Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements, 29369-29377 [2020-10228]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules the language ‘‘§ 1.861–17(d)(4)(v)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘§ 1.861–17(d)(4)(i)’’. 2. On page 69134, first column, the second line from the bottom of the page the language ‘‘245A(g)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘245A(d)’’. 3. On page 69139, third column, the eighth line of the second paragraph under the caption ‘‘Applicability Dates’’, the language ‘‘January 1, 2020,’’ is corrected to read ‘‘January 1, 2020 (or taxpayers that are on the sales method only for the last taxable year that begins before January 1, 2020),’’. 4. On page 69139, third column, the 10th line of the second paragraph under the caption ‘‘Applicability Dates’’, the language ‘‘consistently’’ is corrected to read ‘‘consistently with respect to such taxable year and any subsequent year’’. § 1.861–17 [Corrected] 5. On page 69156, the third column, in § 1.861–17, the third line from the bottom of paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), the language ‘‘7(b)(1))’’ is corrected to read ‘‘7(b)(1)(ii)’’. ■ 6. On page 69157, the first column, in § 1.861–17, in the second line of paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(B)(3), the language ‘‘(d)(5)(v)’’ is corrected to read (d)(4)(v)’’. ■ 7. On page 69157, the second column, in § 1.861–17, in the seventh line from the bottom of paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A), the language ‘‘354’’ is corrected to read ‘‘364’’. ■ § 1.960–1 [Corrected] 8. On page 69177, the second column, in § 1.960–1, third line from the bottom of paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A), the language ‘‘branch,’’ is corrected to read ‘‘branch from the foreign branch owner,’’. ■ Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. 2020–08994 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS To view the docket for this withdrawn rulemaking, go to https:// www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020– 0074 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. ADDRESSES: If you have questions about this notice, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410–576– 2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 31, 2020, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ‘‘Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Between Trappe and Cambridge, MD’’ in the Federal Register (85 FR 5608). The rulemaking concerned the Coast Guard’s proposal to establish temporary special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River, between Trappe, MD, and Cambridge, MD, effective from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. on May 30, 2020. This action was necessary to provide for the safety of life on these waters during an open water swim event. This rulemaking would have prohibited persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The proposed rule is being withdrawn due to a regulated area no longer being necessary following a cancellation of the swim by the event sponsor. Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast Guard District Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal. AGENCY: ACTION: 16:25 May 14, 2020 The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rule published January 31, 2020, as of May 15, 2020. DATES: Withdrawal [Docket No. USCG–2020–0074] VerDate Sep<11>2014 The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule to establish temporary special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. The rulemaking was initiated to establish a special local regulations during the ‘‘Maryland Freedom Swim,’’ a marine event to be held on certain navigable waters of the Choptank River between Trappe, MD, and Cambridge, MD, on May 30, 2020. The proposed rule is being withdrawn because it is no longer necessary. The event sponsor has cancelled the swim event. SUMMARY: Jkt 250001 Authority We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29369 Dated: May 5, 2020. Joseph B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. [FR Doc. 2020–10203 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0057; FRL–10007– 86–Region 10] Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Oregon as meeting certain Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA proposes to find that emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA–R10– OAR–2016–0057 at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from https:// www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 29370 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, or hall.kristin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it means the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background A. Infrastructure SIPs B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis A. State Submission B. EPA Evaluation Methodology C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation—Significant Contribution to Nonattainment D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation—Interference With Maintenance IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS I. Background A. Infrastructure SIPs On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that, after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states must submit SIPs to meet applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these elements, codified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will cause certain impacts on other states. These interstate transport requirements of the CAA are also known as ‘‘good neighbor’’ requirements. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as prongs. The first two prongs, codified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions which prohibit emissions in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in any other state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). The second two prongs, codified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions which prohibit emissions in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other state (prong 3) and from interfering with measures to protect visibility in any other state (prong 4). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 On October 20, 2015, Oregon submitted a SIP to address prongs 1 and 2 of the good neighbor requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS along with the other infrastructure requirements.1 B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background In this action, the EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, discussed in more detail in section III of this document. For this reason, we have included a brief summary of the EPA’s designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.2 After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’ ‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within two years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations by that deadline, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing designations by up to one year. The EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA completed the first round of designations (‘‘round 1’’) 3 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 1 The EPA approved the October 20, 2015 Oregon submission as it relates to other requirements in final rulemakings published May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30181), May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24034), and September 18, 2018 (83 FR 47073). 2 While designations may provide useful information for purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-specific pollutant such as SO2, the EPA notes that designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. The EPA has consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses ‘‘nonattainment’’ anywhere it may occur in other states, not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations for that standard). 3 The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to which ‘‘round of designations.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2013). The EPA signed Federal Register documents of promulgation for round 2 designations 4 on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870, December 13, 2016), and round 3 designations 5 on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018).6 On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), the EPA separately promulgated air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by the EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the sources have been shut down. The EPA expected that the information generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by December 31, 2020 (‘‘round 4’’). In round 3 of designations, the EPA designated Morrow County and all other areas in Oregon as attainment/ unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.7 There are no remaining areas within Oregon that have yet to be designated. 4 The EPA and state documents and public comments related to the round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0464 and at the EPA’s website for SO2 designations at https:// www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. 5 The EPA and state documents and public comments related to round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0003 and at the EPA’s website for SO2 designations at https:// www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. 6 Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires the EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the EPA’s promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016 (‘‘round 2’’); December 31, 2017 (‘‘round 3’’); and December 31, 2020 (‘‘round 4’’). 7 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2017-12/documents/34-or-so2-rd3final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/ documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf. E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone, in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However, ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than emissions of Pb but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches adopted by the EPA for ozone and PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused and the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source to serve as a model for SO2 transport. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach. In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport analyses, the EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the physical properties of SO2, the EPA selected the ‘‘urban scale’’—a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point sources—given the usefulness of that range in assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.8 As such, the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind states. As discussed in section III of this document, the EPA first reviewed Oregon’s analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the analysis and the conclusions drawn by the State. The EPA then conducted a weight of evidence analysis, including review of Oregon’s submission and other available 8 For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further discussion on how the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate transport of SO2, see the EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 2017). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 information, including air quality, emission sources and emission trends within the State and in bordering states to which it could potentially contribute or interfere.9 III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis A. State Submission On May 12, 2015, Oregon submitted a revision to the Oregon SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Oregon conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Oregon’s analysis included a review of: SO2 emissions source categories; downwind monitoring sites that are potential receptors in neighboring states; industrial point sources located near the border with neighboring states; and SIP-approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from existing and future Oregon sources. Oregon concluded that SO2 emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. B. EPA Evaluation Methodology The EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions activities in Oregon are likely to impact downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI).10 The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, that is updated every three years using information provided by the states and other information available to the EPA. The EPA evaluated data from the 2014 NEI, the most 9 This proposed approval action is based on the information contained in the administrative record for this action and does not prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding any of the subject state’s air quality status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the EPA’s analyses of information that becomes available at those times. Future available information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives. 10 The EPA’s NEI is available at https:// www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/nationalemissions-inventory. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29371 recently available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI. In the submission, Oregon assessed SO2 emissions source categories in the State using 2011 NEI data, which was the most recent, complete data at the time the submission was developed. Oregon found that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust fossil fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State. Smaller sources include processes to extract metal from ore and the combustion of sulfurcontaining fuels in locomotives, ships, and non-road equipment.11 Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for SO2 emissions from industrial point sources in the State to contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. The EPA’s review of more recent NEI data confirms the State’s findings. We note that the EPA released a complete set of NEI data for 2014 addressing all source categories. However, the EPA has, to date, released a limited set of emissions data for 2017 addressing stationary sources only. Because the data for 2014 are complete, we reviewed and summarized 2014 NEI data in Table 1 of this document. The data indicate that the majority of SO2 emissions in Oregon originate from fuel combustion at either electric utilities or other stationary sources such as industrial boilers, in addition to industrial and other processes. These source categories account for approximately 90% of SO2 emissions in 2014, therefore, we find it reasonable to focus our evaluation on potential downwind impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary fuel combustion or industrial point sources in Oregon, consistent with the State’s submission. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI SO2 DATA FOR OREGON 12 Source category Mobile—non-road ................. Mobile—on-road ................... Fuel combustion—electric generation ......................... Fuel combustion—other ....... Emissions (tons) 471 307 7,535 2,607 11 See page 26 of the Oregon State Implementation Plan Revision, Attachment C, Addressing the Interstate Transport of Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead, Fine Particulate Matter, dated May 12, 2015, in the docket for this action (the submission). 12 We derived the emissions information from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories. E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 29372 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules ambient air quality for Oregon and TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI SO2 DATA FOR OREGON 12—Con- neighboring states; and (3) Analysis of Permit Requirements, Dispersion tinued Modeling, and Source-Specific Controls. A detailed discussion of Oregon’s SIP Source category submission with respect to each of these points follows.13 As a result of our Industrial and other procanalysis of this information, we believe esses ................................. 1,604 that the following factors indicate emissions from Oregon are unlikely to Total ............................... 12,524 impact a violation in any other state and thus are unlikely to contribute Based on the information detailed in significantly to nonattainment of the sections III.C.1 through 3 and III.D of 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other this document (available data on state: (1) The combination of low emissions sources and emissions trends, ambient concentrations of SO in 2 ambient air quality data, and permit Oregon and neighboring states and the requirements, available dispersion downward trend in monitored modeling results, and enforceable concentrations; (2) our conclusions from regulations) we propose that it is our qualitative analysis of the identified reasonable to conclude that SO2 sources sources of SO emissions in Oregon and 2 in Oregon will not contribute neighboring states; (3) the downward significantly to nonattainment (prong 1 trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or interfere sources; (4) available modeling with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour information for specific SO2 point SO2 NAAQS in any other state (prong sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved 2). We evaluate each prong separately, controls that limit SO2 emissions from as discussed in the following current and future sources. The EPA paragraphs. proposes, based on the information C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation—Significant available at the time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, Contribution to Nonattainment support the EPA’s proposed Prong 1 of the good neighbor determination that Oregon will not provision requires SIPs to prohibit contribute significantly to emissions that will contribute nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 significantly to nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state. In addition, NAAQS in another state. Oregon asserts 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon’s in its SIP submission that emissions sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 from Oregon will not contribute within 50 km of another state are at significantly to nonattainment in any distances that make it unlikely that other state with respect to the 2010 these SO2 emissions could interact with 1-hour SO2 standard. To evaluate SO2 emissions from the neighboring Oregon’s satisfaction of prong 1, the states’ sources in such a way as to EPA assessed the State’s SIP submission contribute significantly to with respect to the following nonattainment in neighboring states. information: (1) SO2 emissions Finally, the downward trends in SO2 information from Oregon and emissions and relatively low DVs for air neighboring state sources; (2) SO2 quality monitors in Oregon and Emissions (tons) neighboring states, combined with federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Oregon’s sources, further support the EPA’s proposed conclusion. 1. SO2 Emissions Analysis a. State Submission As discussed in section II of this document, Oregon assessed SO2 emissions source categories using 2011 NEI data. Oregon found that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust fossil fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State. Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for SO2 emissions from industrial point sources in the State to contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Oregon’s submission also included an analysis of specific sources located near the Oregon border. The State focused its evaluation on three large facilities located near the border with Washington, that are also listed in Table 3 of this document: The Boardman Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the OwensBrockway Glass facility. b. EPA Analysis The EPA also analyzed SO2 emissions trends in Oregon. Between 2002 and 2014, SO2 emissions from Oregon sources were reduced significantly. NEI data summarized in Table 2 of this document illustrate this trend. SO2 emissions from Oregon sources fell approximately 72% overall, and emissions from specific source categories also declined over this time period. These trends are due in part to the combustion of lower sulfur content fuels. TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS IN OREGON (TONS) 14 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Source category 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 SO2 reduction, 2002–2014 (%) Mobile—non-road ..................................... Mobile—on-road ....................................... Fuel combustion—electric generation ..... Fuel combustion—other ........................... Industrial and other processes ................ 12,470 3,760 12,344 10,142 6,341 5,746 1,796 452 12,911 14,103 2,058 532 11,410 1,739 3,573 340 333 13,169 3,164 4,046 471 307 7,535 2,607 1,604 96 92 40 74 75 Total .................................................. 45,057 35,008 19,312 21,052 12,524 72 13 The EPA has reviewed Oregon’s submission, and where new or more current information has become available, is including this information as part of the EPA’s evaluation of this submission. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 14 We derived the emissions trends information from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 29373 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules Emissions trends, while important, do not by themselves demonstrate that sources in Oregon will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. As discussed in section II of this document, the EPA finds it appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Oregon in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the ‘‘urban scale’’ definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 4.4. Therefore, we reviewed NEI data for Oregon point sources with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy 15 in 2017 that are located up to 50 km from State borders, as summarized in the following table, Table 3. TABLE 3—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS AT OREGON SOURCES WITHIN 50 KM OF BORDER 16 Distance * (km) Source name Portland General Electric Power Plant (Boardman Plant) .. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill) ........ Portland International Airport ............................................... EP Minerals, LLC ................................................................. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (Owens-Brockway Glass) ............................................................................... 2008 (tons) 2011 (tons) 2014 (tons) 2017 (tons) 17 1 2 33 11,303 858 96 1 13,103 707 115 141 7,439 571 125 66 3,298 540 215 182 4 142 119 119 118 *Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border. The EPA assessed this information to evaluate whether the SO2 emissions from these sources could interact with SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring state in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. The following Table 4 lists the five sources in Oregon that emitted greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State’s border. TABLE 4—OREGON SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES Oregon source jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Portland General Electric Power Plant (Boardman Plant). Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill). Portland International Airport. 2017 annual SO2 emissions (tons) Approximate distance to Oregon Border (km) Closest neighboring state Approximate distance to nearest neighboring state SO2 source (km) Nearest neighboring state SO2 source & 2017 emissions (>100 tons SO2) 3,298 17 Washington ........................... 83 Boise Paper (885 tons). 540 1 Washington ........................... 33 215 2 Washington ........................... 61 EP Minerals, LLC .................. 182 33 Idaho ..................................... 286 Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (OwensBrockway Glass). 118 4 Washington ........................... 66 Nippon Dynawave Packaging Co. (390 tons). Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc. (198 tons). The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC—Twin Falls (635 tons). Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc. (198 tons). Only one source emitting greater than 100 tpy in Oregon located within 50 km of the State border is also within 50 km of a source also emitting greater than 100 tpy in a neighboring state. The Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill facility (discussed in the following paragraphs) is located 1 km from the State border and 33 km from the nearest out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tpy, Nippon Dynawave Packaging in Washington. The EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km between all remaining Oregon sources and the nearest out-of-state source make it unlikely that SO2 emissions from these Oregon sources could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Washington and Idaho. Further discussion of all Oregon sources in Table 4 can be found in section III.C.2.b of this document. 15 We have limited our analysis to Oregon sources emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical factors, Oregon sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS. 16 We derived the emissions information from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories. 17 See page 14 (Table 2) of the submission. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2. Ambient Air Quality Data Analysis a. State Submission In its submission, Oregon identified SO2 monitoring sites in the neighboring states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and Washington that are most likely to be impacted by SO2 emissions from sources in Oregon. The submission lists each SO2 monitoring site considered to be a potential downwind receptor and the most recent monitoring data at the receptor.17 Oregon found that the 2011– 2013 design value 18 at each identified receptor was well below the 2010 118 The design value is a statistical representation of SO2 in ambient air based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, measures in parts per billion (ppb). E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 29374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb) and that SO2 emissions from Oregon were therefore not significantly contributing to nonattainment in any other state. b. EPA Analysis The EPA also evaluated ambient air quality data in Oregon and neighboring states to determine whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Oregon border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission sources in Oregon. We reviewed the most recent SO2 monitoring data available from the EPA’s Air Quality System for the following set of receptors: (1) All monitors in Oregon; (2) the monitor with the highest design value in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Oregon border; and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the Oregon border. The following table, Table 5, shows that the Multnomah County, Oregon monitoring site is the only SO2 monitor in Oregon and is within 50 km of the Oregon border. The most recent design value at this monitor, for the years 2016–2018, is 3 ppb. This design value is well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb). In addition, all monitors identified in neighboring states are below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. TABLE 5—SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR MONITORS IN OREGON AND NEIGHBORING STATES 19 State/county Distance * (km) Site ID California/Contra Costa ........................................................ California/Humboldt .............................................................. Idaho/Ada ............................................................................. Idaho/Pocatello .................................................................... Nevada/Clark ....................................................................... Nevada/Washoe ................................................................... Oregon/Multnomah .............................................................. Washington/Skagit ............................................................... 060131001 060231004 160010010 160050004 320030540 320310016 410510080 530570011 2014–2016 (ppb) 433 135 55 366 668 275 12 327 14 1 4 39 7 5 3 5 2015–2017 (ppb) 14 1 3 38 6 5 3 4 2016–2018 (ppb) 16 1 3 38 6 5 3 3 *Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border. These air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emissions sources that might contribute significantly to nonattainment in the neighboring states. Because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the neighboring states. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 3. Analysis of Permit Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and SourceSpecific Controls As previously discussed, Oregon identified three sources (Boardman Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the OwensBrockway Glass facility), for which the State reviewed existing permitting information and available dispersion modeling, in addition to SIP-approved controls that apply to the sources to limit SO2 emissions. In the following paragraphs, we have summarized the source-specific analysis in the State’s submission followed by the EPA’s supplemental analysis where necessary or where new information became available after the submission was developed. 19 We compiled the monitoring data from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/airquality-design-values#report. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 a. State Submission i. Boardman Plant The Boardman Plant is a 575megawatt coal-fired power plant operated by Portland General Electric, located approximately 17 km from the border with Washington. In its submission, Oregon stated that the Boardman Plant is subject to SIPapproved SO2 controls established to meet regional haze planning requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (76 FR 38997, July 5, 2011). The SIP requires the Boardman Plant to cease burning coal by December 31, 2020 and requires the use of dry sorbent injection controls to further limit SO2 emissions from the plant during the time period leading up to the shutdown date (2018 through 2020). Based on this information, Oregon concluded that SO2 emissions from the Boardman Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. ii. Wauna Mill In its submission, Oregon evaluated permit information for the Wauna Mill including the air quality analysis conducted during the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting process for the facility. A PSD air quality analysis assesses the 20 See PO 00000 predicted impacts to ambient air associated with the construction and operation of a proposed major source or major modification. The analysis is designed to determine whether new emissions from a proposed major stationary source or major modification, in conjunction with other applicable emissions from existing sources (competing sources), will or will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS. PSD dispersion modeling is conducted at a 50 km range and includes any portion of the range that may extend into neighboring states. In its submission, Oregon stated that a review of the modeling concluded predicted impacts from the Wauna Mill to ambient air were not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS within Oregon or in neighboring states. iii. Owens-Brockway Glass Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon, 4 km from the border with Washington. Oregon’s submission stated that OwensBrockway Glass was evaluated during PSD analyses for other major source permitting actions.20 Oregon reviewed the permitting analyses and stated that the analyses demonstrated the proposed source’s emissions considered in conjunction with the emissions from Owens-Brockway Glass and other page 26 of the submission. Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules sources in the area do not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS within the 50-km area evaluated. Oregon concluded that this source will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. b. EPA Analysis jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS i. Boardman Plant In accordance with the EPA’s SO2 Data Requirements Rule, Oregon characterized the Boardman Plant by conducting air dispersion modeling. Oregon modeled the area using a receptor grid that extended 50 km from the source (which extended into the neighboring State of Washington). Oregon’s modeling accounted for allowable potential emissions from the Boardman Plant and 11 other Oregon SO2 emissions sources in the area. The State submitted the resulting model data to the EPA and indicated that Oregon found no modeled exceedances of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman Plant. The maximum modeled concentration was found to be 73 ppb and was projected to occur southeast of the Boardman Plant, in the opposite direction of the border with Washington. The State recommended the EPA designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/ attainment.21 The EPA agreed and designated the entire State of Oregon attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018).22 Based on the information provided by the State and the additional information available to the EPA, specifically the modeling results for the area around the Boardman Plant, we propose to concur with the State’s conclusion that SO2 emissions from the Boardman Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. ii. Wauna Mill The Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill) is in Clatskanie, Oregon and is located within 50 km of the Oregon border and within 50 km of two SO2 sources emitting greater than 100 tpy in Longview, Washington. Elevated levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Oregon may have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to further review permit information for the 21 See designation technical support document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201708/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf. 22 See 40 CFR 81.338. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Wauna Mill and SIP-approved provisions that limit SO2 emissions from the Wauna Mill, which we have summarized in the following paragraphs. In 2010, the Wauna Mill was evaluated as part of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan and determined to be a BART-eligible source. The Wauna Mill underwent BART analysis by Oregon and elected to take federally enforceable SO2 limits to comply with BART requirements promulgated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and approved by the EPA as part of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.23 The limits were added to the facility’s title V operating permit, and to achieve the limits, the mill permanently reduced the use of fuel oil and limited production rates.24 Emissions at the Wauna Mill, as shown in Table 3 of this document, are declining. Based on this information and the information provided by the State, the EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that the Wauna Mill will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington or any other state. iii. Portland International Airport The Portland International Airport is located approximately 2 km from the border with Washington. Oregon’s submission did not specifically address the airport; therefore, we have conducted our own evaluation. In 2017, SO2 emissions at the airport totaled approximately 215 tons, as shown in Table 4 of this document. While these emissions are greater than some of the industrial point sources evaluated, it is important to distinguish SO2 emissions at an airport from those at a typical industrial point source, in part because airport-related emissions tend to be spread across large areas and operations, including emissions from airplanes departing from and arriving at the airport and support vehicles that service airplanes and transport passengers. The distance between Portland International Airport and the nearest out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tons, Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc. in Longview, Washington, is 61 km. In 2017, Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on the distance between these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from 23 See Oregon Regional Haze Plan submitted on December 20, 2010, approved by the EPA on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38897). 24 See title V operating permit number 04–0004– TV–01, issued June 18, 2009 and modified on December 2, 2010, available online at: https:// www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29375 Portland International Airport could interact with SO2 emissions from Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from Portland International Airport will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington or any other state. iv. EP Minerals Inc. EP Minerals Inc. operates a diatomaceous earth processing plant in Vale, Oregon, approximately 33 km from the Idaho border. The source emitted approximately 182 tons of SO2 in 2017, as shown in Table 4 of this document. The State submission did not address this source therefore, we have supplemented the State’s review with the following assessment. EP Minerals Inc. is a title V major stationary source with kilns and dryers subject to SO2 emission limits.25 The source is subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as a condition of operating the source. In addition, SIPapproved sulfur-in-fuel limits apply, as well as Federal Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries. The distance between EP Minerals Inc., and the nearest out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tons, the Amalgamated Sugar Company in Twin Falls, Idaho, is 286 km. In 2017, the Amalgamated Sugar Company—Twin Falls emitted 635 tons of SO2. Based on the distance between these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from EP Minerals Inc., could interact with SO2 emissions from the Amalgamated Sugar Company—Twin Falls in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from EP Minerals Inc., will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state. v. Owens-Brockway Glass Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon, 4 km from the border with Washington. The distance between Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., and the nearest out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tons, the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., in Longview, Washington, is 66 km. In 2017, the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, 25 Title V operating permit number 23–0032–TV– 01, issued September 29, 2017, available online at: https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline. E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 29376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on the distance between these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., could interact with SO2 emissions from the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state. vi. TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS The TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant (TransAlta) in Lewis County, Washington, is located approximately 66 km from the OregonWashington state border. TransAlta is located approximately 78 km from the nearest source in Oregon emitting greater than 100 tons, the Wauna Mill, which was further discussed earlier. In 2017, TransAlta emitted 1,689 tons of SO2. TransAlta was required to be characterized pursuant the DRR by the State of Washington. The State of Washington elected to characterize the area around TransAlta through air dispersion modeling. In Round 3 of SO2 designations, the EPA determined the modeling supplied by Washington was not sufficient to determine the area as in attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA designated Lewis and Thurston Counties in Washington as unclassifiable.26 This unclassifiable area is approximately 22 km from the Oregon-Washington border. Due to the distance between the Wauna Mill and TransAlta, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from Wauna Mill could interact with SO2 emissions from TransAlta in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from Wauna Mill will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington or any other state. 26 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-waso2-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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 4. Conclusion In conclusion, for prong 1, we believe that the following factors indicate emissions from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in any other state and thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions in Oregon and neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for specific SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from current and future sources. The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA’s proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon’s sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at distances that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring states’ sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Oregon’s sources, further support the EPA’s proposed conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 for purposes of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation— Interference With Maintenance 1. Summary Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of the potential impact of a state’s emissions on areas in other states that are not violating the NAAQS. This evaluation is not limited to only former nonattainment areas with EPA-approved maintenance plans, but rather it focuses on any areas that may have trouble attaining and maintaining the standard in the future. Our prong 2 evaluation for Oregon builds on our analysis in the prior prong 1 evaluation, regarding PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, as described in our prong 1 evaluation and summarized in Table 3 of this document, we have a sufficient basis to conclude that there are no 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS violations in other states near their shared borders with Oregon. Moreover, we have a sufficient basis to conclude that SO2 emissions from sources in Oregon are highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this situation, given the SIP-approved controls limiting emissions from large sources near the border. 2. Emissions Trends Statewide SO2 emissions from Oregon sources have decreased substantially over time, as shown in the preceding Table 2 of this document.27 From 2002 to 2014, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by approximately 72 percent. This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Oregon and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such maintenance issues are unlikely. 3. SIP-Approved New Source Review Program The EPA notes that any future major sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Oregon’s SIP-approved PSD program.28 Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Oregon’s SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.29 The EPA believes that the permitting regulations contained within these programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of new facility construction or modification occurring in Oregon. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, for prong 2, we reviewed the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1, additional information about emission trends, as well as the requirements of Oregon’s SIP-approved new source review program. We believe that the following factors indicate emissions from Oregon will not interfere 27 See additional emissions trends data at: https:// www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data. 28 The EPA recently approved revisions to the Oregon new source review permitting programs on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122). 29 Ibid. E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions; (3) the downward trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for specific SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from current and future sources. The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA’s proposed determination that Oregon will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon’s sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at distances that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring states’ sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Oregon’s sources, further support the EPA’s proposed conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 for purposes of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS IV. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve the October 20, 2015, Oregon SIP submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing this approval based on our review of the information and analysis provided by Oregon in the State’s submission, as well as additional relevant information, which indicates that in-State air emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29377 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 7, 2020. Christopher Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2020–10228 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0449; FRL–10008– 59–Region 9] Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on four permitting rules submitted as a revision to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule and proposing approval of the remaining three rules. These revisions concern the District’s New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution under section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action updates the SDAPCD’s applicable SIP with revised rules that the District has amended to address deficiencies identified in a previous conditional approval action. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2019–0449 at http:// www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29369-29377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10228]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0057; FRL-10007-86-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate 
Transport Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Oregon as meeting 
certain Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the 
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA proposes to find that 
emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0057 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not 
electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which 
is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) 
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is 
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all 
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments 
or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on 
the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on

[[Page 29370]]

making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or 
[email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Infrastructure SIPs
    B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate 
Transport SIPs
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis
    A. State Submission
    B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
    C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to 
Nonattainment
    D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). The Clean Air Act (CAA) 
requires that, after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states 
must submit SIPs to meet applicable infrastructure elements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these elements, codified at CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will cause 
certain impacts on other states. These interstate transport 
requirements of the CAA are also known as ``good neighbor'' 
requirements.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, 
commonly referred to as prongs. The first two prongs, codified at CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions 
which prohibit emissions in one state from contributing significantly 
to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in any other state (prong 1) and 
from interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in any other 
state (prong 2). The second two prongs, codified at CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions which 
prohibit emissions in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other state 
(prong 3) and from interfering with measures to protect visibility in 
any other state (prong 4).
    On October 20, 2015, Oregon submitted a SIP to address prongs 1 and 
2 of the good neighbor requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS along with the other infrastructure requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA approved the October 20, 2015 Oregon submission as 
it relates to other requirements in final rulemakings published May 
16, 2016 (81 FR 30181), May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24034), and September 
18, 2018 (83 FR 47073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

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

    \2\ While designations may provide useful information for 
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, the EPA notes that 
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind 
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. The EPA has 
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states, 
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar 
formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment 
areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 
76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from 
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland 
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility 
in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to 
issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or 
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The 
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or 
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA 
requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within 
two years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the 
Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations 
by that deadline, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for 
completing designations by up to one year.
    The EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA completed the first 
round of designations (``round 1'') \3\ for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). The EPA signed Federal Register documents 
of promulgation for round 2 designations \4\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 
45039, July 12, 2016) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870, December 
13, 2016), and round 3 designations \5\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 
1098, January 9, 2018).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round 
of designations.''
    \4\ The EPA and state documents and public comments related to 
the round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov 
with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at the EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \5\ The EPA and state documents and public comments related to 
round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at the EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \6\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires the 
EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the 
EPA's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016 
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31, 
2020 (``round 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), the EPA separately promulgated 
air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR 
requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air 
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources 
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or 
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by the EPA or state air 
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by 
specified dates, could elect to impose federally enforceable emissions 
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2 
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the 
sources have been shut down. The EPA expected that the information 
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by 
December 31, 2020 (``round 4'').
    In round 3 of designations, the EPA designated Morrow County and 
all other areas in Oregon as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.\7\ There are no remaining areas within 
Oregon that have yet to be designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Final Round 3 
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/34-or-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Intended 
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.

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

[[Page 29371]]

II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point 
and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike 
the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone, 
in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not 
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often 
multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to 
the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in 
localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However, 
ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly 
with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties 
and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of 
SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than 
emissions of Pb but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner 
similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches adopted by the EPA 
for ozone and PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused and 
the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the 
source to serve as a model for SO2 transport. SO2 
transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
    In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport 
analyses, the EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical 
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant 
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the 
physical properties of SO2, the EPA selected the ``urban 
scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) 
from point sources--given the usefulness of that range in assessing 
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.\8\ As such, 
the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order 
to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind 
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, 
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how 
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate 
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's 
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III of this document, the EPA first 
reviewed Oregon's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the 
transport of SO2 to other states, the types of information 
used in the analysis and the conclusions drawn by the State. The EPA 
then conducted a weight of evidence analysis, including review of 
Oregon's submission and other available information, including air 
quality, emission sources and emission trends within the State and in 
bordering states to which it could potentially contribute or 
interfere.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This proposed approval action is based on the information 
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not 
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other 
determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality 
status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any 
NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the 
EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times. 
Future available information may include, and is not limited to, 
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the 
SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) 
and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and 
third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry 
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis

A. State Submission

    On May 12, 2015, Oregon submitted a revision to the Oregon SIP 
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Oregon conducted a weight of evidence 
analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the State 
adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Oregon's analysis included a 
review of: SO2 emissions source categories; downwind 
monitoring sites that are potential receptors in neighboring states; 
industrial point sources located near the border with neighboring 
states; and SIP-approved controls that limit SO2 emissions 
from existing and future Oregon sources. Oregon concluded that 
SO2 emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

B. EPA Evaluation Methodology

    The EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining 
which sources and emissions activities in Oregon are likely to impact 
downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the EPA's National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed 
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant 
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, 
that is updated every three years using information provided by the 
states and other information available to the EPA. The EPA evaluated 
data from the 2014 NEI, the most recently available, complete, and 
quality assured dataset of the NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the submission, Oregon assessed SO2 emissions source 
categories in the State using 2011 NEI data, which was the most recent, 
complete data at the time the submission was developed. Oregon found 
that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust fossil 
fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State. Smaller 
sources include processes to extract metal from ore and the combustion 
of sulfur-containing fuels in locomotives, ships, and non-road 
equipment.\11\ Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial 
facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for 
SO2 emissions from industrial point sources in the State to 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See page 26 of the Oregon State Implementation Plan 
Revision, Attachment C, Addressing the Interstate Transport of 
Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead, Fine Particulate Matter, 
dated May 12, 2015, in the docket for this action (the submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's review of more recent NEI data confirms the State's 
findings. We note that the EPA released a complete set of NEI data for 
2014 addressing all source categories. However, the EPA has, to date, 
released a limited set of emissions data for 2017 addressing stationary 
sources only. Because the data for 2014 are complete, we reviewed and 
summarized 2014 NEI data in Table 1 of this document. The data indicate 
that the majority of SO2 emissions in Oregon originate from 
fuel combustion at either electric utilities or other stationary 
sources such as industrial boilers, in addition to industrial and other 
processes. These source categories account for approximately 90% of 
SO2 emissions in 2014, therefore, we find it reasonable to 
focus our evaluation on potential downwind impacts of SO2 
emissions from stationary fuel combustion or industrial point sources 
in Oregon, consistent with the State's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We derived the emissions information from the EPA's web 
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.

          Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Oregon \12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                     Source category                          (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile--non-road........................................             471
Mobile--on-road.........................................             307
Fuel combustion--electric generation....................           7,535
Fuel combustion--other..................................           2,607

[[Page 29372]]

 
Industrial and other processes..........................           1,604
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................          12,524
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information detailed in sections III.C.1 through 3 and 
III.D of this document (available data on emissions sources and 
emissions trends, ambient air quality data, and permit requirements, 
available dispersion modeling results, and enforceable regulations) we 
propose that it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 sources 
in Oregon will not contribute significantly to nonattainment (prong 1 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). We 
evaluate each prong separately, as discussed in the following 
paragraphs.

C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires SIPs to prohibit 
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of a 
NAAQS in another state. Oregon asserts in its SIP submission that 
emissions from Oregon will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard. To evaluate Oregon's satisfaction of prong 1, 
the EPA assessed the State's SIP submission with respect to the 
following information: (1) SO2 emissions information from 
Oregon and neighboring state sources; (2) SO2 ambient air 
quality for Oregon and neighboring states; and (3) Analysis of Permit 
Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and Source-Specific Controls. A 
detailed discussion of Oregon's SIP submission with respect to each of 
these points follows.\13\ As a result of our analysis of this 
information, we believe that the following factors indicate emissions 
from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in any other state and 
thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state: (1) The 
combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Oregon 
and neighboring states and the downward trend in monitored 
concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of 
the identified sources of SO2 emissions in Oregon and 
neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2 emissions 
from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for specific 
SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls 
that limit SO2 emissions from current and future sources. 
The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the time of 
this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA's 
proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state. 
In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon's sources 
emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state 
are at distances that make it unlikely that these SO2 
emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the 
neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the 
downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for 
air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with 
federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting 
SO2 emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's 
proposed conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EPA has reviewed Oregon's submission, and where new or 
more current information has become available, is including this 
information as part of the EPA's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
    As discussed in section II of this document, Oregon assessed 
SO2 emissions source categories using 2011 NEI data. Oregon 
found that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust 
fossil fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State. 
Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial facilities, 
Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for SO2 
emissions from industrial point sources in the State to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
    Oregon's submission also included an analysis of specific sources 
located near the Oregon border. The State focused its evaluation on 
three large facilities located near the border with Washington, that 
are also listed in Table 3 of this document: The Boardman Plant, the 
Wauna Mill, and the Owens-Brockway Glass facility.
b. EPA Analysis
    The EPA also analyzed SO2 emissions trends in Oregon. 
Between 2002 and 2014, SO2 emissions from Oregon sources 
were reduced significantly. NEI data summarized in Table 2 of this 
document illustrate this trend. SO2 emissions from Oregon 
sources fell approximately 72% overall, and emissions from specific 
source categories also declined over this time period. These trends are 
due in part to the combustion of lower sulfur content fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We derived the emissions trends information from the EPA's 
web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

                                                   Table 2--SO2 Emission Trends in Oregon (tons) \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          SO2 reduction,
                     Source category                           2002            2005            2008            2011            2014        2002-2014 (%)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile--non-road........................................          12,470           5,746           2,058             340             471              96
Mobile--on-road.........................................           3,760           1,796             532             333             307              92
Fuel combustion--electric generation....................          12,344             452          11,410          13,169           7,535              40
Fuel combustion--other..................................          10,142          12,911           1,739           3,164           2,607              74
Industrial and other processes..........................           6,341          14,103           3,573           4,046           1,604              75
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          45,057          35,008          19,312          21,052          12,524              72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29373]]

    Emissions trends, while important, do not by themselves demonstrate 
that sources in Oregon will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in neighboring states.
    As discussed in section II of this document, the EPA finds it 
appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources 
in Oregon in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, 
based on the ``urban scale'' definition contained in appendix D to 40 
CFR part 58, section 4.4. Therefore, we reviewed NEI data for Oregon 
point sources with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy \15\ 
in 2017 that are located up to 50 km from State borders, as summarized 
in the following table, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We have limited our analysis to Oregon sources emitting at 
least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of special 
factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or 
unusual physical factors, Oregon sources emitting less than 100 tpy 
can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to 
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.

                   Table 3--SO2 Emissions Trends at Oregon Sources Within 50 km of Border \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Distance *
           Source name                 (km)         2008 (tons)     2011 (tons)     2014 (tons)     2017 (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Power               17          11,303          13,103           7,439           3,298
 Plant (Boardman Plant).........
Georgia-Pacific Consumer                       1             858             707             571             540
 Products LP (Wauna Mill).......
Portland International Airport..               2              96             115             125             215
EP Minerals, LLC................              33               1             141              66             182
Owens-Brockway Glass Container                 4             142             119             119             118
 Inc. (Owens-Brockway Glass)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.

    The EPA assessed this information to evaluate whether the 
SO2 emissions from these sources could interact with 
SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring state 
in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in that state. The following Table 4 lists the 
five sources in Oregon that emitted greater than 100 tpy of 
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State's 
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We derived the emissions information from the EPA's web 
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.

                Table 4--Oregon SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 tpy Near Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Nearest
                                                                                   Approximate     neighboring
                                2017  annual     Approximate        Closest        distance to      state SO2
        Oregon source          SO2  emissions    distance to      neighboring        nearest      source & 2017
                                    (tons)      Oregon Border        state         neighboring      emissions
                                                    (km)                            state SO2    (>100 tons SO2)
                                                                                   source (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric               3,298              17  Washington......              83  Boise Paper
 Power Plant (Boardman Plant).                                                                    (885 tons).
Georgia-Pacific Consumer                  540               1  Washington......              33  Nippon Dynawave
 Products LP (Wauna Mill).                                                                        Packaging Co.
                                                                                                  (390 tons).
Portland International                    215               2  Washington......              61  Longview Fibre
 Airport..                                                                                        Paper and
                                                                                                  Packaging,
                                                                                                  Inc. (198
                                                                                                  tons).
EP Minerals, LLC.............             182              33  Idaho...........             286  The Amalgamated
                                                                                                  Sugar Company
                                                                                                  LLC--Twin
                                                                                                  Falls (635
                                                                                                  tons).
Owens-Brockway Glass                      118               4  Washington......              66  Longview Fibre
 Container Inc. (Owens-                                                                           Paper and
 Brockway Glass).                                                                                 Packaging,
                                                                                                  Inc.
                                                                                                 (198 tons).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only one source emitting greater than 100 tpy in Oregon located 
within 50 km of the State border is also within 50 km of a source also 
emitting greater than 100 tpy in a neighboring state. The Georgia 
Pacific Wauna Mill facility (discussed in the following paragraphs) is 
located 1 km from the State border and 33 km from the nearest out-of-
state source emitting greater than 100 tpy, Nippon Dynawave Packaging 
in Washington. The EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km 
between all remaining Oregon sources and the nearest out-of-state 
source make it unlikely that SO2 emissions from these Oregon 
sources could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-
state sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in Washington and Idaho. Further discussion of all Oregon 
sources in Table 4 can be found in section III.C.2.b of this document.
2. Ambient Air Quality Data Analysis
a. State Submission
    In its submission, Oregon identified SO2 monitoring 
sites in the neighboring states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and 
Washington that are most likely to be impacted by SO2 
emissions from sources in Oregon. The submission lists each 
SO2 monitoring site considered to be a potential downwind 
receptor and the most recent monitoring data at the receptor.\17\ 
Oregon found that the 2011-2013 design value \18\ at each identified 
receptor was well below the 2010 1-

[[Page 29374]]

hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb) and that SO2 emissions 
from Oregon were therefore not significantly contributing to 
nonattainment in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See page 14 (Table 2) of the submission.
    \18\ The design value is a statistical representation of 
SO2 in ambient air based on the 3-year average of the 
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, 
measures in parts per billion (ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Analysis
    The EPA also evaluated ambient air quality data in Oregon and 
neighboring states to determine whether there were any monitoring 
sites, particularly near the Oregon border, with elevated 
SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation 
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission 
sources in Oregon. We reviewed the most recent SO2 
monitoring data available from the EPA's Air Quality System for the 
following set of receptors: (1) All monitors in Oregon; (2) the monitor 
with the highest design value in each neighboring state; (3) the 
monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Oregon border; 
and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the 
Oregon border.
    The following table, Table 5, shows that the Multnomah County, 
Oregon monitoring site is the only SO2 monitor in Oregon and 
is within 50 km of the Oregon border. The most recent design value at 
this monitor, for the years 2016-2018, is 3 ppb. This design value is 
well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb). In addition, 
all monitors identified in neighboring states are below the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ We compiled the monitoring data from the EPA's web page 
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

                  Table 5--SO2 Design Values for Monitors in Oregon and Neighboring States \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Distance *       2014-2016       2015-2017       2016-2018
          State/county                Site ID          (km)            (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California/Contra Costa.........       060131001             433              14              14              16
California/Humboldt.............       060231004             135               1               1               1
Idaho/Ada.......................       160010010              55               4               3               3
Idaho/Pocatello.................       160050004             366              39              38              38
Nevada/Clark....................       320030540             668               7               6               6
Nevada/Washoe...................       320310016             275               5               5               5
Oregon/Multnomah................       410510080              12               3               3               3
Washington/Skagit...............       530570011             327               5               4               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.

    These air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any 
particular location that would warrant further investigation with 
respect to SO2 emissions sources that might contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in the neighboring states. Because the 
monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of 
high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an 
absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient 
evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the 
neighboring states.
3. Analysis of Permit Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and Source-
Specific Controls
    As previously discussed, Oregon identified three sources (Boardman 
Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the Owens-Brockway Glass facility), for 
which the State reviewed existing permitting information and available 
dispersion modeling, in addition to SIP-approved controls that apply to 
the sources to limit SO2 emissions. In the following 
paragraphs, we have summarized the source-specific analysis in the 
State's submission followed by the EPA's supplemental analysis where 
necessary or where new information became available after the 
submission was developed.
a. State Submission
i. Boardman Plant
    The Boardman Plant is a 575-megawatt coal-fired power plant 
operated by Portland General Electric, located approximately 17 km from 
the border with Washington. In its submission, Oregon stated that the 
Boardman Plant is subject to SIP-approved SO2 controls 
established to meet regional haze planning requirements for Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (76 FR 38997, July 5, 2011). The 
SIP requires the Boardman Plant to cease burning coal by December 31, 
2020 and requires the use of dry sorbent injection controls to further 
limit SO2 emissions from the plant during the time period 
leading up to the shutdown date (2018 through 2020). Based on this 
information, Oregon concluded that SO2 emissions from the 
Boardman Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
    In its submission, Oregon evaluated permit information for the 
Wauna Mill including the air quality analysis conducted during the 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting process for 
the facility. A PSD air quality analysis assesses the predicted impacts 
to ambient air associated with the construction and operation of a 
proposed major source or major modification. The analysis is designed 
to determine whether new emissions from a proposed major stationary 
source or major modification, in conjunction with other applicable 
emissions from existing sources (competing sources), will or will not 
cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS. PSD 
dispersion modeling is conducted at a 50 km range and includes any 
portion of the range that may extend into neighboring states. In its 
submission, Oregon stated that a review of the modeling concluded 
predicted impacts from the Wauna Mill to ambient air were not expected 
to cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS within 
Oregon or in neighboring states.
iii. Owens-Brockway Glass
    Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon, 
4 km from the border with Washington. Oregon's submission stated that 
Owens-Brockway Glass was evaluated during PSD analyses for other major 
source permitting actions.\20\ Oregon reviewed the permitting analyses 
and stated that the analyses demonstrated the proposed source's 
emissions considered in conjunction with the emissions from Owens-
Brockway Glass and other

[[Page 29375]]

sources in the area do not cause or contribute to a violation of any 
applicable NAAQS within the 50-km area evaluated. Oregon concluded that 
this source will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See page 26 of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Analysis
i. Boardman Plant
    In accordance with the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule, 
Oregon characterized the Boardman Plant by conducting air dispersion 
modeling. Oregon modeled the area using a receptor grid that extended 
50 km from the source (which extended into the neighboring State of 
Washington). Oregon's modeling accounted for allowable potential 
emissions from the Boardman Plant and 11 other Oregon SO2 
emissions sources in the area. The State submitted the resulting model 
data to the EPA and indicated that Oregon found no modeled exceedances 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman 
Plant. The maximum modeled concentration was found to be 73 ppb and was 
projected to occur southeast of the Boardman Plant, in the opposite 
direction of the border with Washington. The State recommended the EPA 
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment.\21\ The EPA agreed and designated the entire State of 
Oregon attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See designation technical support document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
    \22\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information provided by the State and the additional 
information available to the EPA, specifically the modeling results for 
the area around the Boardman Plant, we propose to concur with the 
State's conclusion that SO2 emissions from the Boardman 
Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
    The Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill) is in 
Clatskanie, Oregon and is located within 50 km of the Oregon border and 
within 50 km of two SO2 sources emitting greater than 100 
tpy in Longview, Washington. Elevated levels of SO2, to 
which SO2 emitted in Oregon may have a downwind impact, are 
most likely to be found near such sources. Therefore, we believe it is 
appropriate to further review permit information for the Wauna Mill and 
SIP-approved provisions that limit SO2 emissions from the 
Wauna Mill, which we have summarized in the following paragraphs.
    In 2010, the Wauna Mill was evaluated as part of the Oregon 
Regional Haze Plan and determined to be a BART-eligible source. The 
Wauna Mill underwent BART analysis by Oregon and elected to take 
federally enforceable SO2 limits to comply with BART 
requirements promulgated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and 
approved by the EPA as part of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.\23\ The 
limits were added to the facility's title V operating permit, and to 
achieve the limits, the mill permanently reduced the use of fuel oil 
and limited production rates.\24\ Emissions at the Wauna Mill, as shown 
in Table 3 of this document, are declining. Based on this information 
and the information provided by the State, the EPA believes it is 
reasonable to conclude that the Wauna Mill will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in Washington or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Oregon Regional Haze Plan submitted on December 20, 
2010, approved by the EPA on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38897).
    \24\ See title V operating permit number 04-0004-TV-01, issued 
June 18, 2009 and modified on December 2, 2010, available online at: 
https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Portland International Airport
    The Portland International Airport is located approximately 2 km 
from the border with Washington. Oregon's submission did not 
specifically address the airport; therefore, we have conducted our own 
evaluation. In 2017, SO2 emissions at the airport totaled 
approximately 215 tons, as shown in Table 4 of this document. While 
these emissions are greater than some of the industrial point sources 
evaluated, it is important to distinguish SO2 emissions at 
an airport from those at a typical industrial point source, in part 
because airport-related emissions tend to be spread across large areas 
and operations, including emissions from airplanes departing from and 
arriving at the airport and support vehicles that service airplanes and 
transport passengers.
    The distance between Portland International Airport and the nearest 
out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tons, Longview Fibre 
Paper and Packaging, Inc. in Longview, Washington, is 61 km. In 2017, 
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., emitted 198 tons of 
SO2. Based on the distance between these sources, it is 
unlikely that SO2 emissions from Portland International 
Airport could interact with SO2 emissions from Longview 
Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., in such a way as to impact a violation 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we 
believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from 
Portland International Airport will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington or 
any other state.
iv. EP Minerals Inc.
    EP Minerals Inc. operates a diatomaceous earth processing plant in 
Vale, Oregon, approximately 33 km from the Idaho border. The source 
emitted approximately 182 tons of SO2 in 2017, as shown in 
Table 4 of this document. The State submission did not address this 
source therefore, we have supplemented the State's review with the 
following assessment. EP Minerals Inc. is a title V major stationary 
source with kilns and dryers subject to SO2 emission 
limits.\25\ The source is subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements, as a condition of operating the source. In 
addition, SIP-approved sulfur-in-fuel limits apply, as well as Federal 
Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral 
Industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Title V operating permit number 23-0032-TV-01, issued 
September 29, 2017, available online at: https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distance between EP Minerals Inc., and the nearest out-of-state 
source emitting greater than 100 tons, the Amalgamated Sugar Company in 
Twin Falls, Idaho, is 286 km. In 2017, the Amalgamated Sugar Company--
Twin Falls emitted 635 tons of SO2. Based on the distance 
between these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions 
from EP Minerals Inc., could interact with SO2 emissions 
from the Amalgamated Sugar Company--Twin Falls in such a way as to 
impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that 
state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that 
SO2 emissions from EP Minerals Inc., will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in Idaho or any other state.
v. Owens-Brockway Glass
    Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon, 
4 km from the border with Washington. The distance between Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc., and the nearest out-of-state source 
emitting greater than 100 tons, the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, 
Inc., in Longview, Washington, is 66 km. In 2017, the Longview Fibre 
Paper and Packaging,

[[Page 29376]]

Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on the distance between 
these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc., could interact with SO2 
emissions from the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc in such a 
way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that 
SO2 emissions from Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., will 
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state.
vi. TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant
    The TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant (TransAlta) in Lewis 
County, Washington, is located approximately 66 km from the Oregon-
Washington state border. TransAlta is located approximately 78 km from 
the nearest source in Oregon emitting greater than 100 tons, the Wauna 
Mill, which was further discussed earlier. In 2017, TransAlta emitted 
1,689 tons of SO2. TransAlta was required to be 
characterized pursuant the DRR by the State of Washington. The State of 
Washington elected to characterize the area around TransAlta through 
air dispersion modeling. In Round 3 of SO2 designations, the 
EPA determined the modeling supplied by Washington was not sufficient 
to determine the area as in attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA 
designated Lewis and Thurston Counties in Washington as 
unclassifiable.\26\ This unclassifiable area is approximately 22 km 
from the Oregon-Washington border. Due to the distance between the 
Wauna Mill and TransAlta, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions 
from Wauna Mill could interact with SO2 emissions from 
TransAlta in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is 
reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from Wauna Mill 
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Washington or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Final Round 3 
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-wa-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Intended 
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Conclusion
    In conclusion, for prong 1, we believe that the following factors 
indicate emissions from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in 
any other state and thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of 
SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend 
in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative 
analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions in 
Oregon and neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2 
emissions from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for 
specific SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved 
controls that limit SO2 emissions from current and future 
sources. The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the 
time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support 
the EPA's proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in another state. In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for 
Oregon's sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km 
of another state are at distances that make it unlikely that these 
SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions 
from the neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the 
downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for 
air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with 
federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting 
SO2 emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's 
proposed conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon 
SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 for 
purposes of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance

1. Summary
    Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of 
the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas in other states 
that are not violating the NAAQS. This evaluation is not limited to 
only former nonattainment areas with EPA-approved maintenance plans, 
but rather it focuses on any areas that may have trouble attaining and 
maintaining the standard in the future. Our prong 2 evaluation for 
Oregon builds on our analysis in the prior prong 1 evaluation, 
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). 
Specifically, as described in our prong 1 evaluation and summarized in 
Table 3 of this document, we have a sufficient basis to conclude that 
there are no 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS violations in other 
states near their shared borders with Oregon. Moreover, we have a 
sufficient basis to conclude that SO2 emissions from sources 
in Oregon are highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this 
situation, given the SIP-approved controls limiting emissions from 
large sources near the border.
2. Emissions Trends
    Statewide SO2 emissions from Oregon sources have 
decreased substantially over time, as shown in the preceding Table 2 of 
this document.\27\ From 2002 to 2014, total statewide SO2 
emissions decreased by approximately 72 percent. This trend of 
decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that 
areas in Oregon and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this 
weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication 
(when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) 
that such maintenance issues are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See additional emissions trends data at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. SIP-Approved New Source Review Program
    The EPA notes that any future major sources of SO2 
emissions will be addressed by Oregon's SIP-approved PSD program.\28\ 
Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by 
Oregon's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.\29\ The 
EPA believes that the permitting regulations contained within these 
programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of 
SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of 
new facility construction or modification occurring in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The EPA recently approved revisions to the Oregon new 
source review permitting programs on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122).
    \29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Conclusion
    In conclusion, for prong 2, we reviewed the technical information 
considered for interstate transport prong 1, additional information 
about emission trends, as well as the requirements of Oregon's SIP-
approved new source review program. We believe that the following 
factors indicate emissions from Oregon will not interfere

[[Page 29377]]

with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of 
SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend 
in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative 
analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions; (3) the 
downward trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon sources; (4) 
available modeling information for specific SO2 point 
sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls that limit 
SO2 emissions from current and future sources. The EPA 
proposes, based on the information available at the time of this 
rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA's 
proposed determination that Oregon will not interfere with maintenance 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In 
addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon's sources emitting 
over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at 
distances that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions 
could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring 
states' sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the downward trends in 
SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for air quality 
monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with federal 
regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2 
emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's proposed 
conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as 
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 for purposes of the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the October 20, 2015, Oregon SIP 
submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
The EPA is proposing this approval based on our review of the 
information and analysis provided by Oregon in the State's submission, 
as well as additional relevant information, which indicates that in-
State air emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the 
CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 7, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-10228 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P