenance area. As such, the area is now considered 
to be a metropolitan area for transportation conformity purposes and 
must meet the applicability requirements in 40 CFR 93.102(a) and the 
frequency requirements in 40 CFR 93.104.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in 
the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and 
will continue to make, these materials generally available through 
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these 
materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have 
been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully 
federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the 
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will 
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     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 address technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in 
Washington or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

[[Page 25306]]

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2020. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 10, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2470:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d) by:
0
i. Removing the entries ``IBP (now known as Tyson Foods, Inc.)'', 
``Boise White Paper LLC Permit'', and ``Fugitive Dust Control Plan for 
Simplot Feeders Limited Partnership''; and
0
ii. Adding the entries ``Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'', ``Packaging 
Corporation of America, Wallula Mill'', and ``Simplot Feeders Limited 
Partnership'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e) amend Table 2 by:
0
i. Adding a fourth entry for ``Particulate Matter (PM10) 2nd 
10-Year Maintenance Plan'' immediately below the entry ``Particulate 
Matter (PM10) 2nd 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan'', 
``Spokane'' and
0
ii. Adding the entries ``2003 Columbia Plateau Windblown Dust Natural 
Events Action Plan'' and ``2018 Fugitive Dust Control Guidelines for 
Beef Cattle Feedlots and Best Management Practices'' at the end of the 
table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2470   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                        EPA-Approved State of Washington Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         Name of source            Order/permit  No.    effective    EPA approval  date        Explanations
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc..........  13AQ-E526..........    4/16/2014  5/1/2020, [Insert    Except:
                                                                     Federal Register    1. Decontamination
                                                                     citation].           Cabinets;
                                                                                         2. Meat Cutting/
                                                                                          Packing;
                                                                                         6. Wastewater
                                                                                          Floatation;
                                                                                         8. Utility Equipment;
                                                                                         10. Other;
                                                                                         References to ``WAC 173-
                                                                                          460-040'' in
                                                                                          Determinations'';
                                                                                         The portion of Approval
                                                                                          Condition 2.a which
                                                                                          states, ``and
                                                                                          consumption of no more
                                                                                          than 128 million cubic
                                                                                          feet/of natural gas
                                                                                          per year. Natural gas
                                                                                          consumption records
                                                                                          for the dryer shall be
                                                                                          maintained for the
                                                                                          most recent 24 month
                                                                                          period and be
                                                                                          available to Ecology
                                                                                          for inspection. An
                                                                                          increase in natural
                                                                                          gas consumption that
                                                                                          exceeds the above
                                                                                          level may require a
                                                                                          Notice of
                                                                                          Construction.'';
                                                                                          Approval Condition 3;
                                                                                          Approval Condition 4;
                                                                                          Approval Condition 5;
                                                                                          Approval Condition
                                                                                          6.e; Approval
                                                                                          Condition 9.a.ii;
                                                                                          Approval Condition
                                                                                          9.a.iv; Approval
                                                                                          Condition 9.a.v;
                                                                                          Approval Condition
                                                                                          9.a.vi; Approval
                                                                                          Condition 10.a.ii;
                                                                                          Approval Condition
                                                                                          10.b; Approval
                                                                                          Condition 11.a;
                                                                                          Approval Condition
                                                                                          11.b; Approval
                                                                                          Condition 11.e;
                                                                                          Approval Condition 12;
                                                                                          Approval Condition 15;
                                                                                          The section titled
                                                                                          ``Your Right to
                                                                                          Appeal''; and The
                                                                                          section titled
                                                                                          ``Address and Location
                                                                                          Information.''
Packaging Corporation of America  0003697............     4/1/2018  5/1/2020, [Insert    Condition P.1 only.
 (Wallula Mill).                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
Simplot Feeders Limited           Fugitive Dust           3/1/2018  5/1/2020, [Insert
 Partnership.                      Control Plan.                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
  demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
  prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Washington Department of
  Ecology may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to the EPA as a SIP revision.

    (e) * * *

[[Page 25307]]

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable          State
      Name of SIP provision            geographic or      submittal     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                    nonattainment  area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Attainment and Maintenance Planning--Particulate Matter (PM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Particulate Matter (PM10) 2nd 10-  Wallula.............     11/22/19  5/1/2020, [Insert
 Year Maintenance Plan.                                                Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Supplementary Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
2003 Columbia Plateau Windblown    ....................     11/22/19  5/1/2020, [Insert
 Dust Natural Events Action Plan.                                      Federal Register
                                                                       citation].
2018 Fugitive Dust Control         ....................     11/22/19  5/1/2020, [Insert
 Guidelines for Beef Cattle                                            Federal Register
 Feedlots and Best Management                                          citation].
 Practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-08123 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P